Grogan v R [2019] NSWCCA 51

Grogan v R [2019] NSWCCA 51

The appeal failed because the manufacture, supply and proceeds of crime offences were temporally and factually distinct phases of a sophisticated drug enterprise, with the proceeds of crime money being used to purchase materials for further manufacture rather than merely possessed as proceeds of supply. Some accumulation was required to reflect separate criminality, no double punishment arose, and the applicant did not establish discretionary error or that the aggregate sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years was unreasonable, plainly unjust, or manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From District Court of NSW at Gosford
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'double Punishment' 'manifest Excess' 'manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'knowingly Dealing With Proceeds of Crime']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'proceeds of Crime'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'double Punishment' 'manifest Excess' 'manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'knowingly Dealing With Proceeds of Crime']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From District Court of NSW at Gosford

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in determining the aggregate sentence, the sentencing judge erred in the application of the totality principle.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by factoring punishment for the proceeds of crime offence into the aggregate sentence, resulting in double punishment.' 'Whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the manufacture, supply and proceeds of crime offences were temporally and factually distinct phases of a sophisticated drug enterprise, with the proceeds of crime money being used to purchase materials for further manufacture rather than merely possessed as proceeds of supply. Some accumulation was required to reflect separate criminality, no double punishment arose, and the applicant did not establish discretionary error or that the aggregate sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years was unreasonable, plainly unjust, or manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']