R v QUANSAH [2000] NSWCCA 64

R v QUANSAH [2000] NSWCCA 64

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the respondent was to be sentenced as one who organised the purchase of the cocaine in South America, purchased it and imported the amount he intended to import, with 643.7 grams of pure cocaine, and who would have supplied the greater part to others after reserving some for his own use; the original sentence, particularly the two and a half year non-parole period, would have been insufficient even for a bare courier and his role was more substantial than that.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal Concerning Importation of Cocaine / Crown Appeal Against Alleged Inadequacy of Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to six years' imprisonment with a four year non-parole period.
Legal Topics
['importation of Cocaine' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'role of Offender in Drug Importation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['importation of Cocaine' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'role of Offender in Drug Importation']

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 Sentencing Appeal Concerning Importation of Cocaine / Crown Appeal Against Alleged Inadequacy of Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years six months was manifestly inadequate." "How the respondent's role in the importation should be assessed for sentencing purposes." 'Whether the respondent should be sentenced as a person who organised, purchased and imported the cocaine, intending to supply the greater part to others.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the respondent was to be sentenced as one who organised the purchase of the cocaine in South America, purchased it and imported the amount he intended to import, with 643.7 grams of pure cocaine, and who would have supplied the greater part to others after reserving some for his own use; the original sentence, particularly the two and a half year non-parole period, would have been insufficient even for a bare courier and his role was more substantial than that.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to six years' imprisonment with a four year non-parole period.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed and sentence quashed.' 'In lieu the respondent sentenced to imprisonment for six years commencing on 10 June 1999 and expiring on 9 June 2005.' 'Fix a non-parole period of four years, dating from 10 June 1999. The respondent is eligible for release on parole on 10 June 2003.']