McTague v R [2020] NSWCCA 83

McTague v R [2020] NSWCCA 83

The appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error was established. The sentencing judge's assessment of Count 1 as slightly above mid-range was open given the applicant's position as an up-line supplier and the quantity warehoused for supply. The applicant and Witness A were too dissimilar in roles, offences, discounts and circumstances to found a justifiable sense of grievance. The treatment of specific deterrence as engaged was an available exercise of discretion. The aggregate sentence was not shown to be unreasonable or plainly unjust and reflected the totality of the applicant's criminality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'specific Deterrence' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['drug Supply' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'specific Deterrence' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'totality']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing Count 1 as slightly above mid-range objective seriousness.' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance by comparison with the sentence imposed on co-offender Witness A.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating specific deterrence as fully engaged.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error was established. The sentencing judge's assessment of Count 1 as slightly above mid-range was open given the applicant's position as an up-line supplier and the quantity warehoused for supply. The applicant and Witness A were too dissimilar in roles, offences, discounts and circumstances to found a justifiable sense of grievance. The treatment of specific deterrence as engaged was an available exercise of discretion. The aggregate sentence was not shown to be unreasonable or plainly unjust and reflected the totality of the applicant's criminality.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']