Wienand v R
Case
•
[2013] NSWCCA 202
•30 August 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wienand v R [2013] NSWCCA 202
[2013] NSWCCA 202
30 August 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Wienand, appealed against his sentence for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the appeal. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether Wienand's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it was appropriate to consider the sentence of a co-offender who had their sentence reduced by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Crown also argued that Wienand had no justifiable sense of grievance and that his case was different from that of his co-offender due to his higher position in the drug supply hierarchy.
The court considered whether Wienand's sentence was manifestly excessive and if it was necessary to reduce it in light of the co-offender's reduced sentence. It also examined whether Wienand had a justifiable sense of grievance and if his position in the drug supply hierarchy warranted a different sentence. The court found that Wienand's appeal was not well-founded and dismissed it. The court held that there was no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance and that Wienand's case was different from that of his co-offender due to his higher position in the drug supply hierarchy.
The court concluded that Wienand's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it was not necessary to reduce it in light of the co-offender's reduced sentence. The court found that Wienand's higher position in the drug supply hierarchy warranted a different sentence and that there was no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld Wienand's sentence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Wienand's appeal and upheld his sentence for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The court found that there was no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance and that Wienand's case was different from that of his co-offender due to his higher position in the drug supply hierarchy. The court held that Wienand's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it was not necessary to reduce it in light of the co-offender's reduced sentence.
The court considered whether Wienand's sentence was manifestly excessive and if it was necessary to reduce it in light of the co-offender's reduced sentence. It also examined whether Wienand had a justifiable sense of grievance and if his position in the drug supply hierarchy warranted a different sentence. The court found that Wienand's appeal was not well-founded and dismissed it. The court held that there was no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance and that Wienand's case was different from that of his co-offender due to his higher position in the drug supply hierarchy.
The court concluded that Wienand's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it was not necessary to reduce it in light of the co-offender's reduced sentence. The court found that Wienand's higher position in the drug supply hierarchy warranted a different sentence and that there was no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld Wienand's sentence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Wienand's appeal and upheld his sentence for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The court found that there was no basis for a justifiable sense of grievance and that Wienand's case was different from that of his co-offender due to his higher position in the drug supply hierarchy. The court held that Wienand's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it was not necessary to reduce it in light of the co-offender's reduced sentence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Wienand v R [2013] NSWCCA 202
Most Recent Citation
McTague v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 83
Cases Citing This Decision
10
R v Birnie
[2014] NSWDC 146
High Court Bulletin
[2014] HCAB 7
McTague v R
[2020] NSWCCA 83
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1
Hill v R
[2012] NSWCCA 265
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39
Puttick v Tenon Ltd
[2008] HCA 54