Duflaut v R [2019] NSWCCA 21

Duflaut v R [2019] NSWCCA 21

The sentence had to be set aside because the sentencing judge did not allow a discount for the purely utilitarian value of the applicant's early guilty plea and misstated the imported quantity of pure cocaine as about one third rather than about one thirtieth of the upper limit of a marketable quantity. On resentencing, a 25% discount from a 7-year starting point produced a head sentence of 5 years and 3 months, with a two-thirds non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, which fairly reflected the applicant's organising and minder role while maintaining appropriate relativity with Ms Sintat's lesser courier role.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Application for Leave Granted and Applicant Resentenced
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal granted, District Court sentence set aside, and applicant resentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
Legal Topics
['importing a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'weight of Border Controlled Drug' 'parity With Co Offender' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['importing a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'weight of Border Controlled Drug' 'parity With Co Offender' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Application for Leave Granted and Applicant Resentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in not allowing a discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in the manner in which he dealt with the weight of the border controlled drug.' "Whether the marked disparity between the applicant's sentence and the co-offender's sentence gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance." 'What sentence should be imposed on resentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence had to be set aside because the sentencing judge did not allow a discount for the purely utilitarian value of the applicant's early guilty plea and misstated the imported quantity of pure cocaine as about one third rather than about one thirtieth of the upper limit of a marketable quantity. On resentencing, a 25% discount from a 7-year starting point produced a head sentence of 5 years and 3 months, with a two-thirds non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, which fairly reflected the applicant's organising and minder role while maintaining appropriate relativity with Ms Sintat's lesser courier role.

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal granted, District Court sentence set aside, and applicant resentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

Orders

  • ['Time is extended so far as necessary to permit the application for leave to appeal against sentence to proceed on its merits.' 'Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The sentence imposed in the District Court on 6 October 2017 is set aside.' 'In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years...