Regina v Millerat [2005] NSWCCA 142

Regina v Millerat [2005] NSWCCA 142

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because, although it was open to find that the respondent suffered from depression and anxiety and that this contributed to her vulnerability, the sentencing judge's starting point of eight years reflected an excessive reduction for those factors in the context of importing more than four times the minimum commercial quantity of MDMA. The Court set aside the sentence and resentenced the respondent, applying restraint on a Crown appeal and giving effect to the early guilty plea and other favourable factors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence in a Criminal Matter / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Resentencing
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentence imposed in the District Court quashed; respondent resentenced.
Legal Topics
['importation of Prohibited Drug' 'mdma' 'commercial Quantity' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'mental Illness or Psychological Disability in Sentencing' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'cooperation With Police' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['importation of Prohibited Drug' 'mdma' 'commercial Quantity' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'mental Illness or Psychological Disability in Sentencing' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'cooperation With Police' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']

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 in a Criminal Matter / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of five years six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years nine months for importing a commercial quantity of MDMA was manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge's finding that the respondent suffered from severe depression and anxiety was open on the evidence." "Whether the respondent's depression and anxiety justified reducing the weight accorded to general deterrence and the starting point for the head sentence." "Whether the respondent's cooperation with police warranted a further discount." 'What sentence should be imposed on resentencing after a successful Crown appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because, although it was open to find that the respondent suffered from depression and anxiety and that this contributed to her vulnerability, the sentencing judge's starting point of eight years reflected an excessive reduction for those factors in the context of importing more than four times the minimum commercial quantity of MDMA. The Court set aside the sentence and resentenced the respondent, applying restraint on a Crown appeal and giving effect to the early guilty plea and other favourable factors.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentence imposed in the District Court quashed; respondent resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal against sentence allowed.' 'Sentence imposed in the District Court quashed.' 'In lieu thereof the respondent sentenced to imprisonment for nine years with a non parole period of four years and six months, both to date from 13 June 2004. The non parole period specified to expire on 12 December 2008.'...