Adam v R [2023] NSWCCA 62

Adam v R [2023] NSWCCA 62

There is no error in the determination of the non-parole period as there is no convention or requirement for a particular ratio in federal matters, and the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of severity appropriate in all the circumstances. The sentence, taking into account all relevant factors and mitigating circumstances, was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on ground 2, otherwise refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'attempt to Possess Unlawfully Imported Border Controlled Drug' 'commercial Quantity' 'ratio of Non Parole Period to Overall Sentence' 'manifest Excess']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the ratio of the non-parole period to the overall sentence in Commonwealth matters' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no error in the determination of the non-parole period as there is no convention or requirement for a particular ratio in federal matters, and the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of severity appropriate in all the circumstances. The sentence, taking into account all relevant factors and mitigating circumstances, was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on ground 2, otherwise refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal on ground 2, but otherwise refuse leave' 'Appeal dismissed']