MJR v R - [2025] NSWCCA 51

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: MJR v R [2025] NSWCCA 51
Hearing dates: 5 February 2025
Date of orders: 9 April 2025
Decision date: 09 April 2025
Before: Payne JA; Fagan J; Coleman J
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to the applicant to proceed on his application filed out of time.
(2) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(3) Order that the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court on 8 April 2022 be quashed and that in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years commencing on 3 July 2019 and expiring on 2 July 2029 with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months expiring on 2 January 2027. The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible to be released to parole is 2 January 2027.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – supply of firearms and prohibited weapons – possession and unlawful use of firearms – supply of illegal drugs – breaking and entering –totality and notional accumulation – where 50% discount was significantly eroded at the stage of aggregation – excessive accumulation – manifest excess established – applicant re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Chartres-Abbott v R [2021] NSWCCA 239
Davidson v R [2022] NSWCCA 153
Johnson v R [2021] NSWCCA 13
Moananu v R [2022] NSWCCA 85
Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17
XY (A Pseudonym) v R [2023] NSWCCA 50

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: MJR (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Buchen SC with C O’Neill (Applicant)
E Nicholson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Murphys Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/206649; 2019/339115; 2019/3965595
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court Goulburn

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

8 April 2022

Before:

Baly SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/206649; 2019/339115; 2019/3965595

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Between 29 January 2019 and 3 July 2019, the applicant committed 15 offences which included supply of firearms and prohibited weapons, possession and unlawful use of firearms, supply of illegal drugs and breaking and entering. Most of the supply offences involved transactions between the applicant and a police undercover officer. He pleaded guilty to each offence. On 8 April 2022, the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 15 years with a non-parole period of 11 years. A 50% discount was applied to each indicative sentence.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court held, granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, quashing the sentence imposed by Baly SC DCJ and re-sentencing the applicant to an aggregate sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months:

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 MJR v R

Details

AGLC: MJR v R [2025] NSWCCA 51
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 51
Decision Date: 09 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, MJR v R, was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant, MJR, appealed against his sentence for a series of serious criminal offences. These included supplying firearms and prohibited weapons, possession and unlawful use of firearms, supplying illegal drugs, and breaking and entering. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The court examined whether the sentence was outside the range of reasonable sentencing options for the crimes committed. It considered the principle of totality and notional accumulation of sentences, assessing whether the discount applied at the aggregation stage was significantly eroded. The court also assessed whether the accumulated sentence was excessively punitive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The 50% discount applied at the aggregation stage was significantly eroded, leading to an excessive accumulation of sentences. The court noted that the principle of notional accumulation, which allows for the aggregation of sentences to ensure they are not disproportionately severe, was not adequately applied. The court held that the aggregate sentence imposed on MJR was beyond the range of reasonable sentences, thus establishing a manifest excess. The court re-sentenced MJR, ensuring that the new sentence was within the appropriate range for the crimes committed.

The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were to set aside the original sentence and re-sentence MJR to a term that was deemed appropriate and within the range of reasonable sentences for the offences committed. The court provided detailed reasoning for the new sentence, ensuring it adhered to the principles of criminal sentencing in Australia.

Orders