R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147

R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147

The aggregate sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate due to a failure to properly reflect the totality of the criminality, particularly by reason of inadequate notional accumulation between the two serious offences of supplying large commercial quantities of methylamphetamine. Despite Crown concessions in sentencing, the need for just punishment and public confidence required an increase: sentences of 11 years (non-parole 7 years) for Hatzisavvas and 11 years 9 months (non-parole 7 years 6 months) for Lopez-Rios were imposed in substitution for the more lenient sentences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence – Criminal Law / Court of Criminal Appeal: Decision on Crown Appeal and Re Sentencing, Following Sentences Imposed by District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; previous sentences quashed; respondents resentenced to higher aggregate sentences of imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'supply of Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing—aggregate Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'totality Principle' 'resentencing' 'parity Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'supply of Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing—aggregate Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'totality Principle' 'resentencing' 'parity Principles']

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 – Criminal Law / Court of Criminal Appeal: Decision on Crown Appeal and Re Sentencing, Following Sentences Imposed by District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentences imposed on the respondents for supply of large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine were manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the sentencing judge properly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences' 'Whether notional accumulation in aggregate sentencing was inadequate and failed to reflect total criminality' 'Whether the Crown was precluded from appealing due to its sentencing submissions or the parity principle' 'The role of totality and indicative sentences in aggregate sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate due to a failure to properly reflect the totality of the criminality, particularly by reason of inadequate notional accumulation between the two serious offences of supplying large commercial quantities of methylamphetamine. Despite Crown concessions in sentencing, the need for just punishment and public confidence required an increase: sentences of 11 years (non-parole 7 years) for Hatzisavvas and 11 years 9 months (non-parole 7 years 6 months) for Lopez-Rios were imposed in substitution for the more lenient sentences.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; previous sentences quashed; respondents resentenced to higher aggregate sentences of imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal is allowed as to both respondents.' 'For George Hatzisavvas: The aggregate sentence imposed on 7 August 2015 is quashed. In lieu, the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years, commencing 28 August 2013 and expiring 27 August...