Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222

Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222

The sentence was not manifestly excessive because, despite the applicant's strong subjective case, remorse, rehabilitation and guilty plea, the offences were deliberate, planned, profit-motivated, repeated over several months, involved significant quantities of methylamphetamine, included use of a 15 year old juvenile and the presence of young children, occurred in a community where general deterrence was important, and were committed despite prior imprisonment for drug supply offences. The Judicial Commission statistics relied on by the applicant were not comparable to the aggregate sentencing exercise and did not demonstrate that the sentence was outside the permissible range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2015
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
['knowingly Taking Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'sentencing Statistics' 'general Deterrence' 'guilty Plea']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['knowingly Taking Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'sentencing Statistics' 'general Deterrence' 'guilty Plea']

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 aggregate sentence imposed for four offences of knowingly taking part in the supply of methylamphetamine and a related s 166 certificate offence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether sentencing statistics relied on by the applicant provided a useful comparison for assessing manifest excess.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not manifestly excessive because, despite the applicant's strong subjective case, remorse, rehabilitation and guilty plea, the offences were deliberate, planned, profit-motivated, repeated over several months, involved significant quantities of methylamphetamine, included use of a 15 year old juvenile and the presence of young children, occurred in a community where general deterrence was important, and were committed despite prior imprisonment for drug supply offences. The Judicial Commission statistics relied on by the applicant were not comparable to the aggregate sentencing exercise and did not demonstrate that the sentence was outside the permissible range.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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