Wang v The King - [2023] NSWCCA 208

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v R [2023] NSWCCA 208
Hearing dates: 21 July 2023
Date of orders: 23 August 2023
Decision date: 23 August 2023
Before: Kirk JA [at 1]
N Adams J [at 2]
R A Hulme AJ [at 4]
Decision:
(1)   Extend the time for commencing proceedings in this Court to 28 September 2022.
(2)   Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal.
(3)   Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 23 June 2017 and in lieu, sentence the offender to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months.
(4)   The sentence will date from 14 May 2015. The offender became eligible for release on parole when the non-parole period expired on 13 August 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – serious drug supply offences – complaint of erroneous disparity with sentence imposed upon co-offenders – parity ground upheld – no requirement to deal with other unmeritorious proposed grounds of appeal

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93T(1A) and 193B(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Abbas v R [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2013) 231 A Crim R 413
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Kev R [2021] NSWCCA 177
Kristensen v R [2018] NSWCCA 189
Parkinson v R [2021] NSWCCA 98
Ritchie v R [2023] NSWCCA 153
Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47
Zhang v R [2018] NSWCCA 82

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Li Wang (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/321172; 2015/144749
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2017] NSWDC 457

Date of Decision:

23 June 2017

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/321172; 2015/144749

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not part of the judgment]

Mr Li Wang pleaded guilty to three drug offences: one of supplying an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine and two of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The first offence related to 31.64g of the drug which was found upon police searching Mr Wang’s home unit on 31 October 2014. He was charged and released on bail.

On a number of occasions between 21 March and 28 April 2015 Mr Wang supplied quantities of methylamphetamine totalling about 1.5kg and an indictable quantity (about 28g) of cocaine to an undercover operative. On 14 May 2015, in conjunction with co-offenders including Zhengyi Zhang and Si Ji Zhang, he was involved in the supply of almost 2kg of methylamphetamine to the undercover operative.

King SC DCJ sentenced Mr Wang on 23 June 2017 to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 13 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 10 years for the three offences of…

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 Wang v The King

Details

AGLC: Wang v The King [2023] NSWCCA 208
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 23 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v The King involved the appellant, Wang, who was convicted of multiple serious drug supply offences. Wang sought to appeal against his sentence, arguing that there was an erroneous disparity between his sentence and those imposed on his co-offenders. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining the validity of Wang's claims regarding the sentencing disparity and any other grounds of appeal he raised. The court was required to consider whether the disparity in sentences was indeed erroneous and if any other grounds of appeal had merit.

The court commenced by examining the principle of parity, which requires that similar offenders be treated in a similar manner. The court found that there was indeed an erroneous disparity between Wang's sentence and those of his co-offenders. This finding alone was sufficient to warrant a reduction in Wang's sentence. The court noted that Wang's sentence was significantly harsher than those of his co-offenders despite the similarities in their roles and culpability. The court also considered other grounds of appeal raised by Wang, but found them to be unmeritorious and lacking in any basis to warrant further consideration.

Having determined that the parity ground of appeal was valid, the court reduced Wang's sentence to align with those of his co-offenders. The court did not consider it necessary to address the other grounds of appeal, as the disparity issue alone was sufficient to warrant a sentence adjustment. The court's decision effectively upheld the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that Wang's sentence was commensurate with that of his co-offenders. The court's final orders reflected the reduced sentence for Wang, in line with the parity principle.

The court's decision in Wang v The King serves as a reminder of the importance of parity in sentencing, particularly in cases involving co-offenders. The court's focus on the principle of parity and its application to the facts of the case highlights the need for consistency in sentencing practices. The court's determination that the disparity in Wang's sentence was erroneous and required adjustment underscores the significance of this principle in achieving fair and just outcomes in criminal cases.

Orders