Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 143

Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 143

There was no denial of procedural fairness and no sentencing error because the Crown squarely contested the applicant's history about his role, motivation and dealings with Yeung, and the sentencing judge's adverse factual findings destroyed the substratum of Dr Jacmon's opinions. The applicant's account to the psychologist contained deliberate falsehoods about matters central to the diagnosis and causal connection between depression and offending, and the psychologist's conclusions about causation and diminished judgment also extended beyond the demonstrated expertise of a psychologist. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to reject the opinions and the appeal against sentence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['importing a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'expert Psychological Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'mental Health and Sentencing' 'commonwealth Drug Importation Offence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'evidence'] ['importing a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug' 'expert Psychological Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'mental Health and Sentencing' 'commonwealth Drug Importation Offence']

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 From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge's rejection of the opinions of Dr Jacmon resulted in a denial of procedural fairness and a miscarriage of justice." "Whether the sentencing judge erred by rejecting Dr Jacmon's opinions that the applicant was suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time of the offences and at the time of sentence." "Whether the factual basis for the psychologist's opinions was made out." "Whether the psychologist's conclusions went beyond his expertise."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no denial of procedural fairness and no sentencing error because the Crown squarely contested the applicant's history about his role, motivation and dealings with Yeung, and the sentencing judge's adverse factual findings destroyed the substratum of Dr Jacmon's opinions. The applicant's account to the psychologist contained deliberate falsehoods about matters central to the diagnosis and causal connection between depression and offending, and the psychologist's conclusions about causation and diminished judgment also extended beyond the demonstrated expertise of a psychologist. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to reject the opinions and the appeal against sentence...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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