Soames v R [2017] NSWCCA 158

Soames v R [2017] NSWCCA 158

For the June offence, the sentence imposed on the appellant gave rise to a marked disparity compared to sentences imposed on Daniel and Brian Grover, despite his lower role, higher guilty plea discount, and absence of prior record. The disparity justified appellate intervention to restore due proportion and equal justice. The proper sentence for the June offence was a term of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, adjusted to reflect the appellant's specific circumstances and ensure parity.

Parties
Appellant: Matthew William Soames; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Parity Principle, Appeal Against Sentence, Supplying Prohibited Drugs
Criminal Law Sentencing Parity Principle Appeal Against Sentence Supplying Prohibited Drugs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew William Soames

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for the June offence was disparate and unjust compared to sentences imposed on co-offenders Daniel and Brian Grover
  2. 2 Whether the parity principle required the appellant's sentence to be reduced
  3. 3 Appropriate sentence for the June offence given the differences in roles and subjective circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

For the June offence, the sentence imposed on the appellant gave rise to a marked disparity compared to sentences imposed on Daniel and Brian Grover, despite his lower role, higher guilty plea discount, and absence of prior record. The disparity justified appellate intervention to restore due proportion and equal justice. The proper sentence for the June offence was a term of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, adjusted to reflect the appellant's specific circumstances and ensure parity.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld.

Orders

  • Sentence imposed by English DCJ on 8 March 2013 with respect to the offence of supplying a prohibited drug (not less than commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 quashed.
  • In lieu thereof, the appellant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months commencing 8 January 2014 and expiring 7 July 2017, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months expiring 7 January 2020.