Romano v R; Romano v R [2009] NSWCCA 63
Neither applicant demonstrated sentencing error. The differences in roles and criminality justified the sentences imposed. The discount for Nicola Romano’s late plea was not erroneous. No justifiable sense of grievance arose from comparisons to co-offenders. Sentences lay well within the proper range of sentencing discretion.
- Parties
- Applicant: Nicola Romano; Applicant: Luigi Romano; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Cannabis Cultivation, Form 1 Procedure, Parity, Utilitarian Value of Guilty Plea, Role in Criminal Hierarchy, Manifest Excess in Sentencing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nicola Romano
Applicant
Luigi Romano
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge made errors in sentencing Nicola Romano and Luigi Romano
- 2 Whether there were errors regarding the utilitarian discount for a late guilty plea
- 3 Whether there was a justifiable sense of grievance in comparing the sentences of co-offenders (parity)
Ratio Decidendi
Neither applicant demonstrated sentencing error. The differences in roles and criminality justified the sentences imposed. The discount for Nicola Romano’s late plea was not erroneous. No justifiable sense of grievance arose from comparisons to co-offenders. Sentences lay well within the proper range of sentencing discretion.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- In the applications of Nicola Romano and Luigi Romano, grant leave to appeal against sentence but dismiss the appeals.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment