Regina v Soo [2005] NSWCCA 161

Regina v Soo [2005] NSWCCA 161

The psychiatric report was rejected because it could have been obtained before sentence, depended substantially on the applicant's unreliable and inconsistent account, and did not establish a relevant psychiatric condition on the balance of probabilities. The individual sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive, but the overall sentence required reduction because the three supplies to Peter forming count 4 were part and parcel of the large commercial supply offence in count 1, and the accumulation of count 1 on the smaller individual supply counts should be reduced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed in part; overall sentence reduced by altering commencement dates and non-parole periods for counts 1 and 4.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'fresh Evidence on Sentence Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['drug Supply Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'fresh Evidence on Sentence Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'totality']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for count 1, count 4 and overall were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether a psychiatric report prepared after sentence should be received as fresh evidence on the appeal.' 'Whether accumulation of the sentence for the s 25A offence in count 4 with count 1 resulted in an excessive overall sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The psychiatric report was rejected because it could have been obtained before sentence, depended substantially on the applicant's unreliable and inconsistent account, and did not establish a relevant psychiatric condition on the balance of probabilities. The individual sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive, but the overall sentence required reduction because the three supplies to Peter forming count 4 were part and parcel of the large commercial supply offence in count 1, and the accumulation of count 1 on the smaller individual supply counts should be reduced.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed in part; overall sentence reduced by altering commencement dates and non-parole periods for counts 1 and 4.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal allowed in part.' 'The sentence for count 1 is confirmed but is to date from 30 April 2003. There is to be a non-parole period of 6 years to expire on 29 April 2009, the date upon which the applicant is eligible to be released to parole.' 'The sentence for count 4 is...