Can v R [2023] NSWCCA 179

Can v R [2023] NSWCCA 179

The applicant was rightly convicted following clear admissions and absence of any real question as to guilt; no error by sentencing judge in reliance on translated phone records as only relationship was demonstrated; mental health, age, and COVID-19 impact were properly considered but insufficient evidence showed greater hardship or material impact; sentence imposed was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given offending, quantity, applicant’s history, and parole status.

Parties
Applicant: Vural Can; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction refused; leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Guilty Plea, Sentencing Principles, Mental Health in Sentencing, COVID 19 Impact on Sentence, Age in Sentencing
Criminal Law Drug Offences Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Guilty Plea Sentencing Principles Mental Health in Sentencing COVID 19 Impact on Sentence +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vural Can

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant should be permitted to withdraw guilty plea and appeal conviction
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred in considering wrongly translated phone records
  3. 3 Whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was rightly convicted following clear admissions and absence of any real question as to guilt; no error by sentencing judge in reliance on translated phone records as only relationship was demonstrated; mental health, age, and COVID-19 impact were properly considered but insufficient evidence showed greater hardship or material impact; sentence imposed was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given offending, quantity, applicant’s history, and parole status.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction refused; leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Time for filing Notice of Appeal extended to 4 October 2022
  • Leave to appeal against conviction refused