MI v R [2017] NSWCCA 225

MI v R [2017] NSWCCA 225

The identical sentences were open because the co-offender had a more important and directorial role but a more compelling subjective case, while the applicant was involved in a separate importation of over 17 kg pure pseudoephedrine not alleged against the co-offender. The applicant therefore did not have an objectively justifiable sense of grievance. The sentence was not manifestly excessive having regard to the 25-year maximum, the year-long conspiracy, repeated importations, the amount of precursor imported by the applicant, his financial motivation, and his necessary role in the enterprise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
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
['conspiracy to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Precursor' 'parity in Sentencing' 'erroneous Disparity' 'manifest Excess' 'pseudoephedrine Importation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['conspiracy to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Precursor' 'parity in Sentencing' 'erroneous Disparity' 'manifest Excess' 'pseudoephedrine Importation']

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 1 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 by imposing the same sentence on the applicant as on his co-offender despite differences in their roles and subjective circumstances.' 'Whether the sentence of imprisonment for six years and six months with a non-parole period of four years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The identical sentences were open because the co-offender had a more important and directorial role but a more compelling subjective case, while the applicant was involved in a separate importation of over 17 kg pure pseudoephedrine not alleged against the co-offender. The applicant therefore did not have an objectively justifiable sense of grievance. The sentence was not manifestly excessive having regard to the 25-year maximum, the year-long conspiracy, repeated importations, the amount of precursor imported by the applicant, his financial motivation, and his necessary role in the enterprise.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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