Jason George DERON v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 73

Jason George DERON v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 73

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge expressly took the Applicant's pre-sentence custody into account, rounded the period up in the Applicant's favour, and effectively reduced the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. The parity ground also failed because the seven-month difference between the Applicant's effective starting point and the co-offender's starting point was within the legitimate range of sentencing discretion, particularly having regard to the co-offender's protective custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'protective Custody' 'sentence Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['drug Supply' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'protective Custody' 'sentence Appeal']

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

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to fully take into account the Applicant's pre-sentence custody because the sentence was not backdated." "Whether the difference between the Applicant's sentence and the co-offender Russell's sentence gave rise to a legitimate sense of grievance on parity grounds." "Whether protective custody justified a difference in the magnitude of co-offenders' sentences."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge expressly took the Applicant's pre-sentence custody into account, rounded the period up in the Applicant's favour, and effectively reduced the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. The parity ground also failed because the seven-month difference between the Applicant's effective starting point and the co-offender's starting point was within the legitimate range of sentencing discretion, particularly having regard to the co-offender's protective custody.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal dismissed']