Tony LICASTRO v R [2008] NSWCCA 131

Tony LICASTRO v R [2008] NSWCCA 131

The sentencing judge did not err. The applicant's continued denial, long-standing drug use and failure to complete rehabilitation did not support findings that he was unlikely to re-offend or had good rehabilitation prospects. His prior traffic convictions could properly be described as demonstrating disregard for the law and were not shown to have been used as an aggravating factor. Although the disparity between the applicant's sentence and Lucisano's was marked, it was rationally explained by the applicant's role as a principal or entrepreneur in a large commercial cannabis cultivation enterprise and by different subjective circumstances. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Taking Part in Cultivation of Prohibited Plants' 'large Commercial Quantity of Cannabis Plants' 'parity Principle' 'risk of Re Offending' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'prior Criminal Convictions' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['knowingly Taking Part in Cultivation of Prohibited Plants' 'large Commercial Quantity of Cannabis Plants' 'parity Principle' 'risk of Re Offending' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'prior Criminal Convictions' 'manifest Excess']

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

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the principle of parity between the applicant and co-offenders.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find that the applicant was unlikely to re-offend.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find that the applicant had good prospects of rehabilitation.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into consideration the applicant's prior criminal convictions." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err. The applicant's continued denial, long-standing drug use and failure to complete rehabilitation did not support findings that he was unlikely to re-offend or had good rehabilitation prospects. His prior traffic convictions could properly be described as demonstrating disregard for the law and were not shown to have been used as an aggravating factor. Although the disparity between the applicant's sentence and Lucisano's was marked, it was rationally explained by the applicant's role as a principal or entrepreneur in a large commercial cannabis cultivation enterprise and by different subjective circumstances. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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