Application by Henry Edgar Des Rosiers pursuant to s78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 830

Application by Henry Edgar Des Rosiers pursuant to s78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 830

The sentence under scrutiny was the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Although that Court referred to the standard non-parole period and described it as a benchmark, it did not give it determinative significance. The sentence followed a guilty plea, the Court considered the substantial objective seriousness of the primary offence and relevant sentencing factors, and its approach was consistent with Muldrock and Markarian. Hoeben CJ at CL was not persuaded that Muldrock error occurred and therefore entertained no doubt or question as to mitigating circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S78(1) Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigating Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals and Review'] ['inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigating Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S78(1) Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case for the purposes of s78(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001." 'Whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal was infected by Muldrock error because undue or determinative weight was given to the standard non-parole period.' "Whether the applicant's sentence for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug should be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence under scrutiny was the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Although that Court referred to the standard non-parole period and described it as a benchmark, it did not give it determinative significance. The sentence followed a guilty plea, the Court considered the substantial objective seriousness of the primary offence and relevant sentencing factors, and its approach was consistent with Muldrock and Markarian. Hoeben CJ at CL was not persuaded that Muldrock error occurred and therefore entertained no doubt or question as to mitigating circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']