Legal Research
Cases
Nair v The King

Nair v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 136 12 September 2025

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: Nair v R [2025] NSWCCA 136
Hearing dates: 13 August 2025
Date of orders: 12 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Before: Stern JA at [1];
Cavanagh J at [2];
Yehia J at [3].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug – manifest excess – comparative cases – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93T(1A), 193C(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 307.1(1), 307.2(1)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25(1), 25(2)

Cases Cited:
Chu v R (2023) 305 A Crim R 442; [2023] NSWCCA 12
Conte v R [2018] NSWCCA 209; (2018) 86 MVR 239
Davidson v R (2022) 300 A Crim R 214; [2022] NSWCCA 153
Evatt (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 130
FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Meers v R [2025] NSWCCA 27
Moodie v R (2020) 284 A Crim R 87; [2020] NSWCCA 160
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Pauls v R [2024] NSWCCA 123
Person 1 (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 132
R v Bui [2025] NSWCCA 114
R v Burton [2023] NSWCCA 299
R v Elemes [2000] NSWCCA 235
R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
Tuhi v R [2025] NSWCCA 115
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Wright v R [2025] NSWCCA 108

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Varun Nair (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Bewsher (Applicant)
S Healy (Respondent)
Solicitors:
First Choice Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/00171574
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 July 2024

Before:

Flannery SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2023/00171574

HEADNOTE

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

Mr Varun Nair (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed by Flannery SC DCJ in the District Court of New South Wales on 19 July 2024. The applicant was sentenced following pleas of guilty to four offences. The offences were two counts of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and one count of dealing with suspected proceeds of crime. A further three offences of supplying an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug were taken into account on a Form 1.

The sentencing judge found that the applicant became involved in the offending after he became addicted to gambling and cocaine and indebted to his…

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 Nair v The King

Details

AGLC: Nair v The King [2025] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nair v The King involved the appellant, Nair, appealing against his sentence for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Nair had been convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and he argued that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence and the need for the sentence to serve purposes of general deterrence and specific deterrence, as well as retribution. The Court considered the principles governing sentencing appeals, including the need to maintain a balance between the severity of the offence and the proportionality of the sentence.

The Court held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was not manifestly excessive. In reaching this conclusion, the Court examined the relevant case law and considered the principles of sentencing in Australia. The Court found that the Supreme Court had appropriately considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in Nair's case and had imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Court noted that while the sentence was severe, it was not so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was upheld. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to sentencing, ensuring that the severity of the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence while also considering the principles of deterrence and retribution.

Orders