P v R [2023] NSWCCA 297

P v R [2023] NSWCCA 297

The applicant did not establish a justifiable sense of grievance. The complaints based on C and Z were untenable because their sentences had already been reduced by this Court to achieve parity with the applicant. As to SF, although SF was marginally senior to the applicant in the offending hierarchy, the applicant's longer starting point was adequately explained by his more significant criminal history, the denial of leniency available to SF, the guarded assessment of the applicant's rehabilitation, the need for personal deterrence, and the Form 1 offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity in Sentencing' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'manufacture of a Large Commercial Quantity of Mdma' 'participation in a Criminal Group' 'guilty Plea and Assistance Discounts' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['parity in Sentencing' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'manufacture of a Large Commercial Quantity of Mdma' 'participation in a Criminal Group' 'guilty Plea and Assistance Discounts' 'form 1 Offences']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance in light of the sentences imposed on co-offenders C, Z and SF.' "Whether the earlier appellate reductions of the sentences imposed on C and Z supported a further reduction of the applicant's sentence." "Whether the longer starting point for the applicant's sentence compared with SF was justified by differences in criminal history, rehabilitation, personal deterrence and Form 1 offences."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish a justifiable sense of grievance. The complaints based on C and Z were untenable because their sentences had already been reduced by this Court to achieve parity with the applicant. As to SF, although SF was marginally senior to the applicant in the offending hierarchy, the applicant's longer starting point was adequately explained by his more significant criminal history, the denial of leniency available to SF, the guarded assessment of the applicant's rehabilitation, the need for personal deterrence, and the Form 1 offences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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