Regina v Kevin Leslie ALCHIN [2005] NSWCCA 111

Regina v Kevin Leslie ALCHIN [2005] NSWCCA 111

The sentence on count 1 had to be quashed because the sentencing judge took into account the standard non-parole period when it was not applicable, thereby relying on an irrelevant consideration and causing the sentencing discretion to miscarry. On re-sentencing, the Court weighed the considerable objective criminality of supplying amphetamine over eight months, the applicant's prior drug convictions, the need for general and personal deterrence, limited weight for the Form 1 offences, the early guilty pleas and admissions, and special circumstances, and imposed an overall term of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal/application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal After Guilty Pleas and Sentencing in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted as to sentence on count 1, leave to appeal refused as to sentence on count 2, appeal allowed, sentence on count 1 quashed, and applicant re-sentenced on count 1 taking into account the Form 1 offences.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence']

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 for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal After Guilty Pleas and Sentencing in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by having regard to the standard non-parole period for count 1.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in the manner in which offences on the Form 1 were taken into account.' 'Whether the sentence on count 1 was manifestly excessive.' 'What sentence should be imposed on count 1 after error in the sentencing discretion was established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence on count 1 had to be quashed because the sentencing judge took into account the standard non-parole period when it was not applicable, thereby relying on an irrelevant consideration and causing the sentencing discretion to miscarry. On re-sentencing, the Court weighed the considerable objective criminality of supplying amphetamine over eight months, the applicant's prior drug convictions, the need for general and personal deterrence, limited weight for the Form 1 offences, the early guilty pleas and admissions, and special circumstances, and imposed an overall term of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted as to sentence on count 1, leave to appeal refused as to sentence on count 2, appeal allowed, sentence on count 1 quashed, and applicant re-sentenced on count 1 taking into account the Form 1 offences.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted as to the sentence on count 1 in the indictment.' 'Leave to appeal as to the sentence on count 2 in the indictment refused.' 'Appeal allowed and the sentence quashed.' 'Sentence on count 1 in the indictment and taking into account the offences on the Form 1 to imprisonment comprising a...