Regina v Hagopian [2001] NSWCCA 149

Regina v Hagopian [2001] NSWCCA 149

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the asserted sentencing errors provided a sufficient ground for intervention, the incorrect reference to amphetamine quantity would not have affected the sentence, and the sentence of two years and eight months with a two-year non-parole period was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'supplying Prohibited Drugs' 'prohibited Drugs' 'guilty Plea' 'rehabilitation' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'supplying Prohibited Drugs' 'prohibited Drugs' 'guilty Plea' 'rehabilitation' 'special Circumstances' '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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to express the extent of any credit for the guilty plea.' 'Whether the sentencing judge wrongly rejected psychologist material relevant to rehabilitation and special circumstances.' 'Whether the sentencing judge sentenced on an incorrect factual basis as to the amphetamine quantity for an offence taken into account.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to make a finding about whether the applicant was a courier.' 'Whether the sentencing judge wrongly treated telephone-call evidence as significant evidence of other offences.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the asserted sentencing errors provided a sufficient ground for intervention, the incorrect reference to amphetamine quantity would not have affected the sentence, and the sentence of two years and eight months with a two-year non-parole period was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused.']