Lin v R; Ng v R [2016] NSWCCA 200

Lin v R; Ng v R [2016] NSWCCA 200

The applicants did not demonstrate sentencing error. Although the assistance resulting from their actions was valuable and their actions were an essential component of it, their personal role was limited and the sentencing judge was entitled to temper the discount on that basis. The judge's finding that each applicant performed an essential role with a high level of responsibility was justified by the agreed facts and their roles were far removed from couriers. Given the quantity and purity of the drug, the applicants' awareness of quantity and price, and the deliberate and premeditated nature of the offending, the sentences were within the legitimate exercise of the sentencing discretion...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['importing a Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 'assistance to Authorities' 'assessment of Offender Role' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['importing a Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 'assistance to Authorities' 'assessment of Offender Role' '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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the discount for assisting the authorities.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that each applicant performed an essential role with a high level of responsibility.' "Whether the sentences of 12 years' imprisonment with non-parole periods of 8 years were manifestly excessive."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not demonstrate sentencing error. Although the assistance resulting from their actions was valuable and their actions were an essential component of it, their personal role was limited and the sentencing judge was entitled to temper the discount on that basis. The judge's finding that each applicant performed an essential role with a high level of responsibility was justified by the agreed facts and their roles were far removed from couriers. Given the quantity and purity of the drug, the applicants' awareness of quantity and price, and the deliberate and premeditated nature of the offending, the sentences were within the legitimate exercise of the sentencing discretion...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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