Neal v R [2019] NSWCCA 104
The errors alleged by Mr Neal in the pre-sentence report and other factual matters did not influence or affect the sentencing discretion; the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion was correct and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, unreasonable, or plainly unjust. The orders were to grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Neal; Respondent: Crown
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Decision
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Supply of Prohibited Drugs, Appeal Against Sentence, Concurrent Sentencing, Manifestly Excessive Sentence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Neal
Applicant
Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge was provided with incorrect information in pre-sentence report
- 2 Whether mention of gun by prosecutor and sentencing judge during sentencing proceedings was misleading
- 3 Whether sentencing judge erred by not backdating sentence to date applicant entered custody
Ratio Decidendi
The errors alleged by Mr Neal in the pre-sentence report and other factual matters did not influence or affect the sentencing discretion; the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion was correct and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, unreasonable, or plainly unjust. The orders were to grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
- Dismiss the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment