R v Frazer [2004] NSWCCA 111

R v Frazer [2004] NSWCCA 111

The applicant was the more significant operator in the joint enterprise compared to Walmsley; the sentencing judge properly considered subjective features, extra charges, and different roles, and there was no error in relation to parity. Therefore, no justifiable sense of grievance exists and there is no miscarriage in sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'parity Principle']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'parity Principle']

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

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive due to parity with a co-offender' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the parity principle']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was the more significant operator in the joint enterprise compared to Walmsley; the sentencing judge properly considered subjective features, extra charges, and different roles, and there was no error in relation to parity. Therefore, no justifiable sense of grievance exists and there is no miscarriage in sentencing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Extension of time for the making of the application for leave to appeal be granted' 'Application for leave to appeal be granted' 'The appeal be dismissed']