See v R [2020] NSWCCA 272

See v R [2020] NSWCCA 272

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because s 45(1) was not engaged in the manner alleged, the failure to indicate non-parole periods under s 54B(4) did not require appellate intervention, the sentencing judge considered the relevant features of objective seriousness when the reasons were read as a whole, and the aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given Mr See's multiple serious drug-related offences and role in the offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'proceeds of Crime' 'possession of Prohibited Weapons']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'proceeds of Crime' 'possession of Prohibited Weapons']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge breached s 45(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by not imposing a non-parole period in respect of counts carrying standard non-parole periods.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the requirements of s 54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective criminality of the indicative sentences.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because s 45(1) was not engaged in the manner alleged, the failure to indicate non-parole periods under s 54B(4) did not require appellate intervention, the sentencing judge considered the relevant features of objective seriousness when the reasons were read as a whole, and the aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given Mr See's multiple serious drug-related offences and role in the offending.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']