Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57

Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57

The sentencing judge did not err. Her Honour used the six occasions of supply over a significant period as relevant to objective criminality, not as an impermissible additional aggravating factor. Her Honour also properly recognised that the Applicant was not a destitute drug addict and could take into account that he chose repeated crime to support his cocaine use. The medical evidence provided substantial bases for not accepting all of Dr Hardy's evidence, and the sentencing remarks showed no misunderstanding or conflation of intellect and impairment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug and Alcohol Abuse' 'mental Illness and Moral Culpability' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'double Counting']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['supply Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug and Alcohol Abuse' 'mental Illness and Moral Culpability' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'double Counting']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness by taking into account that there were six separate supplies of cocaine to the undercover officer over the relevant period.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness by taking into account motivation for financial gain.' 'Whether the sentencing judge misunderstood the medical evidence by conflating issues of intellect and impairment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err. Her Honour used the six occasions of supply over a significant period as relevant to objective criminality, not as an impermissible additional aggravating factor. Her Honour also properly recognised that the Applicant was not a destitute drug addict and could take into account that he chose repeated crime to support his cocaine use. The medical evidence provided substantial bases for not accepting all of Dr Hardy's evidence, and the sentencing remarks showed no misunderstanding or conflation of intellect and impairment.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence' 'Appeal dismissed']