Lee v R [2021] NSWCCA 137

Lee v R [2021] NSWCCA 137

The Court held that the sentence, though stern, was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. No error was identified in the sentencing judge’s reasoning, and it was open to find the applicant was a mid-level supplier. The applicant’s subjective position did not merit leniency, and general as well as specific deterrence were appropriately prioritised. Manifest excess was not demonstrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'drug Offences' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'drug Offences' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Principles']

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 Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive for the supply of less than commercial quantity of methylamphetamine']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the sentence, though stern, was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. No error was identified in the sentencing judge’s reasoning, and it was open to find the applicant was a mid-level supplier. The applicant’s subjective position did not merit leniency, and general as well as specific deterrence were appropriately prioritised. Manifest excess was not demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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