AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 14 November 2025

Regattieri v R

[2025] NSWCCA 189

Drugs

Citation: Regattieri v R [2025] NSWCCA 189
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 14 November 2025
Judge(s): Adamson JA, Chen J, R A Hulme AJ

Background

The appellant pleaded guilty to eight drug supply and related offences, with a further 18 offences taken into account. The most serious charge was supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (approximately 1,915 grams), an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Police found the drugs in a secured garage at the property the appellant shared with his partner, Ebony Bagnall.

The District Court at Gosford sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of 7 years, 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years, 7 months, backdated to the date of his arrest in March 2023. A 25% discount was applied across each indicative sentence to reflect the early pleas of guilty.

The appellant's co-offender, Ms Bagnall, pleaded guilty to the large commercial supply offence and fewer of the remaining charges. She received 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. The appellant challenged his sentence on two grounds: manifest excess and parity.

  • Whether the aggregate sentence of 7 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years, 7 months was manifestly excessive.
  • Whether the disparity between the appellant's sentence and the lesser sentence imposed on his co-offender gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, engaging the parity principle.

Decision

On the manifest excess ground, the Court refused leave to appeal. The indicative sentence for the large commercial supply offence was within the acceptable range, and the sizeable number of additional offences warranted at least a modest uplift in the aggregate term. Critically, the aggregate sentence fell within the range that senior counsel for the appellant had himself proposed at the District Court hearing, making it difficult to characterise the outcome as excessive. The Court applied the principle from Obeid v R that a sentence approximating what was sought at first instance is unlikely to be manifestly excessive.

On the parity ground, the Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The disparity between the two sentences was found to be reasonably explained by meaningful differences between the cases. The appellant had a more extensive criminal history, a greater number of charges, and a less favourable subjective case overall than Ms Bagnall. The Court found that Ms Bagnall's considerably lower sentence for the large commercial supply offence was amply justified by the differences in the objective gravity of each offender's conduct and the relative strength of their personal circumstances.

The Court drew on DS v R for the proposition that a justifiable sense of grievance arises only where the discrepancy between sentences is disproportionate to the relevant distinctions in role, conduct, and subjective circumstances. Applying that test, the disparity here did not reach that threshold.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • A sentence that approximates the range proposed by the defendant's own senior counsel at first instance is unlikely to be held manifestly excessive on appeal, as confirmed by applying Obeid v R.
  • Under the parity principle, a justifiable sense of grievance is not established simply because a co-offender received a significantly lower sentence. The disparity must be disproportionate to the actual differences in offending and subjective circumstances.
  • In dismissing the parity ground, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that a difference of 9 months in aggregate terms and a substantially shorter non-parole period for the co-offender were reasonably explained where the co-offender faced fewer charges and had a more favourable personal history.
  • The indicative sentence for a large commercial methylamphetamine supply offence (carrying a life maximum and a 15-year standard non-parole period) was within range at 6 years, 9 months before the guilty plea discount, reducing to 6 years, 9 months after a 25% reduction applied to what would otherwise have been a 9-year term.
  • Mohr v R [2024] NSWCCA 197 provides the most recent comprehensive review of parity principles in New South Wales, confirming that appellate intervention is required only where the sentencing disparity is not reasonably explained by the differences between co-offenders and their offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 5
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 193B, 527C(1)(c)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 168(3)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10(1), 25(1)-(2)
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), s 76AO(1)(a)
- Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW), s 16(1)

Cases
- DS v R [2014] NSWCCA 267
- Mohr v R [2024] NSWCCA 197; (2024) 390 FLR 293
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633; [2017] NSWCCA 284
- Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26