Koh v R [2013] NSWCCA 287

Koh v R [2013] NSWCCA 287

The application was refused because no Muldrock error was shown, the sentencing Judge permissibly used the standard non-parole period as a guidepost, the enormous quantity of MDP2P and the Applicant's significant role as a person brought from Malaysia to perform important tasks supported the finding that the offence was slightly above the mid range of objective seriousness, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and no lesser sentence was warranted under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'knowingly Taking Part in Supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals' 'drug Offences'] ['extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'knowingly Taking Part in Supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess']

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 Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to seek leave to appeal against sentence imposed on 10 June 2011.' 'Whether the sentencing Judge erred in the way the applicable standard non-parole period was taken into account.' 'Whether it was open to assess the offence as slightly above the mid range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because no Muldrock error was shown, the sentencing Judge permissibly used the standard non-parole period as a guidepost, the enormous quantity of MDP2P and the Applicant's significant role as a person brought from Malaysia to perform important tasks supported the finding that the offence was slightly above the mid range of objective seriousness, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and no lesser sentence was warranted under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence is refused.']