BASSOS v R [2011] NSWCCA 218

BASSOS v R [2011] NSWCCA 218

The sentencing judge did not err in failing to consider alternatives to a custodial sentence because, on the findings made—particularly the applicant's possession of a large quantity of drugs, some modest supply to friends, and relevant statutory guideposts—a custodial sentence was appropriate. Any failure to expressly refer to s5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 did not invalidate the sentence.

Parties
Applicant: Domonic Bassos; Respondent Crown: Regina; Applicant: Legal Aid Commission of NSW; Respondent Crown: S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Supply of Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug, Sentencing Discretion, Non Custodial Options, Standard Non Parole Period, Maximum Sentence as Guideposts
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Supply of Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug Sentencing Discretion Non Custodial Options Standard Non Parole Period Maximum Sentence as Guideposts

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Domonic Bassos

Applicant

Regina

Respondent Crown

Legal Aid Commission of NSW

Applicant

S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

Respondent Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider whether the applicant had been substantially involved in the supply of drugs
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to have regard to s5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in failing to consider alternatives to a custodial sentence because, on the findings made—particularly the applicant's possession of a large quantity of drugs, some modest supply to friends, and relevant statutory guideposts—a custodial sentence was appropriate. Any failure to expressly refer to s5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 did not invalidate the sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal be granted.
  • The appeal be dismissed.