Connell v R [2019] NSWCCA 70

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Connell v R [2019] NSWCCA 70 Hearing dates: 13 March 2019 Date of orders: 05 April 2019 Decision date: 05 April 2019 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1] Fullerton J at [2] Bellew J at [3] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: Criminal Law – Appeal – Sentence – Parity principle – Whether applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising from the sentence imposed on co-offender – Where there were differentiating factors which justified the sentences which were imposed – No unjustified disparity

Criminal Law – Appeal – Sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to offences of supplying prohibited drugs and dealing with the proceeds of crime – Where the sentencing judge gave indicative sentences and imposed an aggregate sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in not indicating that two of the sentences should be wholly concurrent – No general rule that determines whether sentences should be imposed concurrently or cumulatively – Issues of concurrence or cumulation to be determined by principles of totality and by a consideration of whether the sentence for one offence can comprehend and reflect the criminality of another

Criminal Law – Appeal – Sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to offences of supplying prohibited drugs and dealing with the proceeds of crime – Where the sentencing judge gave indicative sentences and imposed an aggregate sentence – No fixed principle that where an offender is sentenced for supplying prohibited drugs and dealing in the proceeds of crime wholly concurrent sentences must be imposed in each and every case – Observations as to the difficulty faced by an appellate court when it is asked to analyse issues of concurrence and accumulation in cases where an aggregate sentence is imposed – Ultimate question is whether the aggregate sentence imposed reflects the overall criminality of the offender Cases Cited: Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217 Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 Pizzimenti v R [2017] NSWCCA 231 Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Gouliaditis (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 216 Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77 Toksoz v R [2019] NSWCCA 10 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Andrew James Connell – Applicant Regina - Respondent Representation: Counsel: P Lowe – Applicant H Roberts – Respondent