Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81 Hearing dates: 16 March 2022 Date of orders: 13 April 2022 Decision date: 13 April 2022 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Bellew J at [42]; Ierace J at [46] Decision: 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME — drug offences — supply prohibited drug — commercial quantity — where applicant entered early guilty plea — where sentencing judge applied a 25% discount for early guilty plea — whether sentencing judge erred in applying s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to make that discount CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — misapplication of principle — where applicant was entitled to a 25% sentencing discount for the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea pursuant to s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) — where sentencing judge applied a 25% sentencing discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the applicant's guilty plea, in addition to his remorse and willingness to facilitate the course of justice — whether the Act requires separate consideration of the utilitarian value of a guilty plea, an offender's remorse, and his or her willingness to facilitate the course of justice — whether sentencing judge erred in applying s 25D of the Act CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — re-sentence — supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug — where the applicant participated in a purported drug transaction facilitated by undercover law enforcement officers — where no drugs in fact existed or were disseminated into the community — where the offence may not have been committed had authorities not facilitated it — weight to be given to hardship caused to family members by an offender's incarceration SENTENCING — appeal against sentence — sentence contrary to law — where applicant was entitled to a 25% sentencing discount for the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea pursuant to s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) — where sentencing judge applied a 25% sentencing discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the applicant's guilty plea, in addition to his remorse and willingness to facilitate the course of justice — whether the Act requires separate consideration of the utilitarian value of a guilty plea, an offender's remorse, and his or her willingness to facilitate the course of justice — whether sentencing judge erred in applying s 25D of the Act SENTENCING — plea of guilty — sentencing discount for the utilitarian value of an early plea of guilty pursuant to s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) — multiple and distinct sentencing considerations which may be engaged by an early plea of guilty — where an early plea of guilty bears utilitarian value — where an early plea of guilty is indicative of remorse and/or willingness to facilitate the course of justice — whether sentencing judge erred in considering the applicant's remorse and willingness to facilitate the course of justice when applying a sentencing discount pursuant to s 25D of the Act Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 193B(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(g) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(3)(i), 22A, 23, 25D, 33 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(3) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2) sch 1 Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (NSW) sch 2 Cases Cited: AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273 Abousleiman v R [2021] NSWCCA 110 Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35 Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23 Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6 Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138 Edwards v R [2021] NSWCCA 57 Greentree v R [2018] NSWCCA 227 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Lu v R; Huang v R [2021] NSWCCA 68 R v Achurch (2011) 216 A Crim R 152; [2011] NSWCCA 186 R v Girard [2004] NSWCCA 170 R (Cth) v Milne (No 6) [2010] NSWSC 1467 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Tuhakaraina [2016] NSWCCA 81; (2016) 75 MVR 434 R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74 Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146 Tyler v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 458; [2007] NSWCCA 247 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Matthew James Doyle (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: