R v Younan [2018] NSWCCA 180

R v Younan [2018] NSWCCA 180

The aggregate sentence of 4 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 10 months was manifestly inadequate. The two s 25A ongoing supply offences involved continual offending over almost two months, many transactions, substantial methylamphetamine quantities, commercial and organised conduct, and a lucrative business; the firearm offence involving an easily concealable handgun materially added to the total criminality. Even accepting the sentencing judge's characterisation of the drug supply offences as mid-range or just below, the indicative sentences and aggregate sentence could not reflect the gross criminality of the offending, and the respondent's subjective circumstances did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Crown Sentence Appeal / Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court on 25 May 2018
Outcome
Crown appeal against sentence allowed; District Court aggregate sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'supply of Cannabis' 'supply of Unregistered Prohibited Firearm' 'dealing With Suspected Proceeds of Crime' 'construction of S 25 a of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw)' 'aggregate Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'supply of Cannabis' 'supply of Unregistered Prohibited Firearm' 'dealing With Suspected Proceeds of Crime' 'construction of S 25 a of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw)' 'aggregate Sentencing']

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 Sentence Appeal / Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court on 25 May 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) applies to supplies where the offender did not actually obtain financial or material reward.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in characterising the objective seriousness of counts 1 and 4 as mid-range or just below mid-range.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the Court should exercise the residual discretion to decline intervention despite manifest inadequacy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence of 4 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 10 months was manifestly inadequate. The two s 25A ongoing supply offences involved continual offending over almost two months, many transactions, substantial methylamphetamine quantities, commercial and organised conduct, and a lucrative business; the firearm offence involving an easily concealable handgun materially added to the total criminality. Even accepting the sentencing judge's characterisation of the drug supply offences as mid-range or just below, the indicative sentences and aggregate sentence could not reflect the gross criminality of the offending, and the respondent's subjective circumstances did...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal against sentence allowed; District Court aggregate sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal against sentence allowed.' 'Aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court on 25 May 2018 quashed and in lieu the offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months.']