Brown v Regina; Reid v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 144

Brown v Regina; Reid v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 144

The sentencing discretion miscarried because, in circumstances where both applicants had been assessed as suitable for MERIT, had complied with and successfully completed a lengthy MERIT programme, had achieved a high degree of rehabilitation, and were receiving sentences not exceeding two years, the sentencing judge was required to consider whether execution of the sentences should be suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The offences were objectively serious but at or close to the lower end of seriousness, and the applicants had already served more than five months in custody, so the Court exercised the discretion to suspend the sentences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeals allowed. Sentences below quashed. Applicants re-sentenced with execution of all sentences suspended.
Legal Topics
['guilty Pleas' 'supplying a Prohibited Drug on an Ongoing Basis' 'supplying a Prohibited Drug' 'goods in Custody' 'merit Programme' 'suspended Sentences' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['guilty Pleas' 'supplying a Prohibited Drug on an Ongoing Basis' 'supplying a Prohibited Drug' 'goods in Custody' 'merit Programme' 'suspended Sentences' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation']

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

Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not giving consideration to whether execution of the sentences of imprisonment should be suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.' 'Whether, if the sentencing discretion miscarried, the Court of Criminal Appeal should exercise the discretion to suspend the sentences.' "Whether any allowance should be made for the applicants' bail conditions and participation in the MERIT programme as a form of quasi-custody."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion miscarried because, in circumstances where both applicants had been assessed as suitable for MERIT, had complied with and successfully completed a lengthy MERIT programme, had achieved a high degree of rehabilitation, and were receiving sentences not exceeding two years, the sentencing judge was required to consider whether execution of the sentences should be suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The offences were objectively serious but at or close to the lower end of seriousness, and the applicants had already served more than five months in custody, so the Court exercised the discretion to suspend the sentences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeals allowed. Sentences below quashed. Applicants re-sentenced with execution of all sentences suspended.

Orders

  • ['For Joanne Maree Brown, leave to appeal granted.' 'For Joanne Maree Brown, appeal allowed.' 'For Joanne Maree Brown, sentences below quashed.' 'For Joanne Maree Brown, on the first count, sentenced to a non-parole period of one year and balance of term of one year, to commence on 15 November 2005, so that the term...