Why v R [2017] NSWCCA 101

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Why v R [2017] NSWCCA 101 Hearing dates: 29 March 2017 Date of orders: 19 May 2017 Decision date: 19 May 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL [1] Walton J at [2] R A Hulme J at [59] Decision: (1) The application for an extension of time made on 16 November 2016 is granted. (2) Leave to appeal on ground one is refused. (3) Leave to appeal on ground two is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against sentence – drug related offences – manifestly excessive ground – aggregate sentence not unreasonable or plainly unjust – justifiable sense of grievance given the sentence ground – principle of parity – parity principle not applicable – utility of sentencing statistics – leave to appeal in ground 1 dismissed – leave to appeal in ground 2 dismissed after leave granted Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Cases Cited: Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120 Elias v R; Issa v R (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 Erazo v R [2016] NSWCCA 139 Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Huynh v The Queen (2008) 188 A Crim R 287; [2008] NSWCCA 216 JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Khawaja v R [2014] NSWCCA 80 Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222 Meager v R [2009] NSWCCA 215 R v Araya (2005) 155 A Crim R 555; [2005] NSWCCA 283 R v Barkho [2005] NSWCCA 211 R v Chidiac [2015] NSWCCA 241 R v Clarke [2013] NSWCCA 260 Rees v R [2012] NSWCCA 47 SHR v R (2014) 241 A Crim 544; [2014] NSWCCA 94 The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 Thangavelautham v R [2016] NSWCCA 141 Tweedie v R [2015] NSWCCA 71 Vale v R (2016) 77 MVR 194; [2016] NSWCCA 154 Vuni v R [2006] NSWCCA 171 Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Zreika v R; Elsaj v R [2016] NSWCCA 177 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Why (Applicant) State of New South Wales (Crown) Representation: Counsel: M Swift (Applicant) D Kell SC and M Pulsford (Crown)