Bridge v R [2020] NSWCCA 233

Bridge v R [2020] NSWCCA 233

Although the applicant and Mr Hassian were co-offenders in substance in relation to the supply of methylamphetamine and the disparity between the undiscounted indicative sentences made the applicant's sense of grievance understandable, Mr Hassian's discounted indicative sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months was manifestly inadequate given the maximum penalty, standard non-parole period, objective seriousness, Form 1 matters and weak subjective case. That inadequacy meant the applicant had no legitimate sense of injustice. The applicant's indicative sentence and aggregate sentence were not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Time for leave to appeal extended; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentence' 'drug Supply Offences' 'manifest Inadequacy of Co Offender Sentence' 'extension of Time for Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Principle' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentence' 'drug Supply Offences' 'manifest Inadequacy of Co Offender Sentence' 'extension of Time for Leave to Appeal']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parity principle applied to the applicant and Abdul Hassian despite differences in the offences and aggregate sentences imposed.' "Whether the disparity between the applicant's indicative sentence for supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and Mr Hassian's indicative sentence gave rise to a legitimate sense of grievance." "Whether Mr Hassian's indicative sentence was so manifestly inadequate that it could not support appellate intervention on parity grounds." "Whether the applicant's indicative sentence or aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant and Mr Hassian were co-offenders in substance in relation to the supply of methylamphetamine and the disparity between the undiscounted indicative sentences made the applicant's sense of grievance understandable, Mr Hassian's discounted indicative sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months was manifestly inadequate given the maximum penalty, standard non-parole period, objective seriousness, Form 1 matters and weak subjective case. That inadequacy meant the applicant had no legitimate sense of injustice. The applicant's indicative sentence and aggregate sentence were not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Time for leave to appeal extended; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for leave to appeal.' 'Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']