NSW Caselaw
Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused by the High Court - 5 October 2007
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Qing An v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 53 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 7 March 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hulme J at 122; Hislop J at 201
DECISION: See paragraph 121.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – irregularity – consideration of prejudicial evidence by jury during deliberation – failure to discharge jury – whether trial judge gave appropriate directions - SENTENCING – application of s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – term of sentence followed by non-parole period – whether trial judge failed to correctly impose sentence - SENTENCING – grouping of offences – sentencing for individual offences – whether trial judge erred in not differentiating between offences within grouping – accelerating criminality - whether trial judge erred in having regard to date of offence not seriousness in imposing sentence - SENTENCING – parity in sentencing co-offenders – concept of fairness and legitimate sense of grievance - SENTENCING – comparable sentence - promotion of consistency in sentencing – whether sentence manifestly excessive compared to sentence for similar offences under Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 97(1) - SENTENCING – totality - accumulation of sentence – accumulation of sentence as a special circumstance
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 97(1), (2) LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 33, 44 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) ss 6, 6(3), 10(1)(a)
Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 581 Festa v R (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALHR 616; [2004] HCA 15 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048; [2005] HCA 25 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 Postiglione v The Queen (1996) 189 CLR 295 R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152; [2000] NSWCA 292 R v Budd [2002] NSWCCA 302 R v El-Andouri [2004] NSWCCA 178 R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516 R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 CASES CITED: R v Hung Lo (2005) 159 A Crim R 71; [2005] NSWCCA 436 R v Itamua [2000] NSWCCA 502 R v K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; [2003] NSWCCA 406 R v Karaman (2002) 128 A Crim R 72; [2002] NSWCCA 48 R v King [1999] NSWCCA 251 R v Lansdell (NSWCCA, 22 May 1995, unreported) R v Marsland (NSWCCA, 17 July 1991, unreported) R v Olivier (NSWCCA, 15 September 1993, unreported) R v Rudkowsky (NSWCCA, 15 December 1992, unreported) R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 R v Swadling [2004] NSWCCA 421 R v Timmis [2003] NSWCCA 518 R v Uasi [1999] NSWCCA 306 R v Yin [2005] NSWCCA 138 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate