REGINA v TAMOTSU [1999] NSWCCA 400

REGINA v TAMOTSU [1999] NSWCCA 400

The jury was entitled to infer, based on admissions and similarity of circumstances, that the appellant conspired to import and did import heroin in trafficable quantities. The conspiracy charge was proved by evidence of arrangement and involvement in Sydney and elsewhere. Sentences for both counts were within discretion, but disparity in s16G deduction and lack of explanation in comparison to co-offender justified intervention on sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed
Legal Topics
['evidence' 'sentencing' 'conspiracy to Import Narcotics' 'probative Value of Coincidence Evidence' 'parity Principle in Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['evidence' 'sentencing' 'conspiracy to Import Narcotics' 'probative Value of Coincidence Evidence' 'parity Principle in Sentencing']

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 / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish guilt on the first count of conspiracy to import narcotics' 'Whether evidence of one count should have been admitted to inform the other' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive' 'Whether the parity principle required reduction of sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was entitled to infer, based on admissions and similarity of circumstances, that the appellant conspired to import and did import heroin in trafficable quantities. The conspiracy charge was proved by evidence of arrangement and involvement in Sydney and elsewhere. Sentences for both counts were within discretion, but disparity in s16G deduction and lack of explanation in comparison to co-offender justified intervention on sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted' 'Sentence of trial judge quashed' "Substituted sentence: first count—seven years' imprisonment commencing 17 January 1997; second count—ten years and three months imprisonment commencing 17 January 1997" 'Non-parole period fixed at six years and three months']