Rodriego (a Pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 237

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rodriego (a Pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 237 Hearing dates: 1 December 2020 Date of orders: 1 October 2021 Decision date: 01 October 2021 Before: Brereton JA at [1]; Bellew J at [66]; Campbell J at [73] Decision: (1) Extend time for the applicant to file a Notice of Appeal to the date on which it was filed; (2) Grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed on [redacted] by the District Court; (3) Allow the appeal; and (4) Quash the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court on [redacted], and in lieu thereof: (a) Impose an aggregate sentence of eight years' imprisonment [redacted]; (b) Pursuant to s 44(2A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), set a non-parole period of six years, and specify that the earliest date the applicant will be eligible to be released on parole is [redacted]; and (c) Pursuant to s 53A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), record that an aggregate sentence is imposed and indicate to the applicant that the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence under separate sentences instead of an aggregate sentence are as follows: (i) Count 1 (ongoing supply of firearms): four years, with a non-parole period of three years; (ii) Count 2 (supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug): six years and eight months, with a non-parole period of five years. (5) Upon the grounds that the order is necessary to protect the safety of a person for the purposes of the Court Suppression and Non‑Publications Orders Act 2010, s 8(1)(c), and that it is necessary in the public interest for the order to be made, and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice for the purposes of s 8(1)(e), disclosure of information tending to reveal the identity of the applicant is prohibited. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Firearms offences – Unlawfully sell firearms three or more times – Drug offences – Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug – Discounts – Guilty plea and assistance to authorities – Whether error in respect of discount – Discount at the low end of available range but no error established APPEALS – Further evidence – Evidence not adduced at sentencing – Firearms test report – Whether relevance and significance not appreciated below – Where sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness of firearms offence proceeded on misapprehension due to absence of regard to mitigating effect of report – Evidence admitted CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Manifest excess – Resentencing – Where sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness of firearms offence erroneous in light of further evidence – Where relatively low discount applied by sentencing judge – Use of comparative cases and statistics – Accumulation – Appeal allowed Legislation Cited: (NSW) Crimes Act 1900, ss 193C(2), 527C(1)(a) (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 23, 44(2A), 53A(2)(b) (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25, Sch 1 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996, ss 51B(1), 51BA(1), 65(1) (NSW) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, s 7(1) Cases Cited: Anargiros v R [2016] NSWCCA 134 Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Avery v R [2015] NSWCCA 50 Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Bayram v R [2012] VSCA 6 Buckley v R [2021] NSWCCA 6 C v R (2013) 229 A Crim R 233; [2013] NSWCCA 81 CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie (2017) 270 A Crim R 556; [2017] NSWCCA 301 EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2 JM v The Queen (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616; [2004] HCA 15 Keane v R [2011] VSCA 156 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 47 Kerr v R (2016) 78 MVR 191; [2016] NSWCCA 218 Khoury v R (2011) 209 A Crim R 509; [2011] NSWCCA 118 Laspina v R [2016] NSWCCA 181 McGovern aka Lanesbury v R [2021] NSWCCA 176 R v C (1994) 75 A Crim R 309 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267; [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Lipton (2011) 82 NSWLR 123; [2011] NSWCA 247 R v Loveridge (2014) 243 A Crim R 31; [2014] NSWCCA 120 R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481; [2006] NSWCCA 272 R v Sukkar (2006) 172 A Crim R 151; [2006] NSWCCA 92 Ramos v R [2015] NSWCCA 313 Romero v R (2011) 32 VR 486; [2011] VSCA 45 SL v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 295; [2015] NSWCCA 30 Strbak v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 494; [2020] HCA 10 SZ v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 249; [2007] NSWCCA 19 Toole v R (2014) 247 A Crim R 272; [2014] NSWCCA 318 Vaovasa v R (2007) 174 A Crim R 116; [2007] NSWCCA 253 York v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 466; [2005] HCA 60 Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323 Zarakas v R [2013] NSWCCA 144 Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rodriego (a Pseudonym) (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Ramage QC (Applicant) M Kumar (Respondent)