Wu v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 96


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Wu v R [2016] NSWCCA 96
Hearing dates:14 April 2016
Decision date: 27 May 2016
Before: Ward JA at [1];
Price J at [83];
Adamson J at [84]
Decision:

1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – market manipulation and dishonesty offences – where offender assisted authorities in investigation of co-offenders – whether sentencing judge erred in determination of discount for assistance – whether error in comparative severity of sentences for offences – whether extent of accumulation reflected failure to apply principle of totality – leave to appeal granted and appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 1041A, 1311(1), 184(2)(a)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2)(g), 19AC, 20(1)(b)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s11.5
Cases Cited: AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 333
C v R [2013] NSWCCA 81; (2013) 229 A Crim R 233
Chan, Lo & Nguyen v R [2010] NSWCCA 153
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hutchinson v R [2014] NSWCCA 317
Isaac v R [2012] NSWCCA 195
Ma v R [2010] NSWCCA 320
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Charman [2007] NSWSC 1177
R v Dulhunty; R v PR [2015] NSWSC 1747
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; (2012) 221 A Crim R 63
R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38; (2012) 219 A Crim R 415
R v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130; (2007) 171 A Crim R 267
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
R v Wu [2015] NSWSC 1877
SL v R [2015] NSWCCA 30
Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ge Wu (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Game SC with S Buchen (Applicant)
L Crowley (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Watsons Solicitors (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):2014/00235651
Publication restriction:Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law Division
Citation:
[2015] NSWSC 1877
Date of Decision:
18 December 2015
Before:
Bellew J
File Number(s):
2014/00235651; 2014/00147710

Judgment

  1. WARD JA: The applicant, Mr Wu, pleaded guilty on 19 May 2015 in the Local Court to two counts of conspiracy to engage in market manipulation contrary to ss 1041A and 1311(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 11.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (together, “the market manipulation offences”) and one count of dishonestly using his position as a director, contrary to ss 184(2)(a) and 1311(1) of the Corporations Act (“the dishonesty offence”). He was committed for sentence to the Supreme…

Continue reading Wu v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wu v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 96
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wu v The Queen, the appellant, Mr Wu, appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge. Mr Wu had been convicted of various market manipulation and dishonesty offences. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in the discount provided to Mr Wu for his assistance to the authorities in investigating his co-offenders, whether there was an error in the comparative severity of sentences for the offences, and whether the extent of the accumulation reflected a failure to apply the principle of totality. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The court considered the extent to which the primary judge had erred in determining the discount for Mr Wu's assistance. It found that the sentencing judge had applied the correct principles in determining the discount for Mr Wu's assistance to the authorities and that the discount provided was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court also examined the comparative severity of sentences for the offences and concluded that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the factors relevant to the comparative severity of the sentences. Finally, the court considered whether the extent of accumulation reflected a failure to apply the principle of totality. It found that the sentencing judge had appropriately applied the principle of totality and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed by Mr Wu.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.