Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 Hearing dates: 12 August 2020 Decision date: 21 October 2020 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Johnson J at [15]; Rothman J at [75] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME – Sentence Appeal – Applicability of Guideline judgment in Henry – method of application – manifest excess – no manifest excess – majority held no error in method of application of guideline judgment – by majority, appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 52A, 60(1), 97, 98, 112, 189 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 36-42A, 54A, 54B, Part 3 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3) Cases Cited: Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol under Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety And Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No 3 of 2002) (2004) 61 NSWLR 305; [2004] NSWCCA 303 Attorney-General's Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Fahs v R [2007] NSWCCA 26 Fedele v R (2015) 257 A Crim R 78; [2015] NSWCCA 286 Hampton v R (2014) 243 A Crim R 193; [2014] NSWCCA 131 Hawat v R [2020] NSWCCA 121 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Lee v R [2016] NSWCCA 145 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 R v Amati (2019) 279 A Crim R 73; [2019] NSWCCA 193 R v Dennis [2015] NSWCCA 297 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 R v JW (2010) 77 NSWLR 7; [2010] NSWCCA 49 R v Mulligan [2016] NSWCCA 47 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General's Application under s.37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No. 2 of 2002) (2002) 137 A Crim R 196; [2002] NSWCCA 515 Re Attorney-General's Application [No 1] under s 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act; R v Ponfield; R v Scott; R v Ryan; R v Johnson (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435 RL v R [2015] NSWCCA 106 Tepania v R (2018) 275 A Crim R 233; [2018] NSWCCA 247 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Williams v R [2010] NSWCCA 15 Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Texts Cited: Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Sentencing Bench Book Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, 23 October 2002, 5815 (Robert Debus, Attorney-General) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Natasha Foaiaulima (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J. Brock (Applicant) C. Curtis (Respondent)