R v Solomons [2000] NSWCCA 215

R v Solomons [2000] NSWCCA 215

The sentence was not shown to be affected by error or outside the proper range. The sentencing judge did not impermissibly punish the applicant for uncharged crimes by describing him as a principal; the unexplained circumstances, including his dealings with two packages, access to storage units, possession of a large quantity of cash, cannabis and weapons, and links to drug supply materials, supported a conclusion that he occupied a relatively senior role beyond that of a mere courier, minder or warehouseman. Comparative cases and the guideline in R v Wong and Leung did not demonstrate manifest excess, particularly because that guideline concerned heroin and cocaine and persons low in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['importation of Prohibited Imports' 'ecstasy' 'distinction Between Principal and Courier' 'manifest Excess' 'customs Act 1901 (cth) S 233 B(1)(d)']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['importation of Prohibited Imports' 'ecstasy' 'distinction Between Principal and Courier' 'manifest Excess' 'customs Act 1901 (cth) S 233 B(1)(d)']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant's role was that of a principal engaged in ultimate supply to members of the public for profit." 'Whether the sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months for Ecstasy importation was excessive or outside the proper sentencing range.' "Whether the applicant's favourable character evidence, contrition and prospects of rehabilitation were properly taken into account."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not shown to be affected by error or outside the proper range. The sentencing judge did not impermissibly punish the applicant for uncharged crimes by describing him as a principal; the unexplained circumstances, including his dealings with two packages, access to storage units, possession of a large quantity of cash, cannabis and weapons, and links to drug supply materials, supported a conclusion that he occupied a relatively senior role beyond that of a mere courier, minder or warehouseman. Comparative cases and the guideline in R v Wong and Leung did not demonstrate manifest excess, particularly because that guideline concerned heroin and cocaine and persons low in the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']