Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284

Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284

It was open to the sentencing judge, on the agreed facts and in the absence of evidence from the Applicant, to find beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicant had access to and was in a position to supply the 10,000 ecstasy tablets within the stated timeframe. The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the objective seriousness of the offer to supply offence, gave due weight to relevant matters including purity and the fact the proposed supply was to an undercover officer, and the sentences for Sequence 4, Sequence 6 and the total effective sentence were not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['plea of Guilty' 'offer to Supply Large Commercial Quantity of Ecstasy' 'supply Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'manifest Excess' 'appellate Review of Sentencing Fact Finding' 'objective Seriousness' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['plea of Guilty' 'offer to Supply Large Commercial Quantity of Ecstasy' 'supply Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'manifest Excess' 'appellate Review of Sentencing Fact Finding' 'objective Seriousness' '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 Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time of making the offer, the Applicant had access to and was in a position to actually supply 10,000 ecstasy tablets.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the Sequence 4 offence was towards the lower end of the middle of the range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for Sequence 4 was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for Sequence 6 was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the total effective sentence of 15 years with a non-parole period of 10 years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the sentencing judge, on the agreed facts and in the absence of evidence from the Applicant, to find beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicant had access to and was in a position to supply the 10,000 ecstasy tablets within the stated timeframe. The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the objective seriousness of the offer to supply offence, gave due weight to relevant matters including purity and the fact the proposed supply was to an undercover officer, and the sentences for Sequence 4, Sequence 6 and the total effective sentence were not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence be granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']