B v R [2022] NSWCCA 102

B v R [2022] NSWCCA 102

The applicant, Mr Chan and Mr Wong were co-offenders for parity purposes because, although they did not know each other and acted on different instructions with different roles, there was a marked interconnection between their offending: Sultab arranged for each to meet the undercover operative and each had a common understanding to obtain at least part of the purported 70kg shipment from Mexico for supply in Australia. The parity principle therefore applied. While the applicant's offending was objectively more serious than Mr Chan's because of his travel from the USA, active liaison with international intermediaries and significant planning, the difference between the undiscounted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal against sentence allowed; appeal allowed in relation to sequence 2; applicant re-sentenced for sequence 2; sequence 3 sentence confirmed except for commencement date.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'co Offenders' 'common Criminal Enterprise' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'supply of Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 're Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Principle' 'co Offenders' 'common Criminal Enterprise' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'supply of Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 're Sentencing']

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 Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in holding that the parity principle did not apply when considering the sentences imposed on Sai Kwan Chan and Kai Hang Wong.' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance as to the non-parole period and total term imposed for the sequence 2 offence when compared with the sentences imposed on Sai Kwan Chan and Kai Hang Wong.' 'Whether the applicant should be re-sentenced for the sequence 2 offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, Mr Chan and Mr Wong were co-offenders for parity purposes because, although they did not know each other and acted on different instructions with different roles, there was a marked interconnection between their offending: Sultab arranged for each to meet the undercover operative and each had a common understanding to obtain at least part of the purported 70kg shipment from Mexico for supply in Australia. The parity principle therefore applied. While the applicant's offending was objectively more serious than Mr Chan's because of his travel from the USA, active liaison with international intermediaries and significant planning, the difference between the undiscounted...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal against sentence allowed; appeal allowed in relation to sequence 2; applicant re-sentenced for sequence 2; sequence 3 sentence confirmed except for commencement date.

Orders

  • ['Extend time for leave to appeal against the sentence.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence is allowed.' 'The sentence imposed for the sequence 2 offence in the District Court on 12 June 2020 is quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6...