R v Ramaz [2003] NSWCCA 91

R v Ramaz [2003] NSWCCA 91

The sentencing discretion of the District Court miscarried in respect to count 13; the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the objective criminality, the extent of trafficking, and the need for deterrence. Appropriate cumulative sentencing and consideration of 'special circumstances' justified intervention and re-imposition of a custodial sentence with a reduced non-parole period.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Sam Ramaz
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Supply of Prohibited Drug, Crown Appeal, Personal and General Deterrence
Criminal Law Sentencing Supply of Prohibited Drug Crown Appeal Personal and General Deterrence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Sam Ramaz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the sentence imposed by the District Court manifestly inadequate?
  2. 2 Did the sentencing judge err in his appreciation of the objective facts and circumstances?
  3. 3 Was the sentence on count 13 disproportionate?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion of the District Court miscarried in respect to count 13; the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the objective criminality, the extent of trafficking, and the need for deterrence. Appropriate cumulative sentencing and consideration of 'special circumstances' justified intervention and re-imposition of a custodial sentence with a reduced non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sentences on counts 1-12 confirmed
  • Sentence on count 13 quashed