Regina v Weininger [2000] NSWCCA 501

Regina v Weininger [2000] NSWCCA 501

There was no error in sentencing outside the range proposed by the Crown, and no obligation for the sentencing judge to provide specific reasons or advise parties when considering sentences above the proposed range. The sentencing judge was not obliged to accept the applicant’s contention of being a person of good character, and it was not necessary for rejection of that contention to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences imposed, though heavy, were within the permissible discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed by majority.
Legal Topics
['cocaine Importation' 'money Laundering' 'conspiracy to Supply Drugs' 'sentencing' 'plea of Guilty' 'guideline Sentencing Judgment' 'prior Good Character']
['criminal Law'] ['cocaine Importation' 'money Laundering' 'conspiracy to Supply Drugs' 'sentencing' 'plea of Guilty' 'guideline Sentencing Judgment' 'prior Good Character']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentence exceeded the appropriate range proposed by Crown counsel' 'Whether sentencing judge erred by sentencing above that range' 'Obligation to advise parties when considering sentence above proposed range' 'Adequate reasons for sentence above range' 'Rejection of claim to prior good character' 'Standard to which finding of prior criminal activity must be proved' 'Recognition given to plea of guilty' 'Conformity with Guideline Sentencing Judgment' 'Whether sentence manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error in sentencing outside the range proposed by the Crown, and no obligation for the sentencing judge to provide specific reasons or advise parties when considering sentences above the proposed range. The sentencing judge was not obliged to accept the applicant’s contention of being a person of good character, and it was not necessary for rejection of that contention to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences imposed, though heavy, were within the permissible discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed by majority.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal dismissed']