Anjoul v R [2014] NSWCCA 234

Anjoul v R [2014] NSWCCA 234

The sentencing judge approached the sentencing exercise orthodoxly by finding exceptional hardship to the Applicant's brother, determining that an overall term of 30 months imprisonment was necessary having regard to the objective criminality of the drug supply and related offending, and then ameliorating the sentence by significantly reducing the non-parole period. Because a 30 month term excluded a suspended sentence or Intensive Corrections Order, and no House v The King error was shown, the appeal failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply' 'possession of Prohibited Weapon' 'possession of Identification Information' 'proceeds of Crime' 'hardship to Third Parties' 'intensive Correction Orders' 'suspended Sentences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['drug Supply' 'possession of Prohibited Weapon' 'possession of Identification Information' 'proceeds of Crime' 'hardship to Third Parties' 'intensive Correction Orders' 'suspended Sentences' '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 Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in holding that there was no alternative to a sentence of full time custody of 30 months imprisonment.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider a wholly suspended sentence under s 12 or an Intensive Corrections Order.' "Whether hardship to the applicant's brother, for whom the applicant was a carer, required a sentence other than full-time custody or a shorter custodial term." 'Whether the sentencing judge incorrectly approached the sentencing exercise by considering the overall term before the non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge approached the sentencing exercise orthodoxly by finding exceptional hardship to the Applicant's brother, determining that an overall term of 30 months imprisonment was necessary having regard to the objective criminality of the drug supply and related offending, and then ameliorating the sentence by significantly reducing the non-parole period. Because a 30 month term excluded a suspended sentence or Intensive Corrections Order, and no House v The King error was shown, the appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']