Wang v R [2023] NSWCCA 208

Wang v R [2023] NSWCCA 208

The indicative sentence for Count 3 produced an unjustifiable disparity. The applicant's starting point before discounting was 16 years, while the starting points for Si Ji Zhang and Zhengyi Zhang were 12 years and 11 years respectively, although the applicant's role in the 14 May 2015 supply was not more serious than theirs and was somewhat less significant than the roles of those described as facilitators and controllers of the transaction. The disparity was not justified by the applicant also being sentenced for earlier supply offences or by Form 1 offences; those matters were to be addressed through totality and the overall sentencing exercise. Because Count 3 was the largest...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply Offences' 'parity Principle' 'unjustifiable Disparity Between Co Offenders' 'aggregate Sentence' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'resentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['drug Supply Offences' 'parity Principle' 'unjustifiable Disparity Between Co Offenders' 'aggregate Sentence' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'resentencing']

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 Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to commence proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for Count 3 involved an unjustifiable disparity when compared with sentences imposed on co-offenders Zhengyi Zhang and Si Ji Zhang.' 'Whether the sentencing judge made inconsistent findings about objective seriousness for the applicant and co-offenders in relation to the 14 May 2015 supply offence.' "Whether, in light of success on the parity ground, it was necessary to determine the applicant's other proposed grounds of appeal." 'What sentence should be imposed on resentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The indicative sentence for Count 3 produced an unjustifiable disparity. The applicant's starting point before discounting was 16 years, while the starting points for Si Ji Zhang and Zhengyi Zhang were 12 years and 11 years respectively, although the applicant's role in the 14 May 2015 supply was not more serious than theirs and was somewhat less significant than the roles of those described as facilitators and controllers of the transaction. The disparity was not justified by the applicant also being sentenced for earlier supply offences or by Form 1 offences; those matters were to be addressed through totality and the overall sentencing exercise. Because Count 3 was the largest...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for commencing proceedings in this Court to 28 September 2022.' 'Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 23 June 2017 and in lieu, sentence the offender to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years...