Legal Research
Cases
Jadron v R

Jadron v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 217 17 August 2015

Appeal

Sentencing

Principle of Totality

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Hearing dates: 17 July 2015
Date of orders: 17 August 2015
Decision date: 17 August 2015
Before: Leeming JA at [1]
Hamill J at [2]
Fagan J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is allowed in part.
(3) Order that the sentence imposed in the District Court for Count 3 be amended to the effect that the non-parole period of 12 months commence 22 May 2013 and expire 21 May 2014 and the balance term of the said sentence commence 22 May 2014 and expire 21 March 2015.
(4) Order that the sentence imposed in the District Court for Count 1 be amended to the effect that the non-parole period of 1 year 9 months commence 22 November 2013 and expire 21 August 2015 and the balance term of the said sentence commence 22 August 2015 and expire 21 March 2017.
(5) The Appellant will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period fixed by Order (4).

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – ongoing supply prohibited drugs – whether De Simoni principle applicable – distinction between particular of commission of offence and circumstance of aggravation
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – principle of totality
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Nahlous v R [2010] NSWCCA 58; 77 NSWLR 463
R v Bright [1916] 2 KB 441
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v F (1996) 90 A Crim R 356
R v Haidar [2004] NSWCCA 350
R v Kane (1975) VR 658
R v Locchi (1991) 22 NSWLR 309
R v Toomey [1964] Crim LR 419
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
Thorn v R [2009] NSWCCA 294; 198 A Crim R 135
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sabaoon Jadron (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Dhanji SC (Applicant)
NJ Adams SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Lenz Legal (Applicant)
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/271536
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 December 2014

Before:

Payne DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/271536

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I agree with Fagan J.
HAMILL J: I agree with Fagan J.
FAGAN J: Sabaoon Jadron applies to this Court for leave to appeal against the following sentences imposed in the District Court at Parramatta. The statutory maximum penalty for each offence is as shown in brackets.

Count 1: Between 1 March 2012 and 30 August 2012, supply a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, 157.9g, contrary to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW): 3 years 4 months comprising a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months and a balance term of…

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 Jadron v R

Details

AGLC: Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 217
Decision Date: 17 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jadron v R, the appellant, who was convicted of supplying prohibited drugs, challenged the sentence imposed by the trial court. The dispute centred on the quantum of the sentence, with the appellant arguing that it was excessive. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the De Simoni principle applied to the case, which would distinguish between the particulars of the commission of the offence and the circumstances of aggravation. The appellant contended that the trial court had conflated the two, resulting in an excessive sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the principle of totality in sentencing, which involves balancing the severity of the sentence with the overall criminality of the defendant's conduct.

The High Court held that the trial court had indeed conflated the particulars of the offence with the circumstances of aggravation, which led to an excessive sentence. The court further held that the principle of totality should have been applied, taking into account the appellant's overall criminality. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for resentencing. The court did not provide specific orders but indicated that the trial court should reconsider the sentence in light of the principles discussed.

Orders