Ching v R [2018] NSWCCA 101

Ching v R [2018] NSWCCA 101

None of the grounds raised established reviewable error; the sentencing judge took into account all relevant subjective and objective factors, including mental illness, drug quantity and value, role of the offender, and consequences of imprisonment. The sentence was within the permissible range and the weight and value of the drug were appropriately considered. Loss of housing did not amount to extra-curial hardship and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
Refuse leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court on 31 March 2017.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'importation of Border Controlled Drugs' 'extra Curial Hardship' 'relevance of Offender Knowledge of Quantity/value' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'importation of Border Controlled Drugs' 'extra Curial Hardship' 'relevance of Offender Knowledge of Quantity/value' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' '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 / Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by considering the weight and value of the drug when not known to the offender' 'Whether mental illness was adequately considered with respect to deterrence and mitigation' 'Whether subsequent loss of housing amounted to extra-curial punishment' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds raised established reviewable error; the sentencing judge took into account all relevant subjective and objective factors, including mental illness, drug quantity and value, role of the offender, and consequences of imprisonment. The sentence was within the permissible range and the weight and value of the drug were appropriately considered. Loss of housing did not amount to extra-curial hardship and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Refuse leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court on 31 March 2017.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court on 31 March 2017.']