CANTARAKIS v. REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 184

CANTARAKIS v. REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 184

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The agreed facts supported the finding that the applicant initiated and organised the cannabis supplies, arranged delivery through Pogorilic and pickup by Selwood, and paid or was to pay JJ. The sentencing judge did not err in assessing parity with Pogorilic, partially accumulating the sentences, applying the non-parole ratio after finding special circumstances, or exercising discretion concerning the guilty plea discount. The appeal against severity was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Prohibited Drug' 'parity in Sentencing' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'discount for Guilty Plea']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Prohibited Drug' 'parity in Sentencing' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'discount for Guilty Plea']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant was the principal organiser of the supply on 11 September 2003.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant's involvement in the cannabis supplies was higher than the co-accused, Pogorilic." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that to treat the applicant and Mr Pogorilic differently was unfair to Mr Pogorilic and in equating their sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in partially accumulating the sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in relation to the statutory ratio between non-parole period and balance of term after reduction for the early plea and after finding special circumstances.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give practical effect to a 25% discount for the early plea of guilty.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The agreed facts supported the finding that the applicant initiated and organised the cannabis supplies, arranged delivery through Pogorilic and pickup by Selwood, and paid or was to pay JJ. The sentencing judge did not err in assessing parity with Pogorilic, partially accumulating the sentences, applying the non-parole ratio after finding special circumstances, or exercising discretion concerning the guilty plea discount. The appeal against severity was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the applicant to appeal.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']