R v Heather May Attard [2004] NSWCCA 376

R v Heather May Attard [2004] NSWCCA 376

The sentencing judge erred by failing to properly allow a discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and by not considering special circumstances arising from sentence accumulation, resulting in a manifestly excessive non-parole period for count 3. The appropriate remedy was to vary only the non-parole period for count 3 to bring it into line with statutory proportions.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Heather May Attard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Determination on Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentences in respect of counts 1 and 2 confirmed; head sentence for count 3 confirmed; non-parole period for count 3 quashed and substituted with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, expiring 9 January 2008.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeals, Drug Offences, Accumulation of Sentences, Utilitarian Value of Plea, Non Parole Periods, Special Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeals Drug Offences Accumulation of Sentences Utilitarian Value of Plea Non Parole Periods Special Circumstances

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Heather May Attard

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Determination on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in the determination of the utilitarian value of the plea
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider 'special circumstances' for the non-parole period
  3. 3 Whether the non-parole period imposed in respect of count 3 was manifestly excessive due to accumulation of sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by failing to properly allow a discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and by not considering special circumstances arising from sentence accumulation, resulting in a manifestly excessive non-parole period for count 3. The appropriate remedy was to vary only the non-parole period for count 3 to bring it into line with statutory proportions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentences in respect of counts 1 and 2 confirmed; head sentence for count 3 confirmed; non-parole period for count 3 quashed and substituted with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, expiring 9 January 2008.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal
  • Allow the appeal (in part)