R v XU [2010] NSWDC 148

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v XU [2010] NSWDC 148 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 4 June 2010 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 4 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: For the offence of supplying cannabis, I impose a fixed term of twelve months imprisonment. For the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, I set a non-parole period of two and a half years with a head sentence of four and a half years.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm - Supply prohibited drug - Cannabis - Assistance to authorities

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

PARTIES: The Crown Liang Gary Xu

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/78390

COUNSEL: Ms V Lydiard (Crown) Mr P Boulton SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions Austin Haworth & Lexon Legal (Sydney)

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Liang Gary Xu comes before me for sentence on two completely separate matters. One of them is a most serious offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That carries with it a maximum penalty of twenty-five years and a standard non-parole period of seven years. The other offence is an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 2.8 kilograms of cannabis. That carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.

2 I will begin these remarks by saying something about the standard non-parole period in this case. The various offences which carry with them standard non-parole periods have widely disproportionate ratios between the standard non-parole period and the maximum penalty. This has led to some difficulty as sentencing judges attempt to comply with the various statutory and common law requirements concerning sentencing. One particular difficulty which arises in the present case is that sentencing judges have to be careful not to focus only on the standard non-parole period and ignore the maximum penalty. I have borne both of those statutory constraints in mind in the present case.