Shu Qiang LI v R [2005] NSWCCA 442

Shu Qiang LI v R [2005] NSWCCA 442

The appeal succeeded only on the limited parity issue concerning the non-parole period. The sentencing judge found the same special circumstances for the applicant and Wu, but fixed Wu's non-parole period at about 56 per cent of his total sentence and the applicant's at about 70 per cent, without explanation. That gave very little effect to the special circumstances found in the applicant's favour and warranted reducing the applicant's non-parole period while maintaining the total sentence structure otherwise imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Sentence quashed and applicant re-sentenced by varying the non-parole period.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Detaining for Advantage' 'aggravated Demanding of Money With Menaces' 'parity' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess' 'form One']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Detaining for Advantage' 'aggravated Demanding of Money With Menaces' 'parity' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess' 'form One']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to differentiate between the applicant, charged under s 86(2) of the Crimes Act, and co-offender Wu, charged under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence said to be above the middle range after finding the matter was in the middle range of seriousness.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.' "Whether there was a lack of parity or proportionality between the applicant's sentence and the sentences imposed on co-offenders, particularly Wu."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded only on the limited parity issue concerning the non-parole period. The sentencing judge found the same special circumstances for the applicant and Wu, but fixed Wu's non-parole period at about 56 per cent of his total sentence and the applicant's at about 70 per cent, without explanation. That gave very little effect to the special circumstances found in the applicant's favour and warranted reducing the applicant's non-parole period while maintaining the total sentence structure otherwise imposed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Sentence quashed and applicant re-sentenced by varying the non-parole period.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal against sentence allowed.' 'The sentence imposed by Judge Goldring on 22 July 2004 quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, a non-parole period of three years and three months commencing on 13 May 2003 and expiring on 12 August 2006 was set.' 'A balance of term of two years one month...