R v. Depalo [2003] NSWCCA 80

R v. Depalo [2003] NSWCCA 80

The sentence was manifestly excessive because the offence was an isolated instance of supply of a relatively small quantity of cocaine to a person not shown to be vulnerable, with no established aggravating features, and the sentencing judge's custodial sentence appears to have been influenced by an incorrect statement and application of the drug-trafficking sentencing principle. On re-sentence, taking into account the guilty plea, delay, lack of prior convictions, good conduct, family and business responsibilities, and time already served by periodic detention, the appropriate penalty was a fine of $3300.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence for Supplying a Prohibited Drug / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant fined $3300 in lieu of the sentence imposed and allowed 3 months to pay.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'cocaine' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'periodic Detention' 'non Custodial Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'guilty Plea' 'delay in Prosecution']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'cocaine' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'periodic Detention' 'non Custodial Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'guilty Plea' 'delay in Prosecution']

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 for Supplying a Prohibited Drug / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of 2 years 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period to be served by periodic detention was manifestly excessive for a single supply of 6.25 grams of cocaine.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating custodial sentences as generally required except in exceptional circumstances in the circumstances of this isolated supply.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in approach to periodic detention.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly excessive because the offence was an isolated instance of supply of a relatively small quantity of cocaine to a person not shown to be vulnerable, with no established aggravating features, and the sentencing judge's custodial sentence appears to have been influenced by an incorrect statement and application of the drug-trafficking sentencing principle. On re-sentence, taking into account the guilty plea, delay, lack of prior convictions, good conduct, family and business responsibilities, and time already served by periodic detention, the appropriate penalty was a fine of $3300.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant fined $3300 in lieu of the sentence imposed and allowed 3 months to pay.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal allowed; sentence quashed.' 'In lieu of the sentence imposed the applicant is fined $3300 and allowed 3 months from today in which to pay the fine.']