NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Prince v R [2020] NSWCCA 110 Hearing dates: 17 April 2020 Date of orders: 04 June 2020 Decision date: 04 June 2020 Before: Bell P at [1] Davies J at [2] Button J at [100] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME – appeal – sentencing - drug offences - supply prohibited drug on ongoing basis – further count of ongoing supply on Form 1 – second count of knowingly direct activities of a criminal group – offences of supply prohibited drug and knowingly deal with proceeds of crime on second Form 1
SENTENCING - appeal - whether sentencing judge found ongoing supply offence was aggravated by being committed for financial reward - whether judge erred in determination of objective seriousness – whether sentencing judge took into account positive features of applicant's subjective circumstances - whether judge failed to deal in substance with question of likelihood of reoffending and rehabilitation – relationship between rehabilitation and likelihood of reoffending - issue of parity with co-offender – where co-offender's lower sentence reduced further after earlier appeal – where co-offender found to have minimal role in the drug supply – where co-offender charged only with drug supply – no justifiable sense of grievance - whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive – reliance on statistics – where each ongoing supply offence exceeded the minimum number of supplies to constitute the offences - generous reduction of the non-parole period by sentencing judge - sentence not manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss21A, 93T Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25A Cases Cited: Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Hordern v R [2019] NSWCCA 210 Kay v R [2019] NSWCCA 275 Masters v R [2019] NSWCCA 233 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Newman v R [2018] NSWCCA 208 Obeid v R [2017] NSWCCA 221 Skocic v R [2014] NSWCCA 225 Zuffo v R [2017] NSWCCA 187 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bianca Prince (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M C Ramage QC (Applicant) D Patch (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate