Yin v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 217

Yin v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 217

The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge was correct to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant played a more significant and senior role than his co-offenders, including controlling funds, arranging the consignee company, possessing the consignment contact phone, directing the co-offenders...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales; Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['attempt to Possess a Commercial Quantity of Unlawfully Imported Border Controlled Drug' 'methamphetamine' 'objective Seriousness' 'co Offenders' 'parity Principle' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['attempt to Possess a Commercial Quantity of Unlawfully Imported Border Controlled Drug' 'methamphetamine' 'objective Seriousness' 'co Offenders' 'parity Principle' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance']

Source-derived case record

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales; Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant's offending as more objectively serious than that of co-offenders Huang and Lu." "Whether the disparity between the applicant's sentence and the co-offenders' sentences gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge was correct to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant played a more significant and senior role than his co-offenders, including controlling funds, arranging the consignee company, possessing the consignment contact phone, directing the co-offenders from Brisbane and communicating with those involved in Taiwan. The co-offenders' roles were largely limited to physical tasks. Given that difference in culpability and the co-offenders' guilty plea discounts, the disparity between the applicant's 16 year sentence with a 10 year non-parole period and the co-offenders' 10 year sentences with 6 year non-parole periods did not give...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal.']