Reardon v R [2012] NSWCCA 46

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Reardon v R [2012] NSWCCA 46 Hearing dates: 26 March 2012 Decision date: 28 March 2012 Before: Beazley JA at 1 Harrison J at 2 McCallum J at 26 Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - parity with co-offenders - Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 24(2) - whether applicant has cause for a justifiable sense of grievance - no marked disparity between co-offenders - appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Cases Cited: Lovoni v R [2011] NSWCCA 289 Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alan George Reardon (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: M Johnston (Applicant) S Bowers (Crown) Baker Ryrie Rickards Titmarsh (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2009/12087 Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2010-08-13 00:00:00 Before: Toner DCJ File Number(s): 2009/12087

Judgment 1BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Harrison J. 2HARRISON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by Toner DCJ at Sydney on 13 August 2010. The sole ground of appeal is that the difference in the sentences imposed on his co-offenders gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on his part. For the reasons that follow I consider that leave to appeal should be granted but that the appeal should be dismissed. 3The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to four offences. This appeal is only concerned with the sentence imposed by his Honour with respect to a charge that he knowingly took part in the manufacture of 5.877kg of methylamphetamine, being not less than the large commercial quantity for such a drug, contrary to s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The standard non-parole period is 15 years. 4The applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years and 9 months commencing on 8 January 2009 and expiring on 7 October 2019 with an additional term of 4 years and 3 months expiring on 7 January 2024. He was also sentenced on three additional counts. His total effective sentence for the s 24(2) offence was therefore 15 years. When his other sentences are taken into account the total effective sentence is 16 years with an effective non-parole period of 11 years. Taking into account a discount of 25 percent for an early plea of guilty, this suggests a starting point for the subject offence of 20 years. 5The applicant contends that the sentence imposed by his Honour upon William Edmund Greenaway, and the sentences respectively imposed by Ashford DCJ on David McGreevy and Jake Callagher are so different to the sentence imposed upon him for the same offence that they give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on his part. 6Mr Greenaway was sentenced to a non-parole period of 11 years, 7 months and 15 days with an additional term of 3 years, 10 months and 15 days. That is an effective total sentence of 15 years and 6 months. Taking into account a discount of 20 percent for an early plea of guilty, this suggests a starting point of 19 years and 4.5 months. 7Mr McGreevey was sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years with an additional term of 2 years. That is an effective total sentence of 7 years. Taking into account a discount of 50 percent for an early plea of guilty and assistance to authorities, this suggests a starting point of 14 years. 8Mr Callagher was sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months with an additional term of 1 year and 6 months. That is an effective total sentence of 6 years. Taking into account a discount of 50 percent for an early plea of guilty and assistance to authorities, this suggests a starting point of 12 years.