NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Renehan v R [2008] NSWCCA 334
HEARING DATE(S): 16 December 2008 JUDGMENT OF: Campbell JA at 19; Grove J at 1; Howie J at 20
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 16 December 2008
DECISION: Appeal against sentence dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Drug trafficking - Ongoing supply and knowingly concerned in one further supply - Co-offender involved only in that further supply - Parity - No special point of principle
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
PARTIES: Matthew Mark RENEHAN - Applicant REGINA - Respondent/Crown
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/15980
COUNSEL: S Odgers SC - Applicant N Noman - Respondent/Crown
SOLICITORS: Danny Eid - Applicant S Kavanagh - Public Prosecutions
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0931
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Berman DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 17 March 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 2007/15980
CAMPBELL JA GROVE J HOWIE J
16 December 2008 Matthew Mark RENEHAN v REGINA Judgment 1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Berman DCJ at Sydney District Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts, the first charging an ongoing supply of prohibited drug and the second charging supply of a prohibited drug. In each case the relevant drug was methylamphetamine. The prescribed maximum penalties for those offences are 20 years and 15 years imprisonment respectively. 2 His Honour sentenced the applicant on count 1 to imprisonment for 12 months commencing on 27 August 2008 and expiring on 26 August 2009 with a balance term of 12 months and on count 2 to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment commencing on 27 February 2008 and expiring on 26 February 2009. 3 In May 2007 authority was granted for a controlled operation to investigate the supply of drugs by the applicant. On 27 June an undercover officer (UCO) contacted him by telephone. On 28 June they met at the Bayview Hotel at Gladesville. Another person Benjamin McDonald was present. The applicant supplied the UCO with 3.3 grams of drug for $400. Further contacts resulted in supplies by the applicant of 3.1 grams for $450 on 12 July at a McDonalds Restaurant, Ryde and 3.2 grams for $450 on 19 July at the same location. These three supplies constituted the ongoing supply charged in count 1. 4 At this lastmentioned meeting conversation took place between the applicant and the UCO: "UCO: What's the chances of getting an ounce? Applicant: Of base? UCO: Yeah. Applicant: Yeah, easy. UCO: Yeah, easy, how much for that? Applicant: Um, about twenty-five. UCO: Twenty five. Applicant: Twenty five hundred. UCO: Mates discount, nuh just jokes. Applicant: Um, yeah, about twenty five hundred, let me clarify with him though." 5 On 25 July further conversation took place between them: "UCO: I was still after the one if that is OK. Applicant: Shouldn't be a problem, I will have to make a couple of phone calls and get back to you in about an hour. UCO: Did you manage to do some number crunching or is it still twenty five? Applicant: Yeah it is still the twenty five."
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