Pleasance v R [2016] NSWCCA 113

Pleasance v R [2016] NSWCCA 113

The application for an extension of time was refused because none of the proposed grounds had sufficient merit. The agreed facts supported the finding that the applicant was more than a mere runner and that the offence was below but close to the mid-range of objective seriousness. The sentencing judge's questioning and adverse credibility assessment were open and caused no unfairness because the applicant was given opportunities to clarify and address the concerns. The unsigned letter from the adoptive mother was properly rejected because it concerned contested factual matters that the Crown could not test and contained largely hearsay. The sentence, imposed for the supply offence with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal Application / Application for Extension of Time in Which to File an Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'judicial Intervention in Sentencing Proceedings' 'admission of Letter on Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'evidence'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'judicial Intervention in Sentencing Proceedings' 'admission of Letter on Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'special Circumstances']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal Application / Application for Extension of Time in Which to File an Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence should be granted.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the applicant's offending as below the mid-range but closer to the mid-range than the bottom of the range." "Whether the conduct of the sentencing judge prevented proper assessment of the applicant's credibility or prevented the applicant from properly presenting her case." "Whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to admit an unsigned letter from the applicant's adoptive mother on sentence." 'Whether the sentence of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because none of the proposed grounds had sufficient merit. The agreed facts supported the finding that the applicant was more than a mere runner and that the offence was below but close to the mid-range of objective seriousness. The sentencing judge's questioning and adverse credibility assessment were open and caused no unfairness because the applicant was given opportunities to clarify and address the concerns. The unsigned letter from the adoptive mother was properly rejected because it concerned contested factual matters that the Crown could not test and contained largely hearsay. The sentence, imposed for the supply offence with...

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['Extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal is refused.']