CHUA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 353
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 353 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:230/2000 | 17 SEPTEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J ANDERSON J | 14/11/01 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Sentence of imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 8 years reduced to 13 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months and sentence taken to begin on 16 June 2000 | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALBERT CHWEE KOK CHUA THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Drug offences Judgment and punishment Sentencing Adequacy of discount of 2 years from starting point of 18 years Discount of 11.2 per cent for early plea of guilty inadequate Discount of 25 per cent held to be appropriate Sentence of imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 8 years reduced to a sentence of imprisonment for 13 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months |
Legislation: | Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 147 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 87 |
Case References: | Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54 Foster and D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lim v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 505 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 "X" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 Diefenbach v R (1999) 108 A Crim R 19 R v Ngui & Tiong [2000] VSCA 78 Heryadi v The Queen (19998) 19 WAR 383 Doherty v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997 The Queen v Foster & D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 The Queen v Chee Kwok Wong, unreported; SCt of WA; 24 November 2000 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CHUA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 353 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Drug offences - Judgment and punishment - Sentencing - Adequacy of discount of 2 years from starting point of 18 years - Discount of 11.2 per cent for early plea of guilty inadequate - Discount of 25 per cent held to be appropriate - Sentence of imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 8 years reduced to a sentence of imprisonment for 13 years and 6 months with a…
Continue reading Chua v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Chua v The Queen [2001] WASCA 353
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chua was found guilty of multiple counts of drug trafficking and was sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 8 years. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that the discount of 2 years from the starting point of 18 years was inadequate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The key issue before the court was whether the discount of 11.2 per cent for the early plea of guilty was appropriate or if a greater reduction should have been applied.
The court considered the principles of sentencing for drug offences and the relevant case law. It found that the discount of 2 years was inadequate and that a greater reduction was warranted, considering the totality of the circumstances and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court held that a discount of 25 per cent was appropriate in this case. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for 13 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months. The court also ordered that the sentence was to begin on 16 June 2000.
The court considered the principles of sentencing for drug offences and the relevant case law. It found that the discount of 2 years was inadequate and that a greater reduction was warranted, considering the totality of the circumstances and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court held that a discount of 25 per cent was appropriate in this case. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for 13 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months. The court also ordered that the sentence was to begin on 16 June 2000.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Sentence of imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 8 years reduced to 13 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months and sentence taken to begin on 16 June 2000
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.