Legal Research
Cases
Zhang v R

Zhang v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 82 4 May 2018

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v R [2018] NSWCCA 82
Hearing dates: 18 April 2018
Date of orders: 04 May 2018
Decision date: 04 May 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Fullerton J at [57];
Davies J at [58]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal be granted.
(2) The appeal be dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – supply of large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – no specific discount for early plea of guilty referred to in reasons for sentence – whether explanation pursuant to s 11 of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 appropriate – sufficient indicia that discount had been allowed – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 93T(1A)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – ss 5(1)(c), 11
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – s 25(2)
Cases Cited: Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Edwards v R [2017] NSWCCA 160
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Lee v R [2016] NSWCCA 146
Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314
R v DF [2005] NSWCCA 259
R v Harrison [2006] NSWCCA 185
R v Henare [2005] NSWCCA 366
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; 127 A Crim R 369
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Sloane [2001] NSWCCA 421; 126 A Crim R 188
Vos v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 234
Woodward v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 205
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Si Ji Zhang – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
Dr G Woods QC/T Woods – Applicant
NJ Adams – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
S Joyner – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2015/144758
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

23 June 2017

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/144758

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

The applicant pleaded guilty to knowingly take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (1996.9 grams of methylamphetamine) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 15 years.

There was taken into account on sentence on a Form 1, an offence of knowingly participate in a criminal group and direct activities, contrary to s 93T(1A) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.
The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months, commencing 3 October 2015 and expiring 2 July 2022, with a balance of term of 2 years and 3 months, expiring 2 October 2024.
The applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by King SC…

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 Zhang v R

Details

AGLC: Zhang v R [2018] NSWCCA 82
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 82
Decision Date: 04 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Zhang v R, the appellant, Zhang, sought to appeal the sentence imposed on him for supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The appeal was heard by the court which was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had appropriately considered and applied a discount for Zhang's early plea of guilty, as required by the provisions of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had adequately explained the reasons for the sentence imposed, particularly in relation to the discount for the early plea of guilty.

The court examined the reasons for the sentence provided by the trial judge to ascertain if there were sufficient indicia that a discount for the early plea of guilty had been considered and applied. The court found that while the trial judge had not explicitly mentioned the discount, there were indications that it had been factored into the overall sentencing decision. This included references to the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence, which the court interpreted as implicitly acknowledging the discount. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's reasons for the sentence were sufficient and that the explanation provided complied with the requirements of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Given the court's determination that the trial judge's reasons for sentence were sufficient, the appeal was dismissed. Although leave to appeal had been granted, the court found no merit in the appeal as it did not establish any error in the trial judge's sentencing process. Therefore, the original sentence imposed on Zhang was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without further comment.

Orders