Xiao Feng WANG v R [2009] NSWCCA 223

Xiao Feng WANG v R [2009] NSWCCA 223

The sentencing judge erred in assessing the offence as being in the mid range of objective gravity. Her Honour appeared to assess the applicant's criminality against drug dealing generally, rather than against offences involving supply of a large commercial quantity of ecstasy, and the proved facts did not establish a level of involvement comparable to cases treated as mid range or above. The offence fell somewhat below the mid range and the sentence of 20 years with a 15 year non-parole period was manifestly excessive. Resentencing to 16 years imprisonment with a 12 year non-parole period was required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence on the first count quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['supply of Large Commercial Quantity of Ecstasy' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Large Commercial Quantity of Ecstasy' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in approaching the standard non-parole period for supply of a large commercial quantity of ecstasy.' 'Whether it was open to find that the offence fell within the mid range of objective gravity.' 'Whether the sentence of 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the applicant's subjective case warranted departure from the standard non-parole period or a finding of special circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in assessing the offence as being in the mid range of objective gravity. Her Honour appeared to assess the applicant's criminality against drug dealing generally, rather than against offences involving supply of a large commercial quantity of ecstasy, and the proved facts did not establish a level of involvement comparable to cases treated as mid range or above. The offence fell somewhat below the mid range and the sentence of 20 years with a 15 year non-parole period was manifestly excessive. Resentencing to 16 years imprisonment with a 12 year non-parole period was required.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence on the first count quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'The sentence passed in the District Court on the first count in the indictment is quashed.' 'In lieu, the applicant is sentenced on that count to a non-parole period of 12 years, commencing on 12 July 2005 and expiring on 11 July 2017, and a balance of term of 4 years,...