R v Panagakos [2003] NSWCCA 81

R v Panagakos [2003] NSWCCA 81

The sentencing judge erred by approaching parity from the sentence imposed on Ganem rather than first determining the appropriate sentence for the applicant, and by allowing an inadequate guilty plea discount of about nine percent where a discount of about twenty percent was appropriate. Although the applicant's serious heroin supply offence and the Form 1 cocaine offence warranted a starting point of fourteen years before discount, parity with Ganem required a head sentence of ten years; however, a non-parole period of seven years six months would create a justifiable sense of grievance, and six years six months was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years six months.
Legal Topics
['supply Large Commercial Quantity of Heroin' 'form 1 Offence' 'parity' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply Large Commercial Quantity of Heroin' 'form 1 Offence' 'parity' 'guilty Plea Discount' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in approaching parity by using the sentence imposed on co-offender Ganem as the starting point.' "Whether the discount allowed for the applicant's guilty plea was inadequate." 'Whether the sentence, particularly the non-parole period, was excessive in light of parity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by approaching parity from the sentence imposed on Ganem rather than first determining the appropriate sentence for the applicant, and by allowing an inadequate guilty plea discount of about nine percent where a discount of about twenty percent was appropriate. Although the applicant's serious heroin supply offence and the Form 1 cocaine offence warranted a starting point of fourteen years before discount, parity with Ganem required a head sentence of ten years; however, a non-parole period of seven years six months would create a justifiable sense of grievance, and six years six months was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years six months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence imposed quashed.' 'In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years to commence on 3 August 2000 and to expire on 2 August 2010.' 'A non-parole period of six years six months is specified to commence on 3 August 2000 and to...