R v Temmingh [2005] NSWCCA 261

R v Temmingh [2005] NSWCCA 261

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge, while entitled to find that the respondent intended experimentation for horses rather than human consumption or commercial resale, gave insufficient weight to the very large quantity imported, the planning and deception involved, the proximity to prior steroid-related offending, the objective seriousness of the offence, and general deterrence. The irrelevant United States regulatory approach should not have been taken into account. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced, but because this was a Crown appeal and the respondent had been at liberty since sentence, he was released forthwith on conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced.
Legal Topics
['importation of Anabolic Steroid' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'general Deterrence' 'objective Seriousness' 'conditional Release' 'crown Appeal Against Leniency']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'customs and Excise'] ['importation of Anabolic Steroid' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'general Deterrence' 'objective Seriousness' 'conditional Release' 'crown Appeal Against Leniency']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for importing Nandrolone Decanoate contrary to the Customs Act 1901 (Commonwealth) was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to objective criminality, planning and deception, the quantity imported, prior steroid-related offending, and general and specific deterrence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account the more lenient approach to steroid use in the United States.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge, while entitled to find that the respondent intended experimentation for horses rather than human consumption or commercial resale, gave insufficient weight to the very large quantity imported, the planning and deception involved, the proximity to prior steroid-related offending, the objective seriousness of the offence, and general deterrence. The irrelevant United States regulatory approach should not have been taken into account. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced, but because this was a Crown appeal and the respondent had been at liberty since sentence, he was released forthwith on conditions.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The sentence imposed by Charteris DCJ is quashed.' 'In lieu thereof the respondent is convicted under s20 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) and is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.' 'Pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth), the respondent is to be released forthwith...