R v Kamminga [2003] NSWCCA 337

R v Kamminga [2003] NSWCCA 337

Given the applicant's chronic mental illness and the statistical and comparative analysis of sentences for ongoing supply offences, the original sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was manifestly excessive and should be quashed and replaced with a three-year sentence and a two-year non-parole period.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Kamminga; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sentence quashed. New sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs
Criminal Law Sentencing Ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Kamminga

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for ongoing supply of prohibited drugs was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant's chronic mental illness and the statistical and comparative analysis of sentences for ongoing supply offences, the original sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was manifestly excessive and should be quashed and replaced with a three-year sentence and a two-year non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sentence quashed. New sentence imposed.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal.
  • Allow the appeal and quash the sentence.