AYIK v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 119

AYIK v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 119

There was no marked and unjustified disparity between the applicant's sentence and C's sentence. The same 12-year starting point was open because any lesser culpability of the applicant was more than offset by the finding that C acted under significant duress and by other differences between them. The sentencing judge properly applied totality when structuring C's sentences and was not required to structure them by reference to the actual time C would spend in custody attributable to the common offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Taking Part in Supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of Heroin' 'parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'co Offender Sentencing' 'assistance to Authorities' 'duress' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['knowingly Taking Part in Supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of Heroin' 'parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'co Offender Sentencing' 'assistance to Authorities' 'duress' 'form 1 Offences']

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 Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the principles of parity having regard to the sentences, and the structure of the sentences, imposed on co-offender C.' 'Whether use of the same 12-year starting point for the applicant and C created a justifiable sense of grievance.' "Whether the structure of C's sentences, including concurrency and partial accumulation, distorted proportionality between the applicant and C."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no marked and unjustified disparity between the applicant's sentence and C's sentence. The same 12-year starting point was open because any lesser culpability of the applicant was more than offset by the finding that C acted under significant duress and by other differences between them. The sentencing judge properly applied totality when structuring C's sentences and was not required to structure them by reference to the actual time C would spend in custody attributable to the common offence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']