NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Wong v R [2018] NSWCCA 263 Hearing dates: 10 October 2018 Decision date: 23 November 2018 Before: Leeming JA at [1] Walton J at [2] Wilson J at [3] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – import commercial quantity of border controlled drug – methamphetamine – whether the sentencing judge considered the plea of guilty in mitigation – whether the sentencing judge erred in dealing with the criminality involved in the s 16BA matter – whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the sentence was aggravated by being committed without regard for public safety – organised criminal activity – whether the sentencing judge erred in placing too much emphasis on the offence being committed for financial gain - whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the character, age and antecedents of the applicant – whether the sentencing judge failed to make a finding regarding rehabilitation – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Code (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 137 A Crim R 180; [2002] NSWCCA 518 DBW v R [2007] NSWCCA 236 Devine v R [2009] NSWCCA 261 DPP (Cth) v Gow (2015) NSWCCA 208; 298 FLR 397 Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2 Iyoha v R [2011] WASCA 46 Kassis v R [2013] NSWCCA 298 Landner v R [2014] NSWCCA 198 Lim v The Queen [2017] VSCA 246 R v Barton (2001) 121 A Crim R 185; [2001] NSWCCA 63 R v Calis [2013] QCA 165 R v Dennison [2011] NSWCCA 114 R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91 R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368 R v Onyebuchi [2016] QCA 143 R v Schumacher [2005] NSWCCA 335 R v Vougdis (1989) 41 A Crim R 125 Van Can Ha v R [2008] NSWCCA 141 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ka Yi Elizabeth Wong Regina Representation: Counsel: Mr M. C. Ramage QC - Applicant Ms G. Wright – Respondent
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