Le v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 181

Le v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 181

The applicant's admissions at the scene did not constitute substantial assistance within the meaning of s 23 of the Sentencing Act, nor require a finding of additional remorse. The sentencing judge did not err in treating both offenders equivalently, and leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'cultivation of Prohibited Plant' 'commercial Quantity' 'cannabis' 'remorse' 'assistance to Authorities' 'sentencing Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'cultivation of Prohibited Plant' 'commercial Quantity' 'cannabis' 'remorse' 'assistance to Authorities' 'sentencing 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

Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether sentencing judge failed to take into account applicant's admissions as evidence of assistance to authorities or remorse" 'Whether sentencing judge erred by imposing an identical sentence despite differences in post-offence conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's admissions at the scene did not constitute substantial assistance within the meaning of s 23 of the Sentencing Act, nor require a finding of additional remorse. The sentencing judge did not err in treating both offenders equivalently, and leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']