Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v R [2015] NSWCCA 326 Hearing dates: 2 December 2015 Decision date: 18 December 2015 Before: Leeming JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
R A Hulme J at [126]Decision: 1. The tender of the additional evidence relied upon by the Applicant in support of Ground 2 is rejected.
2. Leave to appeal is granted.
3. The appeal is dismissed.Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – Applicant pleaded guilty to a number of drug supply offences and sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment for five years with a non-parole period of three years – Applicant suffers from significant physical disabilities and depression – whether sentencing Judge failed to sufficiently take into account Applicant’s physical disabilities or depression – open to sentencing Judge to take into account Applicant’s physical and mental conditions in the way that he did – whether sentencing process miscarried as a result of an incorrect understanding of the extent and future physical effects of the Applicant’s physical condition at time of sentence – additional evidence sought to be admitted on appeal – whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by absence of additional evidence at first instance – tender of additional evidence rejected – whether sentence manifestly excessive – sentence not unreasonable or plainly unjust – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985Cases Cited: Achurch v R (No. 2) [2013] NSWCCA 117; 84 NSWLR 328
Achurch v The Queen [2014] HCA 10; 253 CLR 141
Bland v R [2014] NSWCCA 82; 241 A Crim R 51
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Grant v R [2014] NSWCCA 67
Inglesias v R [2006] NSWCCA 261
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118; 209 A Crim R 509
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186; 216 A Crim R 152
R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457; 135 A Crim R 260
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
Turkmani v R [2014] NSWCCA 186Category: Principal judgment Parties: Raymond Hanna (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr MC Ramage QC (Applicant)
Mr H Baker (Respondent)
Malouf Criminal Lawyers (Respondent)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2012/300041 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Sydney District Court
- Date of Decision:
- 21 March 2014
- Before:
- King SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2012/300041
Judgment
-
LEEMING JA: I agree with Johnson J.
-
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Raymond Hanna, seeks leave to appeal with respect to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed by his Honour Judge King SC in the Sydney District Court on 21 March 2014 for drug supply offences.
Offences and Sentences
-
An aggregate sentence of imprisonment was imposed comprising a non-parole period of three years commencing on 21 March 2014 and expiring on 20 March 2017,…
Continue reading Hanna v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hanna v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 326
- Case
- [2015] NSWCCA 326
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legal issues surrounding the adequacy of the consideration of the Applicant's physical and mental conditions by the sentencing Judge, and whether the sentencing process had miscarried due to an incorrect understanding of the extent and future physical effects of the Applicant's condition at the time of sentencing. The court also considered whether the absence of additional evidence at first instance had occasioned a miscarriage of justice, and whether the tender of such additional evidence should have been accepted on appeal. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.
The court concluded that the sentencing Judge had not failed to sufficiently take into account the Applicant's physical disabilities or depression, and that it was open to the sentencing Judge to take into account the Applicant's physical and mental conditions in the way that he did. The court also found that the sentencing process had not miscarried as a result of an incorrect understanding of the extent and future physical effects of the Applicant's condition, and that the absence of additional evidence at first instance had not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld as not manifestly excessive.
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.