PG v R [2024] NSWCCA 141

PG v R [2024] NSWCCA 141

The sentencing judge did not deny procedural fairness or fail to give reasons. His Honour made clear during the sentence hearing that the court had to stand back and ensure any combined discount did not produce a sentence that was unreasonably disproportionate. The remarks on sentence transparently assessed the s 23 discounts, then applied the constraint in s 23(3) to reduce the combined discounts to 35%, and 40% for sequence 4 of 2021, because larger discounts would have made the sentences disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offending. That approach disclosed no error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['discount for Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities Under S 23 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw)' 'discount for Early Pleas of Guilty' 'drug Supply Offences' 'firearms Possession Offence' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'proportionality of Sentence Discounts']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['discount for Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities Under S 23 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (nsw)' 'discount for Early Pleas of Guilty' 'drug Supply Offences' 'firearms Possession Offence' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'proportionality of Sentence Discounts']

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 Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge denied procedural fairness by applying a lesser s 23 discount than the applicant had submitted and the Crown had not disputed.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the discounts actually applied.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by reducing the assessed combined discounts to avoid sentences unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences under s 23(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not deny procedural fairness or fail to give reasons. His Honour made clear during the sentence hearing that the court had to stand back and ensure any combined discount did not produce a sentence that was unreasonably disproportionate. The remarks on sentence transparently assessed the s 23 discounts, then applied the constraint in s 23(3) to reduce the combined discounts to 35%, and 40% for sequence 4 of 2021, because larger discounts would have made the sentences disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offending. That approach disclosed no error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on 18 August 2023.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' 'Publication of the judgment is restricted to the parties, pending their advice to the Registrar, within 7 days from today, of any redactions that may be necessary to permit unrestricted publication.']