Legal Research
Cases
Delleci v The Queen

Delleci v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 4 6 February 2020

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Delleci v R [2020] NSWCCA 4
Hearing dates: 25 November 2019
Decision date: 06 February 2020
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Harrison J at [71];
Button J at [72]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – two episodes of drug supply each involving the supply of different kinds of drugs – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether parity principle should apply – limitations on use of statistics – sentences not excessive – no application of the parity principle – offending and personal characteristics different for each offender – no justifiable sense of grievance.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 193C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 10, 10A, 21A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – ss 25(1), 25(2)
Cases Cited: BB v R [2017] NSWCCA 189
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
JM v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 297
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218
Kresovic v R [2018] NSWCCA 37
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183
Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 87
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Tuite v R [2018] NSWCCA 175
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Neil Delleci – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss – Applicant
C Curtis – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Ross Hill and Associates – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2017/162415; 2017/323334
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

15 April 2019

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/162415; 2017/323334

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Background

On 15 April 2019, at Sydney District Court, her Honour Judge Huggett sentenced the applicant to an aggregate sentence of eight and a half years with a non-parole period of five and a half years in relation to multiple drug and proceeds of crime offences. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the following grounds.

Ground 1 – The applicant contends that the sentence imposed was in all the circumstances manifestly excessive and another sentence is warranted in law

Ground 2 – The applicant suffers a justifiable sense of grievance when comparing the sentence imposed on him with the sentence imposed upon his co-offender, Akram Dahmoul

The applicant sought leave at the commencement of the appeal to rely upon Ground 2. That application was not opposed by the respondent. Accordingly, leave was granted to amend the Grounds of Appeal.
There were two groups of offences before her Honour. The offences falling into the first group were committed on 30 May 2017. The offences falling into the second group were committed on 3 and 4 October 2017.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Delleci v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Delleci v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 4
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 4
Decision Date: 06 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the sentencing of two individuals, Delleci and another, who were convicted of drug supply offences. Each of the appellants was found guilty of two separate incidents of drug supply, each involving different types of drugs. The issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the principle of parity should have been applied in light of the different kinds of drugs involved in each offence. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate use of statistical evidence in sentencing and whether the appellants had a justifiable sense of grievance due to the sentences imposed.

The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence. The court also held that the parity principle was not applicable as the offending and personal characteristics of each appellant were different for each offence. The court emphasised the limitations of using statistical evidence in sentencing and concluded that the appellants did not have a justifiable sense of grievance regarding the sentences imposed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeals be dismissed and that the sentences originally imposed by the lower court be upheld. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants and confirmed that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court's decision reinforces the principle that each sentencing decision should be made on its own merits, taking into account the specific details and circumstances of the offence and the offender.

Orders