Regina v Jamieson Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276

Regina v Jamieson Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276

The sentences imposed on the respondent for supplying commercial quantities of ecstasy were manifestly inadequate given the gravity, planning, and scale of the offences, the respondent’s role as principal supplier, his prior convictions, and the ongoing nature of the drug distribution operation. The Court quashed the original sentences and re-sentenced accordingly, emphasizing the need for deterrence given the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Sentence quashed and new sentence imposed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'parity']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'parity']

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 Against Sentence / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate for supply of commercial quantity of prohibited drugs' 'Circumstances in which moral culpability is higher for principal offender than accessory' 'Consideration of parity between co-offenders']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed on the respondent for supplying commercial quantities of ecstasy were manifestly inadequate given the gravity, planning, and scale of the offences, the respondent’s role as principal supplier, his prior convictions, and the ongoing nature of the drug distribution operation. The Court quashed the original sentences and re-sentenced accordingly, emphasizing the need for deterrence given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Sentence quashed and new sentence imposed

Orders

  • ['Sentences of Nicholson DCJ of 12 May 2006 quashed.' 'On count 1 the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for four years commencing on 23 February 2004 and expiring on 22 February 2008, with a non-parole period of two years commencing on 23 February 2004 and expiring on 22 February 2006.' 'On count 2 the...