MD v. Regina [2006] NSWCCA 142

MD v. Regina [2006] NSWCCA 142

The Court held that s.21A had not been shown to have been breached, because the sentencing judge considered the applicant's record, prospects, age-related circumstances and guilty plea. The failure to quantify the guilty plea discount did not warrant appellate intervention. Having regard to the nature and extent of the drug supply enterprise, the applicant's organisational role, and the practical effect that the sentences delayed parole eligibility by about 1 year and 9 months, the sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 S.21 A' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'concurrent Sentences' 'drug Supply']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 S.21 A' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'concurrent Sentences' 'drug Supply']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences for supplying heroin and cocaine were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account s.21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to specify the reduction given for the applicant's guilty plea and its utilitarian value."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that s.21A had not been shown to have been breached, because the sentencing judge considered the applicant's record, prospects, age-related circumstances and guilty plea. The failure to quantify the guilty plea discount did not warrant appellate intervention. Having regard to the nature and extent of the drug supply enterprise, the applicant's organisational role, and the practical effect that the sentences delayed parole eligibility by about 1 year and 9 months, the sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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