Cutajar v R [2016] NSWCCA 222

Cutajar v R [2016] NSWCCA 222

The sentencing judge's reasons were adequate because the applicant's exculpatory account was inherently improbable, uncorroborated, and did not establish real pressure to offend even if accepted. Having rejected that account on the balance of probabilities, the judge properly gave it no mitigating weight. The indicative sentences, allowing for the guilty plea discount and the applicant's subjective circumstances, and the resulting aggregate sentence were not shown to be manifestly excessive by reference to comparable sentencing outcomes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'drug Supply Offences' 'possession of Prohibited Weapon' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'manifest Excess' 'comparable Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'drug Supply Offences' 'possession of Prohibited Weapon' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'manifest Excess' 'comparable Sentences']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper reasons for finding the applicant's evidence implausible" "Whether the sentencing judge erred by giving no weight to the applicant's evidence about the circumstances of the offending when assessing objective seriousness" 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge's reasons were adequate because the applicant's exculpatory account was inherently improbable, uncorroborated, and did not establish real pressure to offend even if accepted. Having rejected that account on the balance of probabilities, the judge properly gave it no mitigating weight. The indicative sentences, allowing for the guilty plea discount and the applicant's subjective circumstances, and the resulting aggregate sentence were not shown to be manifestly excessive by reference to comparable sentencing outcomes.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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