Mammone (Pino) v R [2013] NSWCCA 325

Mammone (Pino) v R [2013] NSWCCA 325

The sentencing judge erred by applying a single 20% plea discount to all charges instead of separately assessing the utilitarian value of the pleas for the manufacture and supply offences. The applicant was entitled to a 25% discount for the manufacture offence because he pleaded guilty to that offence earlier, while a 20% discount for the later supply plea was not inappropriate. The one month custodial sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm was not plainly unjust or outside the sentencing discretion. Because the sentences also required restructuring, the appeal was allowed in part and an aggregate sentence was imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application Seeking Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentences quashed and aggregate sentence imposed in lieu.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'manufacture Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'knowingly Take Part in Supply of Not Less Than Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'possess Drug Manufacturing Apparatus' 'possess Unregistered Firearm' 'not Keep Firearm Safely' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'firearms Offences'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'manufacture Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'knowingly Take Part in Supply of Not Less Than Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'possess Drug Manufacturing Apparatus' 'possess Unregistered Firearm' 'not Keep Firearm Safely' 'manifest Excess']

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 Application Seeking Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant received the proper discount for his pleas of guilty.' 'Whether the sentence for the offence of possess unregistered firearm was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentences required restructuring because fixed terms had been accumulated contrary to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by applying a single 20% plea discount to all charges instead of separately assessing the utilitarian value of the pleas for the manufacture and supply offences. The applicant was entitled to a 25% discount for the manufacture offence because he pleaded guilty to that offence earlier, while a 20% discount for the later supply plea was not inappropriate. The one month custodial sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm was not plainly unjust or outside the sentencing discretion. Because the sentences also required restructuring, the appeal was allowed in part and an aggregate sentence was imposed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentences quashed and aggregate sentence imposed in lieu.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Allow the appeal in part.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by Knox SC DCJ and in lieu impose the following aggregate sentence: a non-parole period of 6 years and one month is imposed to date from 10 March 2010, expiring 9 April 2016, with a balance of term of 3 years, expiring 9 April...