Stack v R [2008] NSWCCA 271

Stack v R [2008] NSWCCA 271

The sentencing Judge did not err in describing the applicant as a middleman because the applicant was present when the supply sales took place and had handled money and drugs, unlike the co-offender Cruickshank whose role was limited to facilitating communications and meetings. The comparative cases relied on by the applicant involved materially different facts or did not demonstrate that the sentences imposed were outside the appropriate range. The sentences were therefore not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas; Leave to Appeal Granted But Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Methylamphetamine' 'ongoing Supply of Methylamphetamine' 'manifest Excess' 'parity or Comparison With Other Sentences' 'role of Offender in Drug Supply']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Methylamphetamine' 'ongoing Supply of Methylamphetamine' 'manifest Excess' 'parity or Comparison With Other Sentences' 'role of Offender in Drug Supply']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas; Leave to Appeal Granted But Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing Judge erred in finding that the applicant's role in the supply count was that of a middleman rather than a facilitator." 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive by comparison with sentences in other ongoing supply and supply cases.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing Judge did not err in describing the applicant as a middleman because the applicant was present when the supply sales took place and had handled money and drugs, unlike the co-offender Cruickshank whose role was limited to facilitating communications and meetings. The comparative cases relied on by the applicant involved materially different facts or did not demonstrate that the sentences imposed were outside the appropriate range. The sentences were therefore not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']