Murray v R [2017] NSWCCA 262

Murray v R [2017] NSWCCA 262

The sentencing judge failed to transparently state or indicate the application of the discount for the applicant’s early guilty pleas and relied on facts about street level drug purity without evidence or procedural fairness. These errors infected the sentencing discretion, requiring resentencing, but the judge's assessment of objective seriousness and parole ratio otherwise were open on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed, resentencing ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Discount for Guilty Pleas' 'procedural Fairness' 'role and Participation in Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Discount for Guilty Pleas' 'procedural Fairness' 'role and Participation in Criminal Enterprise']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal – Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account or explain the discount for early guilty pleas' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in postulating street level purity without evidence and failed to afford procedural fairness' 'Whether undue weight was placed on quantity and purity of the drugs' 'Whether objective seriousness was correctly assessed' 'Whether proper regard was given to special circumstances in the parole ratio' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge failed to transparently state or indicate the application of the discount for the applicant’s early guilty pleas and relied on facts about street level drug purity without evidence or procedural fairness. These errors infected the sentencing discretion, requiring resentencing, but the judge's assessment of objective seriousness and parole ratio otherwise were open on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, resentencing ordered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentences imposed by McLennan SC DCJ for counts 1 and 2 are quashed.' 'On count 1, applicant sentenced to 10 years 6 months imprisonment (non-parole period 7 years, from 11 September 2015 to 10 September 2022; balance expiring 10 March 2026).' 'On count 2, applicant...