Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Green (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 358 Hearing dates: 9 November 2020 Date of orders: 23 December 2020 Decision date: 23 December 2020 Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Walton J at [2]
Beech-Jones J at [58]Decision: (1) Pursuant to Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 10(1)(b), extend the time for the applicant to seek leave to appeal.
(2) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(3) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – proceeds of crime – commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – utilitarian value of plea – Xiao error established – re-sentencing – nature and circumstances of offences – financial gain – objective seriousness of counts – subjective features – mental health issues – discount for utilitarian value of plea and co-operation with authorities – general deterrence – personal deterrence – behaviour in custody – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Baladjan v R [2018] NSWCCA 304
DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Haouchar v R [2014] NSWCCA 227
Huang v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 743; [2018] NSWCCA 57
Jinde Huang aka Wei Liu v R (2018) 332 FLR 158; [2018] NSWCCA 70
Kentwellv The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lehn v R (2016) 78 MVR 353; [2016] NSWCCA 255
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R vEhrlich (2012) 219 A Crim R 415; [2012] NSWCCA 38
R v Kaldow (2004) 150 A Crim R 271; [2004] NSWCCA 425
R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238
R v Sukkar (2006) 172 A Crim R 151; [2006] NSWCCA 92
Robinson v R [2017] NSWCCA 315
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aiden Green (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Talbert (Applicant)
B Anniwell (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2014/377075; 2015/358206 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Crime
- Date of Decision:
- 07 December 2017
- Before:
- McClintock SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2014/377075
Judgment
-
MEAGHER JA: I agree with Walton J.
-
WALTON J: On 5 January and 17 May 2017, Aiden Green (a pseudonym) (“the applicant”) pleaded guilty in the Local Court of New South Wales to two offences contrary to the Criminal…
Continue reading Green (a pseudonym) v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Green (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 358
- Case
- [2020] NSWCCA 358
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, the assessment of the proceeds of crime, and the weight to be given to the utilitarian value of a guilty plea. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if the sentencing judge had erred in not sufficiently discounting the sentence for the utilitarian value of the plea and the appellant's co-operation with authorities. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge had appropriately assessed the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's mental health issues, and the need for general and personal deterrence.
The court found that the original sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion and considered all relevant factors. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the nature and circumstances of the offences, the proceeds of the crime, and the appellant's mental health issues. The court also found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the utilitarian value of the plea and the appellant's co-operation with authorities, and had not erred in sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
The court made no orders as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.