Mooney v R [2016] NSWCCA 303

Mooney v R [2016] NSWCCA 303

The sentencing judge erred by misstating the maximum penalty for cultivating a prohibited plant, which was material and infected her discretion. In sentencing afresh, considering the correct maximum penalty and all circumstances, a fixed term of six months imprisonment was appropriate for Sequence 3, with partial accumulation reflected by varying commencement dates for Sequences 1 and 2.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Granted and Re Sentencing
Outcome
leave to appeal granted, sentence for Sequence 3 set aside and re-sentenced, commencement dates for Sequences 1 and 2 varied
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'material Error' 'maximum Penalty' 'cultivation of Prohibited Plant' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'principle of Totality' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Custodial Sentencing Options']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'material Error' 'maximum Penalty' 'cultivation of Prohibited Plant' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'principle of Totality' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Custodial Sentencing Options']

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 / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Granted and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentencing judge misstated the maximum penalty for cultivating a prohibited plant' 'Whether the error was material and infected the sentencing discretion' 'Whether a lesser sentence is warranted at law for Sequence 3' 'Whether the commencement dates for sentences on Sequences 1 and 2 should be varied']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by misstating the maximum penalty for cultivating a prohibited plant, which was material and infected her discretion. In sentencing afresh, considering the correct maximum penalty and all circumstances, a fixed term of six months imprisonment was appropriate for Sequence 3, with partial accumulation reflected by varying commencement dates for Sequences 1 and 2.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal granted, sentence for Sequence 3 set aside and re-sentenced, commencement dates for Sequences 1 and 2 varied

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Set aside the sentence imposed by English DCJ on 18 September 2015 in relation to Sequence 3 and substitute a fixed term of imprisonment for six months to commence on 18 September 2015 and to expire on 17 March 2016.' 'Vary the commencement date of the sentence imposed by English DCJ on 18...