Legal Research
Cases
Parris v R

Parris v R

Case [2013] NSWCCA 5 1 February 2013

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Parris v R [2013] NSWCCA 5
Hearing dates: 10 December 2012
Decision date: 01 February 2013
Before: McClellan CJ at CL [1];
Latham J at [2];
Adamson J at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - parity principle
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900
- Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
- Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966
Cases Cited: - Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
- Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; 154 CLR 606
- Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242
- R v Lipton [2012] NSWDC 201
- R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
- R v Taouk (1993) 65 A Crim R 387
- Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Parris (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
P Lange (Applicant)
N Noman (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Matouk Joyner Lawyers (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/4977013
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Citation:

N/A

Before:

Finnane DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/4977013

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Adamson J.

LATHAM J: I agree with Adamson J.

ADAMSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him following his plea of guilty to an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine. There are three grounds of appeal:

(1) The Sentencing Judge gave undue weight to the quantity of drugs involved in the offence;

(2) The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive; and

(3) The applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance in light of the sentence imposed on a participant, Richard Lipton: R v Lipton [2012] NSWDC 201.

The applicant pleaded guilty to supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drug (cocaine) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (DMTA). The maximum penalty for this offence is, relevantly, twenty years' imprisonment: s 33(2) of DMTA. There is a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

The applicant asked the Sentencing Judge to take into account six Form 1 offences, each of which was admitted to have occurred on 22 May 2009. Five of the offences were offences against s 16(1) of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (PTGA) for possession of the following prescribed restricted substances:

(1) 7 boxes of testosterone;

(2) 8 tablets of mesterolone;

(3) 60.5 g of oxandrolone;

(4) methenolone;

(5) 27.9 g of stanzol.

Offences under s 16(1) of the PTGA carry a maximum period of imprisonment of 2 years.

The sixth Form 1 offence was an offence against s 527C(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (persons unlawfully in possession of property). The relevant property was $14,000 in cash.

The Sentencing Judge allowed a discount of 12.5% for the plea of guilty. His Honour found special circumstances and reduced the…

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 Parris v R

Details

AGLC: Parris v R [2013] NSWCCA 5
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 5
Decision Date: 01 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought before the High Court by the defendant, Parris, against the Crown. The case involved a review of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and sought to challenge the severity of the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and did not align with the principle of parity. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and whether it adhered to the principle of parity, which requires sentences to be proportionate to the severity of the crime and consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly excessive and failed to respect the principle of parity. The court was required to examine the severity of the sentence in relation to the crime committed and compare it with sentences handed down in similar cases. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the principle of parity when determining the sentence. The defendant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime and did not align with sentences imposed in comparable cases.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the principle of parity as an important factor in sentencing but held that it was not the sole determinant of sentence proportionality. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the principle of parity and had weighed the severity of the crime, the defendant's culpability, and other relevant factors. The High Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not violate the principle of parity. The court found that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and did not warrant interference. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld. The defendant was required to serve the sentence as determined by the lower court.

Orders