DRINAN v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 303

DRINAN v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 303

The sentencing judge did not err in referencing the standard non-parole period as a guidepost, did not err with respect to parity as the subjective differences were considered within discretion, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Stewart Drinan; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal, Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeals, Non Parole Period, Parity of Sentence, Manifest Excess
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeals Non Parole Period Parity of Sentence Manifest Excess

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Stewart Drinan

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal, Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred by using standard non-parole period as a guide inappropriately
  2. 2 Whether there was failure to consider parity between co-offenders in sentencing
  3. 3 Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in referencing the standard non-parole period as a guidepost, did not err with respect to parity as the subjective differences were considered within discretion, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal be granted
  • Appeal be dismissed