Le v R [2022] NSWCCA 243

Le v R [2022] NSWCCA 243

The sentencing judge did not err in applying special circumstances because the remarks, properly understood, meant that the applicant would receive a longer parole period as the consequence of reducing the non-parole period, not by increasing the total sentence after fixing the non-parole period. Nor was error established in relation to the Form 1 offences: despite infelicity of expression, the judge expressly recognised the need to avoid double counting and the Crown concession that there was no evidence the applicant defaced the firearms, and took the defaced firearm offences into account only in the permissible way when considering any increase for the primary offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['firearms Offences' 'drug Supply Offences' 'prohibited Weapon Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'form 1 Offences' 'objective Seriousness']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['firearms Offences' 'drug Supply Offences' 'prohibited Weapon Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'form 1 Offences' 'objective Seriousness']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, contrary to ss 44(2A) and (2B) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the sentencing judge erred by increasing the additional term of the aggregate sentence rather than reducing the non-parole period after finding special circumstances.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences of possessing the Glock Model 17 and Glock Model 26 pistols by taking into account Form 1 offences concerning defaced firearms.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in applying special circumstances because the remarks, properly understood, meant that the applicant would receive a longer parole period as the consequence of reducing the non-parole period, not by increasing the total sentence after fixing the non-parole period. Nor was error established in relation to the Form 1 offences: despite infelicity of expression, the judge expressly recognised the need to avoid double counting and the Crown concession that there was no evidence the applicant defaced the firearms, and took the defaced firearm offences into account only in the permissible way when considering any increase for the primary offences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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