Neale v The King - [2024] NSWCCA 159

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Neale v R [2024] NSWCCA 159
Hearing dates: 09 August 2024
Date of orders: 26 August 2024
Decision date: 26 August 2024
Before: Ward P; Wilson J at [1];
Sweeney J at [17]
Decision:
1. Extend time for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Grant leave to appeal.
3. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence — Parity

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25

Cases Cited:
B v R [2022] NSWCCA 102
Croke v R [2021] NSWCCA 249
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 1
Why v R [2017] NSWCCA 101

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Neale (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Brasch (Applicant)
P Hogan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Conditsis Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/361948
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

3 November 2022

Before:

Abadee DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/361948

HEADNOTE

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

On 3 November 2022, the applicant, Joseph Neale, was sentenced in the District Court by Abadee DCJ for an offence of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (DMT Act). His Honour imposed a term of 4 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.

Mr Neale sought leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed by Abadee DCJ on a co-offender and other member of the same drug syndicate, Luke Weis, gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of Mr Neale. Mr Weis was sentenced for lesser offences under s 25(1) of the DMT Act. Abadee DCJ sentenced Mr Weis to a sentence of 2 years, 2 months and 17 days to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.

The Court held (Ward P and Wilson J agreeing, Sweeney J dissenting), dismissing the appeal:

Abadee DCJ, in sentencing both the Mr Neale, Mr Weis and various other co-offenders, was clearly familiar with the details of the criminal activity of the syndicate and of the crimes of the individual offenders. His Honour made numerous findings, by reference to the parity principle, as to the respective role of each offender, and noted their respective cases. The determination of each offender’s sentence was fully informed by those comparisons: [5]-[6] (Ward P and Wilson J).

Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303 cited.

The question on appeal is not whether this Court might have imposed a different sentence upon the applicant at first instance; rather, it is whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was…

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 Neale v The King

Details

AGLC: Neale v The King [2024] NSWCCA 159
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 159
Decision Date: 26 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Neale v The King was brought before the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Mr. Neale, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and was subsequently sentenced. He appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed, contending that it was disproportionate to the nature of his crime and inconsistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence handed down by the lower court was unjust or manifestly excessive, and if it contravened the principle of parity in sentencing.

The court examined the legal principles underpinning the sentencing process, particularly focusing on the concept of parity. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe when compared to sentences imposed on others who committed similar or even more serious crimes. The court needed to determine if the sentence was within the bounds of proportionality and whether it adhered to the principle of parity as required by the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the importance of maintaining consistent sentencing practices to ensure fairness and predictability in the criminal justice system. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the sentences imposed in similar cases. After a thorough analysis, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was in line with the principle of parity. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, affirming the original judgment of the lower court.

Orders