Lin v R [2018] NSWCCA 13

Lin v R [2018] NSWCCA 13

The Court found that the sentencing judge erred by treating the $2,000 financial reward as an aggravating factor when it was not significantly more than what is inherent in large commercial drug supply offences, resulting in double counting. In light of the successful appeal and reduction in sentence of a more culpable co-offender (Huang), parity and equal justice required the applicant's sentence to be reduced in proportion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence varied
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'objective Criminality' 'aggravating Factors' 'double Counting' 'parity' 'drug Supply']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'objective Criminality' 'aggravating Factors' 'double Counting' 'parity' 'drug Supply']

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 Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective criminality and aggravating factors under s 21A(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' "Whether 'planned or organised criminal activity' and 'financial gain' were improperly treated as aggravating factors or inherent in the offence" "Whether there was 'double counting' in treating financial gain as both an aspect of objective criminality and as an aggravating circumstance" 'Whether parity in sentencing among co-offenders was maintained']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the sentencing judge erred by treating the $2,000 financial reward as an aggravating factor when it was not significantly more than what is inherent in large commercial drug supply offences, resulting in double counting. In light of the successful appeal and reduction in sentence of a more culpable co-offender (Huang), parity and equal justice required the applicant's sentence to be reduced in proportion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence varied

Orders

  • ['Allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Set aside the sentence imposed by the District Court on 17 June 2016.' 'Sentence the applicant to imprisonment by way of a non-parole period of 4 years 1 month (20 May 2014 to 19 June 2018), and a balance of term of 1 year 11 months...