Deakin v R [2014] NSWCCA 121

Deakin v R [2014] NSWCCA 121

The sentencing judge erred in the application of the totality principle by providing only two months of concurrency with the earlier non-parole period, where the applicant was already serving a sentence and the accepted need for an extended parole supervision period and the finding of special circumstances required a greater degree of concurrence. A proper application of totality required the sentences for Counts 1 and 2 to commence 12 months before completion of the earlier non-parole period, while the total terms and the non-parole period for Count 1 otherwise remained appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed by the District Court on 26 June 2012
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['supply Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'participation in a Criminal Group' 'totality Principle' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'participation in a Criminal Group' 'totality Principle' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 Sentences Imposed by the District Court on 26 June 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in commencing the sentence only two months before completion of the earlier non-parole period being served by the applicant.' 'Whether the sentencing judge made inadequate allowance for the finding of special circumstances when setting the non-parole period on Count 1.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in selecting the commencement date for the sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 2.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in the application of the totality principle by providing only two months of concurrency with the earlier non-parole period, where the applicant was already serving a sentence and the accepted need for an extended parole supervision period and the finding of special circumstances required a greater degree of concurrence. A proper application of totality required the sentences for Counts 1 and 2 to commence 12 months before completion of the earlier non-parole period, while the total terms and the non-parole period for Count 1 otherwise remained appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on the applicant by the District Court on 26 June 2012 be granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by the District Court on 26 June 2012.' 'In respect of Count 1, the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 6...