Des Rosiers v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 16

Des Rosiers v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 16

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence in excess of the maximum penalty for one count and failed to follow the Pearce principle by not passing appropriate distinct sentences and properly considering concurrency or accumulation. The sentence was also passed under outdated legislative provisions. These errors warranted appellate intervention. Correct resentencing required taking into account statutory maxima, proper identification of the standard non-parole period, discounts for guilty plea, and giving appropriate weight to mitigating and aggravating factors. The sentences were recalculated and imposed within statutory limits and all were made concurrent given the dominance of the primary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. Appellant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'illicit Drugs Offences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'concurrent Versus Cumulative Sentences' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'mitigating and Aggravating Factors']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'illicit Drugs Offences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'concurrent Versus Cumulative Sentences' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'mitigating and Aggravating Factors']

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 / Judgment on Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing sentences in excess of maximum penalties for certain offences' 'Whether the judge failed to comply with Pearce v The Queen principles for distinct sentences and concurrency/accumulation' 'Relevance of standard non-parole period and whether sufficient reasons were given for departing from it' 'Approach to the seriousness of LSD and improper consideration of relative drug seriousness' 'Appropriateness of discounts for guilty plea and failure to quantify discount' 'Whether sentence was manifestly excessive with regard to appellant’s age']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence in excess of the maximum penalty for one count and failed to follow the Pearce principle by not passing appropriate distinct sentences and properly considering concurrency or accumulation. The sentence was also passed under outdated legislative provisions. These errors warranted appellate intervention. Correct resentencing required taking into account statutory maxima, proper identification of the standard non-parole period, discounts for guilty plea, and giving appropriate weight to mitigating and aggravating factors. The sentences were recalculated and imposed within statutory limits and all were made concurrent given the dominance of the primary...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. Appellant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted; Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by Black QC DCJ on 24 February 2005.' 'For the offence of Supply a Large Commercial Quantity of LSD (including Form 1 offences): non-parole period of 12 years from 20 April 2004, expiring 19 April 2016; balance of term 6 years, expiring 19...