Michel v R [2007] NSWCCA 337

Michel v R [2007] NSWCCA 337

No error of fact or principle was shown and the sentence could not be characterised as manifestly excessive. The higher sentences imposed on the applicant were justified by his greater criminality, his role as principal, his prior serious drug conviction, his offending while on conditional liberty, and the differences between his subjective circumstances and those of his co-conspirators.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed by the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Import a Trafficable Quantity of Cocaine' 'second Serious Drug Offence' 'drug Offences' 'parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'protective Custody as Mitigation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['conspiracy to Import a Trafficable Quantity of Cocaine' 'second Serious Drug Offence' 'drug Offences' 'parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'protective Custody as Mitigation']

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 Sentences Imposed by the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge's starting points for the conspiracy offence and the cannabis supply offence were too high." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to allow an appreciable discount for assistance to authorities.' 'Whether the sentences infringed the totality principle.' 'Whether the sentences breached the parity principle when compared with sentences imposed on co-conspirators.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by refusing to take protective custody into account in mitigation.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

No error of fact or principle was shown and the sentence could not be characterised as manifestly excessive. The higher sentences imposed on the applicant were justified by his greater criminality, his role as principal, his prior serious drug conviction, his offending while on conditional liberty, and the differences between his subjective circumstances and those of his co-conspirators.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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