R v Man Kong Ho [2002] NSWCCA 379

R v Man Kong Ho [2002] NSWCCA 379

No sentencing error was shown. The ten year starting point properly reflected the objective seriousness of supplying 4.05 kilograms of heroin, the applicant's role and subjective matters, and the need for general deterrence. The ten percent plea discount and approximately forty four percent assistance discount were within the sentencing judge's discretion. The non-parole period was appropriate for the head sentence while allowing supervision. Although co-offender He received a lower sentence for the particular State supply count, his overall cumulative sentence and effective non-parole period were much greater, so no objective justifiable sense of grievance arose. Leave to appeal was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal From the District Court After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'heroin' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'discount for Assistance to Authorities' 'subjective Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['sentence Appeal' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'heroin' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'discount for Assistance to Authorities' 'subjective Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal From the District Court After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in setting a starting point of ten years before discounts for plea and assistance.' 'Whether the ten percent discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea was inadequate.' 'Whether the approximately forty four percent discount for assistance to authorities was inadequate.' 'Whether the sentence was too severe by reason of the combination of the alleged errors.' 'Whether the non-parole period was wrongly set.' 'Whether comparison with the co-offender He gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was shown. The ten year starting point properly reflected the objective seriousness of supplying 4.05 kilograms of heroin, the applicant's role and subjective matters, and the need for general deterrence. The ten percent plea discount and approximately forty four percent assistance discount were within the sentencing judge's discretion. The non-parole period was appropriate for the head sentence while allowing supervision. Although co-offender He received a lower sentence for the particular State supply count, his overall cumulative sentence and effective non-parole period were much greater, so no objective justifiable sense of grievance arose. Leave to appeal was...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']