REGINA v N [1999] NSWCCA 187

REGINA v N [1999] NSWCCA 187

The sentence miscarried and was excessive because the sentencing judge misunderstood the application of s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1989, sentenced globally without adequately addressing each count, failed to give any real discount for the plea of guilty by treating pre-trial custody as that discount, gave an inadequate allowance for assistance to police, and failed to give sufficient mitigating weight to the accepted evidence that the offences were induced by police activity through an agent who repeatedly pressed and threatened the applicant in circumstances diminishing her culpability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal After Pleas of Guilty in the District Court
Outcome
Sentence below quashed; new sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'entrapment and Police Inducement' 'duress as Mitigation' 'assistance to Authorities' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'minimum and Additional Terms']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'entrapment and Police Inducement' 'duress as Mitigation' 'assistance to Authorities' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'minimum and Additional Terms']

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

Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal After Pleas of Guilty in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1989 to the relationship between the minimum term and additional term.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by dealing with multiple offences globally rather than identifying sentences individually and overall.' "Whether police inducement, repeated importuning and threats by an informer significantly mitigated the applicant's culpability on sentence." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give a proper discount for the plea of guilty and wrongly treated pre-trial custody as that discount.' 'Whether the discount for assistance to police was inadequate.' 'Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence miscarried and was excessive because the sentencing judge misunderstood the application of s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1989, sentenced globally without adequately addressing each count, failed to give any real discount for the plea of guilty by treating pre-trial custody as that discount, gave an inadequate allowance for assistance to police, and failed to give sufficient mitigating weight to the accepted evidence that the offences were induced by police activity through an agent who repeatedly pressed and threatened the applicant in circumstances diminishing her culpability.

Court Disposition

Sentence below quashed; new sentence imposed.

Orders

  • ['The sentence below is quashed.' 'In substitution, the applicant is sentenced to twenty months imprisonment, comprising a minimum term of fifteen months commencing on 4 September 1998 and expiring on 3 December 1999, and an additional term of five months commencing on 4 December 1999 and expiring on 3 May 2000.'...