R v Tirtabudi [2004] NSWCCA 328

R v Tirtabudi [2004] NSWCCA 328

The sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive or beyond a reasonably exercised sentencing discretion. The sentencing judge considered the applicant's favourable subjective circumstances, plea, addiction, lack of prior convictions, and rehabilitation prospects, but the offences were serious and the second...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'drug Addiction and Rehabilitation' 'offence Committed While on Bail' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'drug Addiction and Rehabilitation' 'offence Committed While on Bail' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on both counts of supplying prohibited drugs were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in setting a non-parole period of eighteen months for count 1 despite finding special circumstances under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the overall effective sentence and non-parole period were outside the appropriate exercise of sentencing discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive or beyond a reasonably exercised sentencing discretion. The sentencing judge considered the applicant's favourable subjective circumstances, plea, addiction, lack of prior convictions, and rehabilitation prospects, but the offences were serious and the second offence was committed while on bail, which was a significant aggravating feature. Although the structure of the count 1 sentence might have been different, the overall effective sentence of three and a half years with a non-parole period of 20 months was not inappropriate, unjust, or erroneous.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']