REGINA v Wayne Raymond MOULE [2003] NSWCCA 29

REGINA v Wayne Raymond MOULE [2003] NSWCCA 29

There was no error in the sentencing; differences in criminal record and parole status justified the disparity, and Judge Milson's sentences were not manifestly excessive or outside the range of legitimate discretion. Special circumstances were not established for a longer parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'parity of Sentencing' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'parity of Sentencing' 'special Circumstances']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were manifestly excessive' 'Whether there was unjustified disparity between sentences imposed on co-offenders' 'Whether Judge Milson erred in failing to find special circumstances justifying a departure from statutory non-parole period']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error in the sentencing; differences in criminal record and parole status justified the disparity, and Judge Milson's sentences were not manifestly excessive or outside the range of legitimate discretion. Special circumstances were not established for a longer parole period.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • []