Xue v R [2017] NSWCCA 137

Xue v R [2017] NSWCCA 137

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show that the sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a 4 year non-parole period was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The findings as to objective seriousness, including that the offence was within the mid-range, were open; the sentencing judge expressly considered the applicant's subjective circumstances, custody hardship and psychological report; the statistics did not support manifest excess; and the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period supported the conclusion that the sentence was within range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'domestic Violence' 'objective Seriousness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Excess' 'wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'domestic Violence' 'objective Seriousness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge's assessment of the offending as within the mid-range of objective seriousness was open." "Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the applicant's subjective circumstances, custody hardship and psychological report." 'Whether sentencing statistics supported the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show that the sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a 4 year non-parole period was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The findings as to objective seriousness, including that the offence was within the mid-range, were open; the sentencing judge expressly considered the applicant's subjective circumstances, custody hardship and psychological report; the statistics did not support manifest excess; and the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period supported the conclusion that the sentence was within range.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence refused.']