Hudson v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 59

Hudson v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 59

There was no marked, manifestly excessive, serious or unjustifiable disparity between the applicant's sentence and those of Griffiths or Campbell. The applicant had a more significant and relevant criminal history than Griffiths, did not plead guilty, showed no contrition, and was found to have a risk of further offending. Campbell was sentenced for only one offence, had no prior criminal history, was remorseful, had good rehabilitation prospects and was co-operative. The sentences were not excessive, particularly because they were made wholly concurrent and reflected the need for general deterrence in drug manufacture offences. No lesser sentence was justified for the attempt counts in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manufacture of Prohibited Drugs' 'attempt to Manufacture Prohibited Drugs' 'conspiracy to Manufacture Prohibited Drugs' 'parity of Sentence' 'severity of Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manufacture of Prohibited Drugs' 'attempt to Manufacture Prohibited Drugs' 'conspiracy to Manufacture Prohibited Drugs' 'parity of Sentence' 'severity of Sentence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's sentence created a marked or manifestly excessive disparity with the sentences imposed on co-offenders Griffiths and Campbell giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance." 'Whether the sentences imposed were unduly harsh or severe.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not imposing lesser sentences for the attempt counts.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no marked, manifestly excessive, serious or unjustifiable disparity between the applicant's sentence and those of Griffiths or Campbell. The applicant had a more significant and relevant criminal history than Griffiths, did not plead guilty, showed no contrition, and was found to have a risk of further offending. Campbell was sentenced for only one offence, had no prior criminal history, was remorseful, had good rehabilitation prospects and was co-operative. The sentences were not excessive, particularly because they were made wholly concurrent and reflected the need for general deterrence in drug manufacture offences. No lesser sentence was justified for the attempt counts in...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']