Shi v R [2017] NSWCCA 183

Shi v R [2017] NSWCCA 183

The applicant failed to establish unjustified disparity. His role was substantially greater than Mohammed's and So's because he acted as a middleman, sourced methylamphetamine from Chan, used multiple mobile phone services and had Mohammed deliver drugs to undercover operatives. The differing non-parole periods were explained by different findings as to special circumstances, and the applicant's criminal history and need for specific deterrence also justified the difference. No marked, clearly unjustifiable or manifest discrepancy was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 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
['sentence Appeal' 'parity' 'drug Supply' 'unjustified Disparity' 'co Offenders']
['criminal Law'] ['sentence Appeal' 'parity' 'drug Supply' 'unjustified Disparity' 'co Offenders']

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 sentence imposed on the applicant was too severe because of unjustified disparity with the sentences imposed on co-offenders Mohammed and So.' "Whether differences in the offenders' roles, criminal histories and special circumstances justified the different non-parole periods and sentences."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish unjustified disparity. His role was substantially greater than Mohammed's and So's because he acted as a middleman, sourced methylamphetamine from Chan, used multiple mobile phone services and had Mohammed deliver drugs to undercover operatives. The differing non-parole periods were explained by different findings as to special circumstances, and the applicant's criminal history and need for specific deterrence also justified the difference. No marked, clearly unjustifiable or manifest discrepancy was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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