Matthews v R; New v R [2018] NSWCCA 186

Matthews v R; New v R [2018] NSWCCA 186

Leave to appeal was granted, but no ground justified intervention. The sentencing judge's description of the applicants as facilitators of supply was supported by the agreed facts and evidence, and any reference to a five-month period rather than about three and a half months was inconsequential to objective seriousness. New's fresh evidence did not establish exceptional hardship to her children or warrant reduction of the non-parole period. Matthews had no justifiable sense of grievance because the differences between his and New's circumstances did not clearly require a lower head sentence, and he received a shorter non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supplying Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'fresh Evidence' 'hardship to Dependent Children' 'parity' 'form 1 Offences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supplying Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'fresh Evidence' 'hardship to Dependent Children' 'parity' 'form 1 Offences' 'non Parole Period']

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 Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of each applicant's offending." 'Whether describing the applicants as "facilitators of supply" and "a step or two up in the chain of supply from those user/dealers at street level" involved error.' "Whether the sentencing judge's reference to offending over a five-month period materially misstated the duration of the offending." "Whether fresh evidence concerning New's children demonstrated exceptional hardship warranting sentencing leniency." 'Whether Matthews had a justifiable sense of grievance on parity grounds because he received the same head sentence as New.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted, but no ground justified intervention. The sentencing judge's description of the applicants as facilitators of supply was supported by the agreed facts and evidence, and any reference to a five-month period rather than about three and a half months was inconsequential to objective seriousness. New's fresh evidence did not establish exceptional hardship to her children or warrant reduction of the non-parole period. Matthews had no justifiable sense of grievance because the differences between his and New's circumstances did not clearly require a lower head sentence, and he received a shorter non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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