R v Diep [2000] NSWCCA 472

R v Diep [2000] NSWCCA 472

The disparity between the applicant's sentence and that of the co-offender was excessive, and, for that reason alone, the applicant's sentences must be reduced without addressing whether they were otherwise manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'parity of Sentence' 'supplying Heroin']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'parity of Sentence' 'supplying Heroin']

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 Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was unjustified disparity between sentences imposed on co-offenders' "Whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive"]

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity between the applicant's sentence and that of the co-offender was excessive, and, for that reason alone, the applicant's sentences must be reduced without addressing whether they were otherwise manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Sentences imposed in the District Court quashed' 'Applicant re-sentenced to three years imprisonment on second charge (with non-parole period of eighteen months), dating from 27 May 1999' 'Applicant re-sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment on first charge, dating from 27 May 1999, no non-parole period set for...