Regina v Giuseppe MAMMONE [2006] NSWCCA 138

Regina v Giuseppe MAMMONE [2006] NSWCCA 138

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the 20% discount for a guilty plea entered on the day fixed for trial was manifestly excessive and the division of the sentence produced a non-parole period that did not appropriately reflect the criminality of a major commercial cannabis cultivation enterprise. Although the six and one half year starting point was barely within range and special circumstances were open, the Court was required to allow the Crown appeal and re-sentence the respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Appeal and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondent re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'cultivation of Large Commercial Quantity of Cannabis Plants']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'cultivation of Large Commercial Quantity of Cannabis Plants']

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 Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Appeal and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for knowingly taking part in the cultivation of not less than a large commercial quantity of cannabis plants was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge adopted a starting point that was too low.' "Whether the sentencing judge allowed an excessive discount for the respondent's late guilty plea." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in dealing with special circumstances and the non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the 20% discount for a guilty plea entered on the day fixed for trial was manifestly excessive and the division of the sentence produced a non-parole period that did not appropriately reflect the criminality of a major commercial cannabis cultivation enterprise. Although the six and one half year starting point was barely within range and special circumstances were open, the Court was required to allow the Crown appeal and re-sentence the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondent re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 3 November 2005.' 'In lieu thereof, sentence the respondent to a term of imprisonment of five years eight months, commencing on 17 December 2003 with a non-parole period of three and one half years commencing on 17 December 2003 and expiring on...