Legal Research
Cases
Chin v The Queen

Chin v The Queen

Case [2020] NTCCA 7 1 July 2020

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:Chin v The Queen [2020] NTCCA 7
PARTIES:CHIN, Robert

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 26 of 2019 (21625264)
DELIVERED:  1 July 2020

HEARING DATES: 2 June 2020
JUDGMENT OF: Grant CJ, Blokland and Hiley JJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Failure to take into account a relevant consideration – Manifest excess – Misapplication of principle – Re-sentence

Appellant sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years for the supply of commercial quantities of methamphetamine and cannabis – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether sentencing judge erred in applying The Queen v Roe contrary to the principle of instinctive synthesis – Whether principle of parity required appellant to receive a lesser sentence than his co-offender – Whether sentencing judge failed to consider the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation – No specific error identified in the reasons of the sentencing judge – Sentence manifestly excessive – Appellant re-sentenced.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT) s 3

Donovan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 169, Edmonds v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 1, Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462, Kristiansen v Young [2010] ACTSC 61, Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, Postiglione v The Queen(1997) 189 CLR 295, R v Kerr [2003] NSWCCA 234, R v Koumis (2008) 18 VR 434, R v McGowan (1986) 42 SASR 580, R v Proom (2003) 85 SASR 120, R v Stone [2010] QCA 157, Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629, R v Wilton (1981) 28 SASR 362, R v Wing Cheong Li [2010] NSWCCA 125, The Queen v Indrikson [2014] NTCCA 10, The Queen v Kilic (2016) 339 ALR 229, The Queen v Roe [2017] NTCCA 7, referred to.
A Freiberg, Fox &Freiberg's Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria, Lawbook Co, 2014 (Third Edition).
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:M Thomas
Respondent:  M Chalmers
Solicitors:
Appellant:Direct brief
Respondent:  Officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Number of pages:  22

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Chin v The Queen [2020] NTCCA 7

No. 21625264
BETWEEN:

ROBERT CHIN
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ, BLOKLAND and HILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 1 July 2020)
THE COURT:

On 25 August 2017, the appellant and his co-offender were each found guilty by a jury of one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a Schedule 1 drug (methamphetamine) and one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 drug (cannabis). On 28 November 2017 both the appellant and the co-offender were sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years, backdated to commence on 20 June 2017 to take account of time already spent in custody. A non-parole period of five years was fixed for each of…

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 Chin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chin v The Queen [2020] NTCCA 7
Case: [2020] NTCCA 7
Decision Date: 1 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, Chin, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the supply of commercial quantities of methamphetamine and cannabis. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge had erred in applying the principles established in *The Queen v Roe* contrary to the principle of instinctive synthesis, whether the principle of parity required a lesser sentence than that imposed on a co-offender, and whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The Full Court found no specific error in the sentencing judge's reasons. However, it concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court applied the principle of instinctive synthesis, considering all relevant factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence. While the principle of parity was considered, it did not mandate a specific outcome in this instance. The Court also considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the Full Court determined that a sentence of 7 years imprisonment was appropriate, and the appellant was re-sentenced accordingly.

Orders