REGINA v PULIDO [1999] NSWCCA 438

REGINA v PULIDO [1999] NSWCCA 438

Leave to appeal was refused because the head sentence of 6½ years, although at the high end of the range, was not outside the relevant sentencing range; the non-parole period of 4½ years, approximately 68% of the head sentence, did not disclose appellable error; and comparisons based primarily on drug quantity were not persuasive where the applicant had no control over or advance knowledge of the quantity in the parcel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed by the District Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['possession of Prohibited Import' 'cocaine' 'trafficable Quantity' 'courier Sentencing' 'non Parole Period' 'appellate Intervention in Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'customs and Excise'] ['possession of Prohibited Import' 'cocaine' 'trafficable Quantity' 'courier Sentencing' 'non Parole Period' 'appellate Intervention in Sentence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed by the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the head sentence was outside the range appropriate for a courier involved in the importation of cocaine.' 'Whether the non-parole period was manifestly excessive in relation to the head sentence.' 'Whether the quantity of the prohibited import was a relevant factor in sentencing in the circumstances of the case.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the head sentence of 6½ years, although at the high end of the range, was not outside the relevant sentencing range; the non-parole period of 4½ years, approximately 68% of the head sentence, did not disclose appellable error; and comparisons based primarily on drug quantity were not persuasive where the applicant had no control over or advance knowledge of the quantity in the parcel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused.']