Laycock v R [2017] NSWCCA 47

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Laycock v R [2017] NSWCCA 47 Hearing dates: 24 February 2017 Date of orders: 20 March 2017 Decision date: 20 March 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Walton J at [2] Latham J at [106] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal against sentences granted. (2) The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – drug related offences – manifestly excessive ground – all circumstances of offence relevant – consistency – numerical equivalence – wide discretion – flexibility in sentencing – supply of prohibited drug cannabis – less than indictable but greater than trafficable quantity – significance of quantity of drug – applicant's role and level of criminality – broader criminal activity – drug dealing and enterprise – actual supply – deeming provisions – monetary gain –applicability of statistics as to sentencing patterns – applicability of comparable cases – sentence imposed not manifestly excessive – supply of prohibited drug methylamphetamine – less than commercial quantity but significant quantity – applicant's role principal and a dealer – admitted offences – retribution – general deterrence and general denunciation – accumulation ground – degree of accumulation – discretion in fixing accumulation – possession for supply of cannabis separate act criminality – the principles of totality – accumulation necessary to address the total criminality of each offence – leave to appeal against sentences granted – appeal is dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413; [2013] NSWCCA 115; Andreata v R [2015] NSWCCA 239; Attorney-General's Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518; Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2; Bidgood v R [2016] NSWCCA 138; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194; Franklin v R [2016] NSWCCA 319; Grills v R [2016] NSWCCA 46 Haule v R [2015] NSWCCA 253; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40; Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520 [2010] HCA 45; Koh v R [2013] NSWCCA 287; Le v R [2017] NSWCCA 26; Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285; McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184; Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25; Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156; R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44; [2002] NSWCCA 34; Ngatamariki v R [2016] NSWCCA 155; R v Dunn [2004] NSWCCA 346; R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38; [2009] NSWCCA 115; Vale v R (2016) 77 MVR 194; [2016] NSWCCA 154; Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ronald James Laycock – Applicant Regina – Respondent Representation: Counsel: P. Johnson – Applicant J. Gibson – Crown