R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147 Hearing dates: 15 February 2016 Decision date: 01 August 2016 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Fullerton J at [99] RS Hulme AJ at [110] Decision: George Hatzisavvas

The Crown appeal is allowed. The aggregate sentence imposed by Flannery SC DCJ on 7 August 2015 is quashed. In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years, commencing 28 August 2013 and expiring 27 August 2020.

Gustavo Lopez-Rios

(1) The Crown appeal is allowed. (2) The aggregate sentence imposed by Flannery SC DCJ on 28 August 2015 is quashed. (3) In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 11 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months, commencing 28 August 2013 and expiring 27 February 2021. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – two counts of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – whether sentencing judge properly assessed objective seriousness of offences – whether indicative sentences suggested error in aggregate sentence – whether notional accumulation inadequate – Crown bound by concessions made by it during sentence proceedings – notional accumulation indicative of error in aggregate sentence – residual discretion – onus discharged by Crown – sentences manifestly inadequate – need to re-sentence. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – ss 3A, 53A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – s 5E(1) Customs Act 1901 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 – s 25(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 144 Cases Cited: Adams v The Queen [2008] HCA 15; 234 CLR 143 CMB v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 243 A Crim R 282 Cullen v R [2014] NSWCCA 162 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Everett v The Queen [1994] HCA 49; 181 CLR 295 Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Gall v R; Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Makarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282 Pantorno v The Queen [1989] HCA 18; 166 CLR 466 PD v R [2012] NSWCCA 242 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57: 194 CLR 610 Poyner v The Queen (1986) 60 ALJR 616 R v Brown [2012] NSWCCA 199 R v Cimone [2001] NSWCCA 98; 121 A Crim R 433 R v Cuthbert (1967) 86 WN (NSW) 272 R v D (1997) 96 A Crim R 364 R v Dodd (1991) A Crim R 349 at 354 R v Downie and Dandy (1997) 95 A Crim R 299 R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81; 171 A Crim R 267 R v Hayes (1984) 1 NSWLR 740; 11 A Crim R 187 R v House [2005] NSWCCA 88 R v Jennar [2014] NSWCCA 331 R v Li [2014] NSWCCA 327 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566 R v MJB [2014] NSWCCA 195 R (Cth) v Nguyen; R (Cth) v Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 331 R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9 R v Robert Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Williscroft (1975) VR 292 R v Wood [2012] NSWCCA 231; 84 NSWLR 581 The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39 Toole Kurt v R; Toole Joshua v R [2014] NSWCCA 318 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina – Applicant Crown George Hatzisavvas - Respondent Gustavo Lopez-Rios - Respondent Representation: Counsel: H Baker – Applicant Crown T Game SC/D Barrow – Respondent Hatzisavvas A Francis – Respondent Lopez-Rios