Wright (a pseudonym) v R [2017] NSWCCA 289

Wright (a pseudonym) v R [2017] NSWCCA 289

The applicant did not establish error in the sentencing judge's parity reasoning. It was open to find that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy from February 2014, although not in the air cargo importation. The sentencing judge adequately accounted for MI's involvement in a greater quantity and the air cargo importation, while also accounting for the applicant's superior and more executive role in the enterprise. Those considerations balanced, and no basis was shown for sentencing the applicant more leniently than MI.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'conspiracy to Import Border Controlled Substance' 'pseudoephedrine' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'conspiracy to Import Border Controlled Substance' 'pseudoephedrine' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance']

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 Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance because he received the same sentence as co-offender MI despite differences in their roles and quantities involved.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by proceeding on the basis that the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy commenced in February 2014 rather than September 2014." "Whether the sentencing judge gave inadequate weight to MI's involvement in the earlier air cargo importation and the greater quantity of pseudoephedrine in which MI was involved." "Whether the Court should give weight to the dismissal of MI's separate sentence appeal raising a parity ground."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish error in the sentencing judge's parity reasoning. It was open to find that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy from February 2014, although not in the air cargo importation. The sentencing judge adequately accounted for MI's involvement in a greater quantity and the air cargo importation, while also accounting for the applicant's superior and more executive role in the enterprise. Those considerations balanced, and no basis was shown for sentencing the applicant more leniently than MI.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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