Legal Research
Cases
Wei v The King

Wei v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 150 24 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wei v R [2025] NSWCCA 150
Hearing dates: 2 July 2025
Supplementary submissions filed on 11, 18 and 25 July 2025
Date of orders: 24 September 2025
Decision date: 24 September 2025
Before: Leeming JA at [1]
Free JA at [2]
N Adams J at [81]
Decision:
(1) Leave be granted under s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING—Appeal against sentence—Erroneous incorporation of reduction for past cooperation within utilitarian discount for early plea—Failure to consider contrition—Re-sentencing exercise undertaken—Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c), 6
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 141.1, 142.2, 478.1

Cases Cited:
Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35
Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 225 A Crim R 354
DG v R [2025] NSWCCA 137
DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32
DS v R [2025] NSWCCA 53
Finnigan v R [2022] NSWCCA 181
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Kilby v R [2023] NSWCCA 247
McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200
Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282; 65 A Crim R 209
Patel v R [2022] NSWCCA 93
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
O’Hanlon v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 118
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Grossi (2008) 23 VR 500; [2008] VSCA 51; (2008) 183 A Crim R 15
R v Stanbouli [2003] NSWCCA 355; (2003) 141 A Crim R 531
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74
Singh v R [2018] NSWCCA 60
Weber v R [2020] NSWCCA 103
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14
Winchester v R (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Wenfeng Wei (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K D Ginges (Applicant)
S J Buchen SC / S Palaniappan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/167864
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

12 March 2024

Before:

Hanley SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/167864

HEADNOTE

The applicant, Wenfeng Wei, was convicted of five Commonwealth offences contrary to the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The offending occurred when the applicant was a client engagement officer with the Australian Tax Office (ATO) between July 2010 and June 2022. In May 2016 he was assigned to an audit into the taxation affairs…

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 Wei v The King

Details

AGLC: Wei v The King [2025] NSWCCA 150
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 150
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wei v The King involved the appellant, Wei, appealing against his sentence, which he considered to be excessive. Wei had been convicted of multiple offences including drug trafficking and was sentenced by the County Court. The Court of Appeal was tasked with examining whether the trial judge erred in the sentencing process, particularly in incorporating a reduction for past cooperation within the utilitarian discount for an early plea, and in failing to adequately consider Wei's contrition.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate application of sentencing discounts and the need to properly account for factors such as contrition. The court considered whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the discount for an early plea and the recognition of past cooperation and contrition. It was also necessary to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in the application of the sentencing discounts and in not adequately considering the appellant's contrition. The court undertook a re-sentencing exercise, taking into account the proper application of discounts and the appellant's contrition. After this exercise, the Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the appeal. The court's decision highlighted the importance of correctly applying sentencing principles and considering all relevant factors in the sentencing process.

Orders