Diri v R [2019] NSWCCA 319

Diri v R [2019] NSWCCA 319

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing objective seriousness because his Honour identified the relevant considerations, including quantities, purity, ready access to supply, role, financial motive, supply to undercover operatives, and the inert substance, and both parties had addressed the offending collectively. The description of persistent offending over four months did not materially affect the assessment. However, the judge stated that the sentence would be backdated by nine months but fixed a commencement date three days later than that calculation required; this was an administrative error corrected by adjusting the commencement and expiry dates without a full resentencing...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in respect of ground 2; sentence quashed and replaced with corrected commencement and expiry dates; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'form 1 Offences' 'backdating Sentence' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'form 1 Offences' 'backdating Sentence' 'non Parole Period']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the drug offences collectively rather than individually.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by describing the offending as persistent offending over a four month period.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper regard to the fact that part of the ongoing supply involved bath salts rather than methylamphetamine.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing the commencement date of the sentence after stating that it would be backdated by nine months.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing objective seriousness because his Honour identified the relevant considerations, including quantities, purity, ready access to supply, role, financial motive, supply to undercover operatives, and the inert substance, and both parties had addressed the offending collectively. The description of persistent offending over four months did not materially affect the assessment. However, the judge stated that the sentence would be backdated by nine months but fixed a commencement date three days later than that calculation required; this was an administrative error corrected by adjusting the commencement and expiry dates without a full resentencing...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in respect of ground 2; sentence quashed and replaced with corrected commencement and expiry dates; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal in respect of ground 2.' "Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Craigie SC in the District Court on 12 April 2019. In lieu, sentence the applicant to an aggregate sentence of two years nine months' imprisonment commencing 12 July 2018 and expiring 11 April 2021 with a...