Morris v R [2022] NSWCCA 207

Morris v R [2022] NSWCCA 207

The head sentence was stern but not manifestly excessive. Although the individual supplies and sums received were very small and the applicant had favourable subjective features, the $2,000 cash secreted in the engine of his vehicle, the presence of digital scales, and the sentencing judge's unchallenged finding that he had set himself up in a business of supply showed offending beyond that of a mere impoverished drug-dependent courier. His prior conviction for supply and previous serious imprisonment also supported the sentence. The unusual 27% ratio produced by the non-parole period reflected leniency in that component and did not itself demonstrate error in the head sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifest Excess' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'form 1 Offences' 'parity']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifest Excess' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'form 1 Offences' 'parity']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the head sentence of 2 years 9 months imprisonment for ongoing supply of methylamphetamine was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the unusual sentence structure, with a non-parole period of 9 months amounting to 27% of the head sentence, demonstrated error in the head sentence.' "Whether the small quantities of drugs supplied, small sums received, favourable subjective factors and the co-offender's sentence made the head sentence patently too long."]

Ratio Decidendi

The head sentence was stern but not manifestly excessive. Although the individual supplies and sums received were very small and the applicant had favourable subjective features, the $2,000 cash secreted in the engine of his vehicle, the presence of digital scales, and the sentencing judge's unchallenged finding that he had set himself up in a business of supply showed offending beyond that of a mere impoverished drug-dependent courier. His prior conviction for supply and previous serious imprisonment also supported the sentence. The unusual 27% ratio produced by the non-parole period reflected leniency in that component and did not itself demonstrate error in the head sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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