R v Weng (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 730

R v Weng (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 730

Because Mr Weng was found on limited evidence to have committed serious drug supply offences and it was common ground that imprisonment would have been imposed after a normal trial, the Court was required to nominate a limiting term. Counts 1 and 2 were assessed at the low end of objective seriousness and mental illness moderated deterrence and made imprisonment likely to weigh more heavily, but there was no causal connection significantly reducing culpability, the offending involved financial gain, and community protection remained significant. The best estimate sentence was 4 years for count 1 and 1 year 6 months for count 2, served concurrently, producing a 4-year limiting term.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence; Nomination of Limiting Term After Special Hearing for Accused Found Unfit to Be Tried
Outcome
A limiting term of 4 years' imprisonment was nominated; Mr Weng was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and ordered to be detained pending further order; counts 3 and 4 and back-up charges were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['accused Not Fit to Plead' 'special Hearing' 'knowingly Taking Part in Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'limiting Term' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'dismissal Under S 10(1)(a)']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'mental Health and Forensic Provisions'] ['accused Not Fit to Plead' 'special Hearing' 'knowingly Taking Part in Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'limiting Term' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'dismissal Under S 10(1)(a)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence; Nomination of Limiting Term After Special Hearing for Accused Found Unfit to Be Tried

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, if the special hearing had been a normal trial, a sentence of imprisonment would have been imposed under s 23(1)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 (NSW).' "What limiting term was the Court's best estimate of the sentence that would have been imposed under s 23(1)(b)." "How Mr Weng's mental illness affected objective seriousness, culpability, deterrence, community protection and the length of the limiting term." 'Whether counts 3 and 4 and back-up charges should be dismissed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Weng was found on limited evidence to have committed serious drug supply offences and it was common ground that imprisonment would have been imposed after a normal trial, the Court was required to nominate a limiting term. Counts 1 and 2 were assessed at the low end of objective seriousness and mental illness moderated deterrence and made imprisonment likely to weigh more heavily, but there was no causal connection significantly reducing culpability, the offending involved financial gain, and community protection remained significant. The best estimate sentence was 4 years for count 1 and 1 year 6 months for count 2, served concurrently, producing a 4-year limiting term.

Court Disposition

A limiting term of 4 years' imprisonment was nominated; Mr Weng was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and ordered to be detained pending further order; counts 3 and 4 and back-up charges were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Nominate a limiting term of 4 years' imprisonment commencing on 31 December 2017 and expiring on 30 December 2021." 'Mr Weng is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.' 'Mr Weng is to be detained pending further order.' 'Counts 3 and count 4 and the back-up charges (sequences 5-19 inclusive) are dismissed....