Wu v The Queen - [2018] NSWCCA 74

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Wu v R [2018] NSWCCA 74
Hearing dates: 16 April 2018
Date of orders: 27 April 2018
Decision date: 27 April 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Davies J at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against sentence – supply of large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 25(2) – applicant’s role found to be that of courier – objective seriousness of offending - where offender used coded telecommunications to courier of drugs of significant weight and purity and was motivated by financial gain - principles applying to untested assertions to third parties – where offender relied on statements to psychiatrist inconsistent with agreed facts – sentence not manifestly excessive – no basis for any grounds of appeal
Legislation Cited: Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 21
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
Vaiusu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jian Wu (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Coroneos (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Bo Yu Chi (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/233942
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

2 December 2016

Before:

Acting Judge Delaney

File Number(s):

2015/233942

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Davies J and the order which he proposes.
FULLERTON J: I agree with Davies J.
DAVIES J: The applicant pleaded guilty on 8 March 2016 in Central Local Court to one count of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug being 5.98kg of methylamphetamine. The offence took place on 10 August 2015. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 15 years.
He was sentenced by Acting Judge Delaney in the District Court on 2 December 2016 to imprisonment for nine years commencing 10 August 2015 and expiring 9 August 2024 with a non-parole period of five years nine months expiring 9 May 2021.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal on the following grounds:

(1)   His Honour erred in the exercise of his discretion when sentencing the Applicant by wrongly determining:
1.   the proven role of the Applicant;
2.   the level of the Applicant (sic) objective culpability;
3.   the prospect of the Applicant receiving a substantial reward;
4.   the Applicant having a significant level of involvement in the execution of the organisation;
5.   in imposing on the Applicant an onus to give evidence and persuade him without reservation that his role only as serious as appear in the agreed statement of facts (sic);
6.   in concluding that the Applicants…

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 Wu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wu v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 74
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 74
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wu v The Queen was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the defendant, Wu, appealed against his sentence for supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. Wu's conviction was upheld under section 25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The primary legal issue in this case was to determine whether the sentence imposed on Wu was manifestly excessive or unjust, considering the nature and circumstances of his involvement in the drug trafficking activities.

The court examined the objective seriousness of Wu's offending, noting that he acted as a courier for the drug supply, using coded telecommunications to facilitate the transportation of drugs of significant weight and purity. The court also took into account that Wu's primary motivation was financial gain. Additionally, the court considered Wu's reliance on statements made to a psychiatrist, which were inconsistent with the agreed facts of the case. The principles governing untested assertions to third parties were applied to assess the credibility and weight of these statements.

After considering all the factors, the court concluded that Wu's sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that there was no basis for any grounds of appeal, as the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crime and Wu's role within it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders