Donnelly v R [2024] NSWCCA 151

Donnelly v R [2024] NSWCCA 151

The sentencing judge's assessment that count 1 fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness was open. The applicant knowingly stored more than six times a large commercial quantity of GBL for a person who would supply it, and it was open to characterise him as a trusted participant performing a not insignificant storage role. The inability to quantify the dollar value of the drugs did not preclude a finding that they were valuable. No House error was shown, and the manifest excess ground added no independent basis once the challenge to objective seriousness failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Heard Concurrently With the Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply' 'aiding and Abetting Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['drug Supply' 'aiding and Abetting Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Heard Concurrently With the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for filing the Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of count 1.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge's assessment that count 1 fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness was open. The applicant knowingly stored more than six times a large commercial quantity of GBL for a person who would supply it, and it was open to characterise him as a trusted participant performing a not insignificant storage role. The inability to quantify the dollar value of the drugs did not preclude a finding that they were valuable. No House error was shown, and the manifest excess ground added no independent basis once the challenge to objective seriousness failed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant an extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal up until 23 April 2024.' 'Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']