Chippindall v R [2009] NSWCCA 127

Chippindall v R [2009] NSWCCA 127

The parity ground failed because the co-offenders were dealt with for different, lesser or single offences, or otherwise in circumstances distinguishing them from the applicant, so no justifiable sense of grievance was shown. The manifest excessiveness ground succeeded because the sentencing judge assessed the applicant as a user/dealer at the lower end of the drug hierarchy, and the applicant had strong favourable subjective factors, yet the calculable starting point of 7 years 6 months placed the sentence near the upper range of the observed sentencing pattern for ongoing supply. The sentence on count 3 was therefore excessive and was quashed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed in part; sentence on count 3 quashed; applicant resentenced and ordered to be released to parole on 14 May 2009.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'ecstasy' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'parity and Disparity With Co Offenders' 'young Offender' 'early Guilty Plea' 'assistance to Authorities' 'resentence']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'ecstasy' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'parity and Disparity With Co Offenders' 'young Offender' 'early Guilty Plea' 'assistance to Authorities' 'resentence']

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 Severity of Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance by virtue of disparity between the sentences imposed on him and on co-offenders.' "Whether the sentence imposed on count 3 was manifestly excessive in light of the applicant's low place in the drug hierarchy, youth, prior good character, remorse, rehabilitation prospects, early plea and assistance to authorities." 'Whether the notional starting point of 7 years 6 months imprisonment was too high.']

Ratio Decidendi

The parity ground failed because the co-offenders were dealt with for different, lesser or single offences, or otherwise in circumstances distinguishing them from the applicant, so no justifiable sense of grievance was shown. The manifest excessiveness ground succeeded because the sentencing judge assessed the applicant as a user/dealer at the lower end of the drug hierarchy, and the applicant had strong favourable subjective factors, yet the calculable starting point of 7 years 6 months placed the sentence near the upper range of the observed sentencing pattern for ongoing supply. The sentence on count 3 was therefore excessive and was quashed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed in part; sentence on count 3 quashed; applicant resentenced and ordered to be released to parole on 14 May 2009.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal allowed in part.' 'Sentence imposed on count 3 quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, taking into account the offence on Form 1, the applicant sentenced on count 3 to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months commencing on 15 August...