CRIME — Appeals — Application for leave to appeal against sentence — Sole ground of proposed appeal manifest excess — Where the applicant was sentenced to five years and six months imprisonment for a number of drug related offences — Whether the sentencing judge wrongly focused on the applicant’s significant assets as opposed to the applicant’s subjective circumstances
APPEAL — Leave to appeal — Principles governing
Legislation Cited:
Confiscation and Proceeds of Crimes Act 1989 (NSW), ss 18(1), 29(1)
Matthew John Newman (Applicant) Director of Public…
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 R v Newman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Newman [2022] NSWCCA 218
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 218
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Newman, was convicted of various drug-related offences and sentenced to five years and six months imprisonment. He appealed against his sentence, seeking leave to appeal on the ground that the sentencing judge had wrongly focused on his significant assets rather than his subjective circumstances. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge erred by placing undue emphasis on the appellant's financial status, rather than his personal circumstances, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if the sentencing judge had failed to consider the appropriate factors in arriving at the sentence.
The court considered the principles governing the assessment of manifest excess in sentencing and the relevant statutory and case law. It examined whether the sentencing judge had taken into account all relevant factors in imposing the sentence, including the appellant's personal circumstances, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his background and the circumstances of the offence, and had not erred in considering his financial status. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not failed to consider the appropriate factors. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.