Regina v Nasr [2004] NSWCCA 441

Regina v Nasr [2004] NSWCCA 441

The respondent was actively engaged over a significant period in a serious and systematic drug supply business for profit, was aware of all facets of the operation, and committed the offences while on conditional liberty. Although he had compelling subjective circumstances and strong rehabilitation, exceptional circumstances were not established. The objective seriousness of the offences required full-time imprisonment to reflect general deterrence and denunciation, so the periodic detention sentences were manifestly inadequate and had to be quashed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Crown Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentences for counts 1, 2 and 3 quashed; respondent re-sentenced to full-time imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'drug Supply' 'general Deterrence' 'denunciation' 'rehabilitation' 'periodic Detention' 'parity' 'conditional Liberty']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'drug Supply' 'general Deterrence' 'denunciation' 'rehabilitation' 'periodic Detention' 'parity' 'conditional Liberty']

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 Sentencing Crown Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for ongoing supply and supply of prohibited drugs were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.' "Whether the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation justified periodic detention rather than full-time imprisonment." "Whether the respondent's offending while on conditional liberty was adequately taken into account." 'Whether parity, delay, double jeopardy and Crown appeal restraint should prevent appellate intervention.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was actively engaged over a significant period in a serious and systematic drug supply business for profit, was aware of all facets of the operation, and committed the offences while on conditional liberty. Although he had compelling subjective circumstances and strong rehabilitation, exceptional circumstances were not established. The objective seriousness of the offences required full-time imprisonment to reflect general deterrence and denunciation, so the periodic detention sentences were manifestly inadequate and had to be quashed.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentences for counts 1, 2 and 3 quashed; respondent re-sentenced to full-time imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The sentences imposed in relation to Counts 1-2 are quashed. In lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 1 year. The non-parole period is taken to have commenced on 1 July 2004 and will expire on 30 June...