Regina, J.R. v. The Queen [1985] FCA 532

Regina, J.R. v. The Queen [1985] FCA 532

Other than in relation to the non-parole period, the appellant has not demonstrated any error in principle on the part of the trial Judge nor has he shown that the sentence was so manifestly excessive as to indicate some error in the sentencing process. The non-parole period should be altered to one of nine months...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Joseph Richard Regina; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (non-parole period varied to nine months); otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Non Parole Period
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Non Parole Period

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Richard Regina

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the non-parole period fixed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Other than in relation to the non-parole period, the appellant has not demonstrated any error in principle on the part of the trial Judge nor has he shown that the sentence was so manifestly excessive as to indicate some error in the sentencing process. The non-parole period should be altered to one of nine months but otherwise the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (non-parole period varied to nine months); otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • The non-parole period is varied to one of nine months.
  • Otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.