Legal Research
Cases
Chong v The Queen

Chong v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 235 18 September 2020

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Failure to State Reasons

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chong v R [2020] NSWCCA 235
Hearing dates: 29 June 2020
Date of orders: 18 September 2020
Decision date: 18 September 2020
Before: Macfarlan JA; Fagan J; Cavanagh J
Decision:
1 Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – drug offences – supply not less than large commercial quantity of methyl amphetamine – whether sentencing judge erred by double counting factors of aggravation – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to make findings as to remorse and prospects of rehabilitation – failure sufficiently to state reasons – no lesser sentence warranted – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Farkas v R [2014] NSWCCA 141
Mansour v R [2011] NSWCCA 28
Prculowski v R [2010] NSWCCA 274
Tadrosse v R (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCCA 145
Thomas v R (Commonwealth) [2006] NSWCCA 313
Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Chun Keat Chong (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Howell (applicant)
M Millward (respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission NSW (applicant)
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/353943
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2019] NSWDC 36

Date of Decision:

1 March 2019

Before:

Mahony SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/353943

Judgment

THE COURT: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court at Sydney by his Honour Judge Mahoney SC. The drug-related offences for which he was sentenced were committed in October and November 2015. The applicant was arrested on 1 December 2015 and remanded in custody from that date. He was committed from the Local Court on 16 March 2017 and his trial, jointly with co-offenders, was listed to commence in the District Court on 23 April 2018. On that day he entered pleas of guilty to an amended indictment. Sentence proceedings in respect of the applicant and three of his co-offenders, who also pleaded guilty, were conducted on 19 October and 23 November 2018.
Sentences in respect of the applicant were pronounced on 1 March 2019, as follows:

Supply prohibited drug (methyl amphetamine) greater than the large commercial quantity (not less than 30kg), contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – 15 years commencing on the date of arrest, with a non-parole period of 10 years. The statutory maximum penalty is life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period 15 years applies.

Participate in a criminal group by directing its activities, knowing that the participation contributed to criminal activity, namely, the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methyl amphetamine, not less than 30kg), contrary to s 93T(4A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – a fixed term of five years, wholly concurrent with the sentence for count (1). The…

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 Chong v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chong v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 18 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Chong v The Queen involved the appellant, Chong, who was convicted of drug offences, specifically the supply of a large commercial quantity of methyl amphetamine. Chong appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred by double counting factors of aggravation and had failed to make findings on remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues for the court were whether the sentencing judge had indeed erred by double counting factors of aggravation, and if there had been a failure to make adequate findings on remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence was sufficiently justified and whether the sentencing judge's reasons were sufficiently detailed to satisfy legal standards.

The High Court examined the sentencing remarks and found that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering factors of aggravation, as each factor was distinct and warranted separate consideration. The court also determined that there was no requirement for the sentencing judge to make specific findings regarding remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, as these factors were not directly relevant to the sentence imposed. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and that the reasons provided were adequate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders