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.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 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']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment