Godfrey v R [2016] NSWCCA 271
The Court held that the sentencing judge did not erroneously apply the discount for guilty pleas or fail to consider the applicant’s subjective circumstances, and the aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and sustained nature of the applicant’s offending.
- Parties
- Applicant: Bronson Samual Godfrey; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal and Final Decision
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Supply Prohibited Drugs, Attempt to Supply Prohibited Firearm, Sentencing Discounts for Guilty Pleas, Aggregate Sentencing, Manifest Excess
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bronson Samual Godfrey
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal and Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply discounts for guilty pleas to indicative sentences
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's subjective case
- 3 Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the sentencing judge did not erroneously apply the discount for guilty pleas or fail to consider the applicant’s subjective circumstances, and the aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and sustained nature of the applicant’s offending.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment