R v GREEN AND QUINN [2010] NSWCCA 313

R v GREEN AND QUINN [2010] NSWCCA 313

The Court found the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, due both to the objective seriousness and departures from statutory standards, yet considered the principle of parity and whether increasing the sentences would create unjustifiable disparity with a co-offender's unappealed manifestly lenient sentence. Hulme J proposed re-sentencing, factoring in the importance of Parliament's increased penalties for large commercial cannabis cultivation, but ultimately the majority exercised discretion to dismiss the Crown appeals given the risk of creating unacceptable disparity and a justifiable sense of grievance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentences quashed; respondents re-sentenced (but majority dismissed appeals to avoid disparity)
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'parity Principle' 'cultivation of Large Commercial Quantity of Cannabis' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifestly Inadequate Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'parity Principle' 'cultivation of Large Commercial Quantity of Cannabis' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifestly Inadequate Sentence']

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

Crown Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on respondents for cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis were manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the principle of parity between co-offenders precludes re-sentencing respondents where Crown did not appeal against sentence imposed on co-offender' 'What is the appropriate discount for a utilitarian plea']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, due both to the objective seriousness and departures from statutory standards, yet considered the principle of parity and whether increasing the sentences would create unjustifiable disparity with a co-offender's unappealed manifestly lenient sentence. Hulme J proposed re-sentencing, factoring in the importance of Parliament's increased penalties for large commercial cannabis cultivation, but ultimately the majority exercised discretion to dismiss the Crown appeals given the risk of creating unacceptable disparity and a justifiable sense of grievance.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentences quashed; respondents re-sentenced (but majority dismissed appeals to avoid disparity)

Orders

  • ['Quash the sentences imposed on the Respondents by Boulton ADCJ on 14 August 2009.' 'Sentence Brett Andrew Green to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 17 May 2009 with a further term of 2 years commencing on 17 May 2012.' 'Sentence Shane Darrin Quinn to imprisonment for a non-parole...