Robinson v R [2012] NSWCCA 26

Robinson v R [2012] NSWCCA 26

The sentencing judge erred in the extent of accumulation of the non-parole period for Count 2. Although partial accumulation was open because the offences involved different drugs, both drugs were found at the same locations in the same premises at the same time, creating commonality that required explanation and a lesser degree of accumulation. The overall resulting sentence was unreasonably high, and a proper application of the totality principle required Count 2 to commence two years after the sentence for Count 1 commenced, producing an overall non-parole period of five years with no change to the additional term.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence Imposed by Solomon DCJ on 31 October 2008
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; sentence for Count 2 quashed; Applicant resentenced on Count 2 with a lesser period of accumulation.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'accumulation and Concurrence of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'accumulation and Concurrence of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Period']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence Imposed by Solomon DCJ on 31 October 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the manner and extent of accumulation of the sentence for Count 2 was erroneous in the circumstances of the case.' 'Whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether a lesser degree of concurrency was required to reflect the total criminality of the two drug supply offences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in the extent of accumulation of the non-parole period for Count 2. Although partial accumulation was open because the offences involved different drugs, both drugs were found at the same locations in the same premises at the same time, creating commonality that required explanation and a lesser degree of accumulation. The overall resulting sentence was unreasonably high, and a proper application of the totality principle required Count 2 to commence two years after the sentence for Count 1 commenced, producing an overall non-parole period of five years with no change to the additional term.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; sentence for Count 2 quashed; Applicant resentenced on Count 2 with a lesser period of accumulation.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Quash the sentence of Solomon DCJ of 31 October 2008 in respect of Count 2.' 'In lieu thereof sentence the Appellant to a non-parole period of 3 years commencing 17 August 2009 and expiring 16 August 2012 with an additional term of 3 years to commence at the expiration of the non-parole...