R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66

R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66

Both sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, particularly as a result of insufficient accumulation for distinct offences and improper mitigation for depression without a proven causal link to offending. The respondent's significant organisational role, the quantity and value of the drugs, and the need for general deterrence required heavier sentences. The principle of totality mandated greater accumulation between the importation and supply sentences, and the SNPP for methylamphetamine supply required more substantial terms. Accordingly, the sentences were increased and the periods of non-parole extended.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Aziz Cidan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Determination of Crown Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences varied.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Crown Appeals, Drug Offences, Manifest Inadequacy, Principle of Totality, Standard Non Parole Period
Criminal Law Sentencing Crown Appeals Drug Offences Manifest Inadequacy Principle of Totality Standard 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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Aziz Cidan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Determination of Crown Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by Puckeridge A-DCJ and Haesler DCJ were manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether the principle of totality was correctly applied to the accumulation of sentences
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's depressive illness and opium use were properly taken into account as mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

Both sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, particularly as a result of insufficient accumulation for distinct offences and improper mitigation for depression without a proven causal link to offending. The respondent's significant organisational role, the quantity and value of the drugs, and the need for general deterrence required heavier sentences. The principle of totality mandated greater accumulation between the importation and supply sentences, and the SNPP for methylamphetamine supply required more substantial terms. Accordingly, the sentences were increased and the periods of non-parole extended.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences varied.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal.
  • Vary the sentence imposed by Puckeridge A-DCJ on 8 October 2013 by altering the commencement date in respect of count 2 from 18 July 2012 to 18 July 2014.