Director of Public Prosecutions v Chang (a pseudonym)

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Chang, the Victorian Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed on two co-offenders who had been convicted of trafficking in large commercial quantities of methylamphetamine. Both Chang and Tsao had pleaded guilty to the charges and had roles as cooks or workers in a clandestine laboratory used by a large syndicate for the manufacture of the drug. The court was required to consider the respective roles of the offenders, the quantity and purity of the drugs involved, and the specific circumstances of each offender, including their lack of prior criminal history, their status as foreign nationals residing in Australia illegally, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their potential sentences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offending, the role of each offender, and the principles of deterrence and proportionality against the backdrop of the offenders' early guilty pleas, their lack of criminal history, and the broader context of the pandemic. Additionally, the court had to consider the risk of deportation for each offender if they were to be imprisoned and the more burdensome nature of imprisonment during the COVID-19 restrictions.

The Court of Appeal found that while the primary judge had given proper weight to the offenders' early guilty pleas and their lack of criminal history, there had been an under-appreciation of the seriousness of the offending. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and increased the sentences for both offenders. Chang was sentenced to 8 years and 9 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 5 months, and Tsao was sentenced to 7 years and 9 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 2 months.

In light of the increased sentences, the court also varied the sentences under section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, reflecting the greater seriousness of the offending. Chang was sentenced to 11 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months, and Tsao was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.