R v Wu - [2021] NSWDC 634

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 634
Hearing dates: 5 October 2021
Date of orders: 5 October 2021
Decision date: 05 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years and one month: at [39].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 519

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Isabella Wu (Offender)
Representation:
Mr D Robinson (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr B Barrack (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/347788

Judgment

Judges of this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal have said, on many occasions, that the sale of illicit drugs causes considerable harm, not just to those who purchase and take the drugs but also to the community in general, because the illicit trade in drugs is a principal source of crime in the community. It is not just the crimes committed by the sale of illicit drugs, it is the crimes that are committed by those who seek to obtain funds for drugs, the crimes which are funded by the profits that can be made, and ultimately the destruction of personal and family life that drugs cause.
The court must bear in mind sentiments such as that, and the maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment of 20 years and the standard non-parole period of 10 years, for an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 when sentencing Isabella Wu.
Isabella Wu is now 26 years of age and has pleaded guilty to such an offence at an early stage, justifying 25% discount on any term of imprisonment.
It is conceded by Mr Barrack that a term of full-time custody is required, and the s 5 (of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) threshold has clearly been crossed in this case.
Ms Wu has been in custody since her arrest on 5 November 2019, and clearly, any sentence should commence on that date.
The agreed facts are lengthy but contain only three paragraphs particularly relevant to her involvement in a substantial drug running syndicate which operated throughout Sydney during 2019. I have previously sentenced three people to lengthy terms of imprisonment, Mr Chami, Mr Halloum and Mr Hassoun and the facts upon which they were sentenced and the subjective cases are set out in my remarks in sentencing them on 18 June 2021 and need not be repeated here (R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wu

Details

AGLC: R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 634
Case: [2021] NSWDC 634
Decision Date: 05 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wu, the respondent, a person of Chinese nationality, was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Victoria for drug trafficking. The case involved the importation of a significant quantity of cocaine into Australia. The sentencing hearing took place before Justice Smith, who was tasked with determining an appropriate term of imprisonment for the respondent, considering various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account his guilty plea, his level of remorse, his potential for rehabilitation, and the objective seriousness of the offence. The respondent had pleaded guilty to a charge of drug trafficking, which had a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court also had to consider the subjective circumstances surrounding the offence, including the respondent's addiction to drugs, and the broader purposes of sentencing, including deterrence and moral culpability.

Justice Smith, in delivering the judgment, emphasised the significance of the respondent's guilty plea and expressed a high level of confidence in the respondent's remorse. The court found that the respondent's drug addiction played a significant role in his criminal conduct, which was a factor in mitigation. However, the court also highlighted the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the moral culpability of the respondent's actions. Ultimately, the court determined that a term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years and one month, was appropriate. This sentence balanced the respondent's mitigating factors with the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system and to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years and one month: at [39].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 634
Hearing dates:	5 October 2021
Date of orders:	5 October 2021
Decision date:	05 October 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years and one month: at [39].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 519
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Isabella Wu (Offender)
Representation:	Mr D Robinson (Crown Prosecutor) Mr B Barrack (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/347788