MA and PHAM v R [2007] NSWCCA 240

MA and PHAM v R [2007] NSWCCA 240

Despite some minor errors in approach, the sentencing judge's assessment that the applicants' offending fell within the middle range of objective seriousness was open. The penalties imposed were not manifestly excessive having regard to the high commercial quantity, the sophisticated drug operation, and the applicants' prior records and roles. Differences in sentences between applicants and co-offenders were justified by aggravating and mitigating factors, including offending while on conditional liberty, and did not amount to a breach of the parity principle warranting appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'parity Principle' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'parity Principle' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs']

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 / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on Ma and Pham were manifestly excessive' 'Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the parity principle between co-offenders' 'Whether the objective seriousness of the offences was correctly determined' 'Whether proper regard was had to subjective circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

Despite some minor errors in approach, the sentencing judge's assessment that the applicants' offending fell within the middle range of objective seriousness was open. The penalties imposed were not manifestly excessive having regard to the high commercial quantity, the sophisticated drug operation, and the applicants' prior records and roles. Differences in sentences between applicants and co-offenders were justified by aggravating and mitigating factors, including offending while on conditional liberty, and did not amount to a breach of the parity principle warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Dismiss the appeal']