R v Chalmers [2000] NSWCCA 463

R v Chalmers [2000] NSWCCA 463

The learned sentencing judge corrected his factual error before passing sentence, accepted concessions made by the Crown regarding presence of a third party (Hoskin), and did not otherwise depart from correct sentencing procedure or vitiate discretion; thus, there was no miscarriage of justice warranting intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'supplying Prohibited Drugs' 'errors of Fact' 'credibility of Witnesses']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'supplying Prohibited Drugs' 'errors of Fact' 'credibility of Witnesses']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether sentencing judge's error of fact and assessment of credibility rendered the sentence unsafe" 'Whether sentence should be remitted for re-sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The learned sentencing judge corrected his factual error before passing sentence, accepted concessions made by the Crown regarding presence of a third party (Hoskin), and did not otherwise depart from correct sentencing procedure or vitiate discretion; thus, there was no miscarriage of justice warranting intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed']