R v McVittie [2002] NSWCCA 344

R v McVittie [2002] NSWCCA 344

The effective sentence of 15 months full-time custody, 7 months periodic detention and 12 months parole was manifestly too lenient for a commercial drug supply operation involving methylamphetamine and cannabis leaf, committed while the respondent was on parole and for commercial gain. The sentencing judge materially erred by treating self-interested evidence of rehabilitation as contrition and by apparently giving credit for a bail reporting condition. After allowing for the plea, health, time in custody, time spent in periodic detention and double jeopardy on a Crown appeal, the proper substituted sentence was 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; sentence varied.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'periodic Detention' 'guilty Plea' 'contrition' 'parole as Aggravating Circumstance' 'time in Custody and Bail Reporting Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'periodic Detention' 'guilty Plea' 'contrition' 'parole as Aggravating Circumstance' 'time in Custody and Bail Reporting Conditions']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for supplying methylamphetamine, with a cannabis leaf supply offence taken into account, was manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating the respondent's stated determination to change his life as contrition." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by giving sentencing credit for a daily police reporting condition while the respondent was on bail.' 'Whether a periodic detention order could be made for only part of a sentence of imprisonment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The effective sentence of 15 months full-time custody, 7 months periodic detention and 12 months parole was manifestly too lenient for a commercial drug supply operation involving methylamphetamine and cannabis leaf, committed while the respondent was on parole and for commercial gain. The sentencing judge materially erred by treating self-interested evidence of rehabilitation as contrition and by apparently giving credit for a bail reporting condition. After allowing for the plea, health, time in custody, time spent in periodic detention and double jeopardy on a Crown appeal, the proper substituted sentence was 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; sentence varied.

Orders

  • ['Sentence varied to imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months to commence on 5 January 2001 and to expire on 4 July 2004.' 'Non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months to commence on 5 January 2001 and to expire on 4 May 2003.' '5 May 2003 specified as the earliest date on which the respondent may be released on parole.']