Holden v Regina (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 397

Holden v Regina (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 397

The original sentence was manifestly excessive because the applicant's drug supply operation was small, the quantities involved were small, the judge's description of him as a supplier to a significant degree was incorrect, the sentence did not reflect a discount for the early guilty plea, the applicant had never previously been in custody, his prior record did not disentitle him to leniency, and he was a young man with an unfortunate background.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave Granted, Appeal Allowed and Applicant Re Sentenced
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months.
Legal Topics
['manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'possess Prohibited Drug' 'goods in Custody' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'possess Prohibited Drug' 'goods in Custody' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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; Leave Granted, Appeal Allowed and Applicant Re Sentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years for supplying methylamphetamine, with Form 1 matters taken into account, was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient credit for the applicant's early plea of guilty and its utilitarian value." 'Whether the sentencing judge incorrectly characterised the applicant as a supplier to a significant degree.']

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was manifestly excessive because the applicant's drug supply operation was small, the quantities involved were small, the judge's description of him as a supplier to a significant degree was incorrect, the sentence did not reflect a discount for the early guilty plea, the applicant had never previously been in custody, his prior record did not disentitle him to leniency, and he was a young man with an unfortunate background.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed; sentence quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years commencing on 1 March 2002 with a non-parole period of 18 months commencing that day and ending on 31 August 2003 on which day the applicant is to be released on supervised parole.']