Healey v R [2018] NSWCCA 214

Healey v R [2018] NSWCCA 214

Although the sentencing judge approached parity too narrowly, there was no marked or unjustifiable disparity because the applicant's involvement in the MDA offending was substantially more extensive than that of Hardman and Rowsell, including direct later supplies to the undercover officer. The judge misstated the relationship between 715.7 grams of methylamphetamine and the commercial quantity threshold, but the Court was not satisfied that he acted on that misstatement; his assessment of objective seriousness was holistic and consistent with authority. In any event, if resentencing were required, no lesser aggregate sentence was warranted in law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'parity Principle' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'objective Seriousness' 'commercial Quantity Drug Supply' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Pleas']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'parity Principle' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'objective Seriousness' 'commercial Quantity Drug Supply' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Pleas']

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 an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising from the indicative sentence for supplying 395.47 grams of MDA compared with sentences or indicative sentences for co-offenders Hardman and Rowsell.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective gravity of the methylamphetamine supply offence by describing 715.7 grams as almost six times the commercial quantity when it was less than three times the commercial quantity.' 'Whether any error required resentencing and whether a lesser sentence was warranted in law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge approached parity too narrowly, there was no marked or unjustifiable disparity because the applicant's involvement in the MDA offending was substantially more extensive than that of Hardman and Rowsell, including direct later supplies to the undercover officer. The judge misstated the relationship between 715.7 grams of methylamphetamine and the commercial quantity threshold, but the Court was not satisfied that he acted on that misstatement; his assessment of objective seriousness was holistic and consistent with authority. In any event, if resentencing were required, no lesser aggregate sentence was warranted in law.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']