PETTERSON, Benjamin v R [2013] NSWCCA 133

PETTERSON, Benjamin v R [2013] NSWCCA 133

No marked disparity was established. Although Matthews and Garcia were involved in the same broader criminal enterprise, they were charged with different offences and had different roles and circumstances. The applicant was sentenced for both manufacturing and attempted precursor possession offences, was an important participant in organised criminal activity, committed offences while on parole, escaped from custody and continued offending, and had unfavourable subjective circumstances. Those differences justified the sentences imposed and gave no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed by the District Court
Outcome
Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' "disparity Between Co Offenders' Sentences" 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'drug Manufacture and Precursor Offences' 'escape From Lawful Custody' 'break Enter and Steal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Principle' "disparity Between Co Offenders' Sentences" 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'drug Manufacture and Precursor Offences' 'escape From Lawful Custody' 'break Enter and Steal']

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 Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed by the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance because of disparity between his sentences and the sentences imposed on co-offenders Mark Garcia and Philip Lindsay Matthews.' 'Whether any marked disparity was established despite the co-offenders being charged with different offences arising from the same criminal enterprise.']

Ratio Decidendi

No marked disparity was established. Although Matthews and Garcia were involved in the same broader criminal enterprise, they were charged with different offences and had different roles and circumstances. The applicant was sentenced for both manufacturing and attempted precursor possession offences, was an important participant in organised criminal activity, committed offences while on parole, escaped from custody and continued offending, and had unfavourable subjective circumstances. Those differences justified the sentences imposed and gave no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order an extension of time for the filing of the application for leave to appeal.' 'Order that leave to appeal be granted.' 'Order that the appeal be dismissed.']