R v Dursun [2000] NSWCCA 68

R v Dursun [2000] NSWCCA 68

Although the total sentence of five years was low, the starting point of eight years and the assistance discount did not justify appellate intervention on a Crown appeal. However, the sentencing judge erred in dividing the five year sentence equally between minimum and additional terms; the resulting minimum term was manifestly inadequate to reflect the respondent's criminality, even allowing for special circumstances. The Court therefore left the total sentence unchanged but increased the minimum term to three and a half years and reduced the additional term to one and a half years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act From a Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed to the extent of altering the division of the sentence; total sentence unchanged; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'supply of Not Less Than the Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'discount for Assistance to Authorities' 'plea of Guilty' 'minimum Term and Additional Term' 'special Circumstances' 'prior Convictions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'supply of Not Less Than the Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'discount for Assistance to Authorities' 'plea of Guilty' 'minimum Term and Additional Term' 'special Circumstances' 'prior Convictions']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act From a Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge's starting point of eight years before allowance for assistance was outside the proper sentencing discretion." 'Whether the discount of thirty-seven and a half per cent for assistance was manifestly excessive or produced a sentence unreasonably disproportionate to the offence.' 'Whether the division of the total sentence into a minimum term of two and a half years and an additional term of two and a half years made the minimum term manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the total sentence of five years was low, the starting point of eight years and the assistance discount did not justify appellate intervention on a Crown appeal. However, the sentencing judge erred in dividing the five year sentence equally between minimum and additional terms; the resulting minimum term was manifestly inadequate to reflect the respondent's criminality, even allowing for special circumstances. The Court therefore left the total sentence unchanged but increased the minimum term to three and a half years and reduced the additional term to one and a half years.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed to the extent of altering the division of the sentence; total sentence unchanged; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The total sentence of five years imposed by the District Court remains.' 'The sentence is divided into a minimum term of three and a half years commencing on 14 September 1998 and expiring on 13 March 2002.' 'An additional term of one and a half years is imposed.' 'The earliest day on which the respondent will be...