R v Emanuel [2004] NSWCCA 267

R v Emanuel [2004] NSWCCA 267

The original sentence for the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offence, the enormity of the quantity involved, the respondent's significant role, and the need for sentences that reflect general deterrence for such crimes. The failure to sufficiently account for these matters constituted error, justifying intervention on Crown appeal and re-sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'appeals' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'appeals' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence']

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 / Crown Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug was manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the seriousness and objective gravity of the offence' 'Whether sufficient emphasis was given to general and specific deterrence in the original sentencing' 'Whether undue leniency was afforded due to lack of prior convictions and subjective circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence for the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offence, the enormity of the quantity involved, the respondent's significant role, and the need for sentences that reflect general deterrence for such crimes. The failure to sufficiently account for these matters constituted error, justifying intervention on Crown appeal and re-sentencing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal against the 4 years 4 months sentence for supply of large commercial quantity of prohibited drug is allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to 7 years 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years 9 months commencing 2 July 2002' 'Crown appeals regarding sentences for goods in...