Director of Public Prosecutions v Heng
[2020] VCC 574
•7 May 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR-19-01888
CR-19-01889
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| V |
| JACK HENG NICK JIANG |
---
| JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE WILMOTH |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 26, 27 February 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 May 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Heng & Anor |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 574 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Subject: Criminal law - sentence
Catchwords: Offender Jiang pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of drug of dependence and one charge of trafficking simpliciter – also pleaded guilty to two summary charges - mid-level of seriousness as a supplier – drug user – prior conviction involving violence but not drugs – on CCO at time of this offending – youthful offender. Offender Heng pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in large commercial quantity of DOD, two charges of trafficking simpliciter, one charge of possessing a tablet press, and one charge of possessing methylamphetamine – offending at below mid-level of seriousness as a supplier – standard sentencing scheme applies – youthful offender – good prospects for rehabilitation – totality.
Cases Cited: Gregory v R [2017] VSCA 151, DPP v Condo [2019] VSCA 181, DPP v Weybury [2018] 84 MV Reports 183, Dao v R [2014] VSCA 93, DPP v Lamberti [2019] VCC 1498, DPP v Quah [2019] VCC 1158, Al Janabe & Ors [2020] VCC 1313, Kha [2019] VCC 1682, Brown v R [2019] VSCA 286
Sentence: Jiang – 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, non parole period 4 years and 6 months
Heng – 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, non parole period 6 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr M. Regan | OPP |
| For Accused Heng | Mr D. Swan | VLA |
| For Accused Jiang | Mr A. Pyne | Doogue & George |
HER HONOUR:
1The co-accused in this case were prosecuted on separate indictments.
They were involved in drug trafficking with other offenders and with covert operatives.2The prosecution case is that a police investigation disclosed the supply of drugs by Jiang and Heng to offenders Xiao and Guan. Xiao ultimately sold drugs to covert operatives. Jiang supplied methylamphetamine and cocaine to Xiao and Guan, while Heng supplied ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as well as some cocaine and methylamphetamine to Xiao and Guan.
Structure of sentencing remarks
3First, I will set out the charges on each indictment with maximum penalties applicable, then I will briefly set out how the prosecution describes the content of each charge. Next, I will note the personal background and circumstances of each offender, with a discussion of sentencing principles as they apply in each case. I will determine the role of each offender, having considered the submissions from each party. Finally, I will impose a sentence on each offender.
The charges against Mr Jiang
4I shall deal first with the charges against Mr Jiang. Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely, methylamphetamine, in a commercial quantity. Charge 2 is a rolled-up charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely, cocaine. Mr Jiang has also pleaded guilty to two summary charges: dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime - that is, cash of $7,110 - and possessing cartridge ammunition without a license or permit. The cash and ammunition were found at his premises.
5For these charges, the maximum penalties are as follows. For trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, 25 years' imprisonment.
For trafficking in a drug of dependence, 15 years. For dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, two years, and for possession of ammunition, a fine of 40 penalty units.6Charge 1 is made up of 10 instances of trafficking between 2 August and
21 November 2018. These were amounts of methylamphetamine in mixed form, ranging from 3.5 grams to 400 grams. Telephone intercept material discloses that Xiao asked Mr Jiang to supply amounts of methylamphetamine using code terms, and Jiang, Guan and Xiao openly and covertly discussed their drug trafficking enterprise by telephone.7Charge 2 consists of three instances of trafficking cocaine between
20 September and 17 November 2018. On two occasions, 28 grams were trafficked, and on the third occasion, one gram. Those instances of trafficking involved Jiang and Xiao.8On 21 November 2018, three days after the final incident, Mr Jiang was interviewed by the police. He claimed he was not a supplier but was a user who was helping Guan out, and he had never been involved in selling drugs. He said he did cash-in-hand jobs, and some weeks he probably made $1,000.
The charges against Mr Heng
9I now turn to the charges against Mr Heng. Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, ephedrine, between 3 September and 21 November 2018. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.
10Charge 2 is a possession of a tablet press, for which the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment for a fine of 600 penalty units.
11Charge 3 is a charge of trafficking simplicter of a drug of dependence, MDMA, for which the maximum penalty is 15 years.
12Charge 4 is the same charge, in respect of cocaine.
13Charge 5 is possession of methylamphetamine, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine of 400 penalty units. If, as in this case, the court finds that the offence was not committed for any purpose related to trafficking, the maximum penalty is 30 penalty units.
14Monitoring of Xiao's phone, together with physical surveillance, and later, analysis of drugs, enabled investigators to establish that Heng supplied Xiao and Guan with large quantities of ephedrine on two occasions, that he met with Guan to conduct these deals, that he sometimes used short-stay apartments in Elizabeth Street to facilitate transactions, and that he kept significant quantities of ephedrine and other drugs at Southbank.
15Charge 1 relates to trafficking commencing on 3 September 2018 when Guan met with Mr Heng at the Southbank apartment carpark, and Mr Heng handed Guan a white and purple Dodo modem box. This followed a series of telephone calls that day between Xiao and Guan, and a covert operative known as Sammy.
16Just before 1 pm, Sammy had met Xiao and showed him $35,000 in cash for the purchase of 1 kilogram of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. Sammy then drove Xiao to Southbank to do the deal with Guan. Guan arrived there under surveillance and got out of his car carrying a white and purple box labelled 'Dodo broadband modem.' He walked to Sammy's vehicle, parked nearby, got into it and handed the box to Sammy in exchange for the $35,000.
17CCTV footage of the transaction was later obtained from the management of the Southbank building. Xiao and Guan left and drove to Port Melbourne, where Guan handed the money to an unidentified man. The next day, the contents of the box were analysed and found to be 800.847 grams of ephedrine with a purity of 81 per cent.
18Charge 1 also includes a transaction which took place on 16 October 2018. Phone conversations took place throughout the afternoon between Xiao, Guan and Sammy, concerning Sammy's request to be supplied with 1 kilogram of pseudoephedrine. They set up a meeting which was watched by surveillance operatives.
19Xiao and Guan drove to apartments at 442 Elizabeth Street in the city.
Guan went into the building and soon afterwards came out of it carrying a cardboard bag. He then approached and met with Sammy outside
120 A'Beckett Street.20Guan handed the cardboard bag to Sammy, and in exchange received an orange-and-white plastic bag found to contain $35,000. The analysis of the contents of the box revealed it to be 993.1 grams of substance containing ephedrine with an approximate purity of 52 per cent. The pure weight was 516.412 grams[1].
[1] It is noted that the quantities of ephedrine relied upon by the prosecution are pure quantities rather than mixed, because of the classification in the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.
21CCTV footage was obtained from the apartment complex at 442 Elizabeth Street showing Mr Heng in the foyer carrying a suitcase and a plastic tub.
He used an access card to get to apartment 5407 on Level 54, and almost an hour later, Guan arrived there and was given access. Guan collected the ephedrine from Heng at the apartment and left the building with it in a dark-coloured cardboard bag.22Soon, Guan returned to the building carrying a bag identical to the one Sammy had given to Guan with the $35,000 in it. Guan went to level 54 and left the building a short time later, carrying nothing. Heng had therefore received the money from Guan in the apartment.
23The final part of Charge 1 occurred on 21 November, when police executed a search warrant at Mr Heng's home address in Coventry Street, Southbank. Police seized items containing pure ephedrine, weighing 146.127 grams, 152.222 grams, 33.232 grams, and 1.0585 grams. Police also seized a tablet press, which is Charge 2.
24They also seized 18 tablets of MDMA, the gross weight of which was 5.9 grams, found to be 1.5 per cent pure. That is Charge 3.
25They found six quantities of cocaine weighing a total of 24.3 grams, which is Charge 4.
26Two quantities of methylamphetamine weighing a total of 32.6 grams were seized, with a purity of less than 0.27 per cent. That is Charge 5.
27A large number of other items were also seized, including cash of $3,200, SIM cards, mobile phones, drug paraphernalia, and packaging, which was the same as that holding the 2 kilograms of ephedrine located on co-accused Guan.
28Both accused, Jiang and Heng, were arrested that day and the cases against them proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief on 17 September 2019.
A contested committal for co-accused Guan and Xiao was listed on
20 November 2019, but Guan's case resolved and his plea is listed for 28 May 2020. Xiao's committal proceeded, and discussions have since been taking place.Personal background and circumstances
29Before turning to the personal circumstances and background of each prisoner, there is a common element to each prisoner's circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Swan, representing Mr Heng, set those out in a supplementary written submission dated 4 May 2020. In addressing the points raised by Mr Swan, I have applied them to Mr Jiang's case in the same way.
30The plea of guilty is clearly of additional weight, given the newly established backlog of trials due to the pandemic, and the consequent delay. The stress of the experience of imprisonment has likely been considerably increased by the risks of infection in a closed environment such as a prison, with the additional stress of the cessation of personal visits and the suspension of education and other programs.
31I have taken into account those matters in determining the length of each sentence, and I have given them considerable weight and reduced the sentences accordingly.
Mr Jiang
32Mr Jiang, I now turn to your personal background and circumstances. You were born in China, an only child to an affluent family. Your parents divorced when you were about six years old, and your mother then moved to Australia, leaving you in the care of her parents. They raised you until you were about eight, when you joined your mother in Australia. Your father remained in China, where you visited him about every 18 months. He died when you were 15. In Australia, you lived with your mother and stepfather, who have supported you, and they have been visiting you in custody.
33Initially, you spoke no English but you were a very good student. However, as the only Asian student at your school, you were bullied and suffered racial abuse, causing your attendance to decline. You began to associate with a group of Asian students away from school, feeling a sense of belonging with them. But the group got involved in what Mr Pyne, who appeared on your behalf, described, in effect, as hot-headed violence prompted by juvenile-type issues, and you began to use drugs.
34You left school after Year 11 and worked at McDonald's, then for several years in restaurants and in sales. Your drug use escalated, and at the age of 21 you committed a home invasion, giving rise to charges of aggravated burglary and recklessly causing serious injury, for which you were imprisoned in March 2015 for a year, and then commenced a Community Correction Order.
35On your release, you began working, but you were still using drugs. Apparently, there had been no drug rehabilitation available to you in prison.
36You had been doing quite well away from your previous peer group and in a settled relationship. But in 2017, you were the victim of a serious assault during which your thighs were slashed with a knife, and you were hospitalised for a week. After that, you could not walk unaided for a significant period, and you did not return to work. The attacker was never identified by the police.
37After this, you returned to your old friends and your drug use and drinking of alcohol increased markedly. You were still on a Community Correction Order after a variation following a breach when you were remanded for these offences on 21 November 2018. In prison, you have been abstinent from drugs, engaging well in a drug program.
38Before your remand, you had committed another breach of the Community Correction Order which was dealt with when you were in custody. You were resentenced for the original offending to a term of three years with a non-parole period of 18 months. Taking into account some time already served, your non-parole period expired in September 2019 - so you are now in the parole period of the three-year sentence, having completed about eight months of it. In those circumstances, you have already received a deportation notice as you are not an Australian citizen.
Mitigating factors
39There are several mitigating factors which are to be taken into account in determining an appropriate sentence. Your time in prison will be more burdensome because you know you will be deported, and that your offending has ended the prospect of a life in Australia. And I have already referred to the consideration of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
40Next is your plea of guilty, which was entered at the earliest possible stage and has avoided a likely long and complex trial. It has avoided the need for witnesses to give evidence which is significant in assisting the progress of the case, so you are entitled to a discount on your sentence. I also accept it as an indication of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the offending.
41Your youth is a relevant sentencing factor, even though these are serious offences and you have a prior conviction for a serious offence, you still have the potential to lead a useful life if you are able to abstain from drugs. You have family support in that your mother and stepfather support you. Indeed, your mother was in court during the plea hearing.
Sentencing discussion, including the role of each offender
Jiang’s role
42As to your role, Mr Jiang, in these offences, you are aged 27 and you were a student until your arrest aged 24. Mr Pyne described your role in the drug trafficking as having received calls from Xiao asking you to supply drugs, and as nothing more than that - in other words, that you were not a courier, a kingpin, or a principal, but nor were you at the bottom of the hierarchy.
43Mr Regan, for the prosecution, submitted that the evidence places you well above the level of someone just receiving requests to supply drugs.
He submitted that while you were not at the top of the distribution empire, you were a distributor at a wholesale level, able to supply people over an extended period with up to 400 grams at a time. Therefore, he submitted, you were operating at the mid-to-high level of seriousness, although he later appeared to modify this.44Additionally, the quantity of methylamphetamine was substantially above the threshold of commercial quantity. Other aggravating features are that the duration of the offending was four months, and you were on a Community Correction Order at the time.
45Mr Regan relied on the decision in the case of Gregory[2] on the basis that your offending was in the same range - that is, mid-to-high range - and that the sentence in the case of Mourkakis[3] represents the lower end of the range.
The higher threshold is represented by the sentence in DPP v Condo[4].[2] [2017] VSCA 151
[3] [2018]
[4] [2019] VSCA 181
46Ultimately, the prosecution submission was that while your role was well above that to whom you were trafficking, as in Gregory, it was not higher than the
mid-range[5], and Mr Regan submitted that Mr Pyne partly conceded thismid-range level.[5] Plea transcript p.54 lines 23-25
47Mr Pyne submitted that the intimidation and violence used in Gregory were aggravating factors making that offending much more serious, as well as the sophisticated network and the offender's dominant role in it. The decision in Dalgleish intervenes between Gregory and Condo, with the Court of Appeal in Dalgleish considering current sentencing practice.
48In Condo, the court, referring to Dalgleish, commented that while the uplifting of sentences was required, current sentencing practice is not a controlling factor, but nor can it be ignored The court held that the sentence of five years and nine months was inadequate for trafficking in a commercial quantity at the very top of the range, and the sentence substituted was for 10 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.
49Mr Pyne submitted that the importance of intuitive synthesis should not be ignored,[6] that the seriousness of the offending should be characterised as somewhere in the mid-range, and that care needs to be taken to not attach too much importance to the label given to the range.
[6] DPP v Weybury [2018] 84 MV Reports 183
50I have concluded that the gravity of your offending places it at about the middle of the range of seriousness.
51General deterrence is of great importance because of the risks to the public inherent in drug trafficking, hence the need for a term of imprisonment which reflects that. Specific deterrence also has a role to play in your case, given your prior conviction for serious offending.
52The Serious Offender provisions of the Sentencing Act apply, but the prosecution does not seek a disproportionate sentence. I have taken into account the principle of totality in that you have been in custody, serving the parole period of a sentence imposed previously, to which I have already referred.
Nick Jiang sentence
53Mr Jiang, I sentence you as follows.
54For Charge 1, five years' imprisonment.
55For Charge 2, three years.
56For summary charge No.2, six months.
57And for summary charge No.4, a fine of $1,000, with conviction.
58The sentence for Charge 1 is the base sentence for purposes of cumulation.
I order that 18 months of the sentence for Charge 2 and two months of the sentence for the summary charge be served in cumulation upon the base sentence.59This results in a total effective sentence of six years and eight months.
60I order that you serve a minimum of four years and six months before being eligible for parole.
61Although you have been in custody since 21 November 2018, only 89 days[7] are calculated as pre-sentence detention as you are still serving the parole period already mentioned. I declare that those 89 days are to be reckoned as already served, and it shall be noted on the court record.
[7] Note: on 8/5/20 the prosecution and defence agreed that the correct PSD was 89 days not 119 days. Order amended accordingly.
62If you had pleaded not guilty to these charges, I would have sentenced you to nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.
63The prosecution seeks an order for the disposal of drugs and related paraphernalia, including mobile phones and a laptop computer. Forfeiture orders are sought for the cash and ammunition, the latter being an order under the Firearms Act, and I make those orders.
Personal background and circumstances
Mr Heng
64Returning to you now, Mr Heng, you are from a middle-class Malaysian family, and you have maintained contact while in prison with your parents, and brother who is also in custody.
65As a very young man of 18 in Malaysia, you had commenced a business, a company performing security installation, of which you had already had some experience. You wound up the business after four years, and it would seem that this was partly connected with your drug use from the age of 19.
Your family became very concerned about you and supported you in coming to Australia.66You have no prior convictions, but in September 2019, you were convicted and fined $500 for charges of handling stolen goods and attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception, offending which came to light when the search warrant for the current offences was executed.
67Your counsel submitted that this was an indication of your circumstances at the time, resorting to petty crime, rather than being at the apex of a criminal organisation. There is little or no evidence of enrichment, taking into account your rented and shared accommodation, albeit in a relatively affluent locality.
Mitigating factors
68There are several mitigating circumstances starting with the fact that you have never had the benefit of any drug rehabilitation program, but have abstained from drug use in prison and are receptive to courses and study once you are sentenced.
69You have been working, six days a week in prison and have taken available courses. Added to this is your youth and the obvious resourcefulness demonstrated by your earlier business initiative. These factors combined suggest favourable prospects for rehabilitation.
70It should be noted that you will likely be deported to Malaysia once you have completed your sentence.
71You pleaded guilty at a committal mention at the earliest opportunity, so avoided a trial and the need to cross-examine any witnesses. I accept the plea as an indication of remorse and taking responsibility in the context of having made partial admissions in your record of interview.
Sentencing discussion – Heng
72As to your role in the offending, Mr Heng, I come to consider that now, and the sentencing principles which apply to your case.
73You are aged 27. You were 25 at the time, a student who had overstayed your visa, having come to Australia in 2015. As I have mentioned, you had developed a serious drug addiction in Malaysia, and you came to Australia to study and to make a new start away from your drug lifestyle.
74However, you resumed drug use here using a range of drugs, including ecstasy, cocaine, MDMA and methamphetamine. You undertook an English language course, then courses in business and cooking. Your employment in a restaurant ended because of drug use, and you were employed sporadically after that.
75Mr Swan submitted that your role was that of a courier, not a supplier, providing ephedrine to Guan, and you were not personally enriched by it. Mr Swan submitted that there is no evidence that you were sourcing the ephedrine and you did not book the apartment room in Elizabeth Street, demonstrating that your involvement was not at a high level. It is submitted that the packets of ephedrine found in your apartment were there because you had been asked to hold onto them, but you had not sourced them.
76Mr Regan responded by submitting that the quantities found there, a total of 322.639 grams, indicated that this was stock for you to supply others.
It represented 44 per cent of the large commercial quantity of ephedrine concerned. He referred me to the case of Dao[8], which he submitted was a similar case, where the offender was found to be not a courier but a supplier.[8] Dao v R [2014] VSCA 93
77The prosecution characterised your role as that of a supplier, given the quantity of ephedrine trafficked, although not at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. Mr Regan submitted that the drug paraphernalia found in your room and the pill press also indicate your role as a supplier.
78Mr Swan compared the definition of a 'supplier' as being involved in the sourcing and provision of drugs to someone with your role, which was different.
He submitted that you were a low-level operative, demonstrated by the first transaction with Guan, where you did not receive the money. It was given to an unidentified man at another location. You were not significantly enriched, he submitted, and your case is dissimilar to that of Dao.79You gave an explanation of this in your record of interview, that you followed directions to take and collect packages, and that you received these directions via a contact you had met online through the Wickr messenger service.
Your original contact with this person was in seeking ecstasy for personal use.80Mr Swan's submission was that there is no evidence to refute this. He provided a supplementary written submission in which he referred to the caution needed for categorising the role of an offender, given that the court may not be aware of the full nature and extent of the enterprise. Mr Swan submitted that the term 'supplier' might be akin to that of “principal”.
81My conclusion is that even without any evidence from telephone intercepts as to negotiations, or any bank records, or involvement in booking the room in Elizabeth Street where the exchange took place in the second incident, the quantity of ephedrine points to a role as supplier rather than courier.
82The other items found at your premises, such as the pill press and paraphernalia, lend weight to that conclusion, even though there was no significant enrichment beyond the somewhat prestigious address at Southbank where you were paying rent and sharing with a housemate.
83Your role was clearly not at a high level, but as a supplier rather than a courier, and your offending could be placed at about the mid-level of offending. However, I will address some matters which have the effect of reducing that level to below the mid-level.
84In relation to Charge 1, the standard sentence of 16 years' imprisonment applies. This operates as a legislative guidepost to the sentencing process.
I must consider the objective seriousness of the offending without reference to matters personal to you, but wholly to the nature of the offending. It does not displace the approach of using instinctive synthesis, and it is only one relevant sentencing factor to be taken into account.85In this regard, I was referred to a number of sentencing decisions of judges of this court in which the judge has noted decisions of the Supreme Court such as Brown v R[9].
[9] DPP v Lamberti [2019] VCC 1498; DPP v Quach [2019] VCC 1158; Al Janabe & Or [2020] VCC 1313; Kha [2019] VCC 1682; Brown v R [2019] 286
86The quantity of the drugs involved is relevant to an assessment of the seriousness. The amount was 2.2 times the trafficable quantity of ephedrine, but as Mr Swan submitted, it is far less than the quantity in some cases dealt with in this court in the period since the commencement of the standard sentencing regime in February 2018. A case in point is Dao v R[10], where the quantity of drugs was 30 times the threshold for a large commercial quantity.
[10] Dao v R Thi Tran v R [2014] VSCA 93
87As to the seriousness of the other charges, there was a total of 15.9 grams of MDA of very low purity. The pill press was a hand-held device, not consistent with use in a commercial operation. The cocaine, a total of 24.3 grams, was of a low grade.
88Mr Swan submitted that the trafficking in Charges 3 and 4 falls towards the lower end of the range of seriousness, and I agree with that.
89Charge 5, possession of methylamphetamine, relates to two packages weighing in total 32 grams with a very low purity and which were for your personal use, consistent with your habit of daily use. There was nothing found by the police to suggest otherwise.
90You are also to be sentenced as a serious drug offender, pursuant to s.6F of the Sentencing Act, but again, the prosecution does not seek a sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the offending, nor is there a need for the sentence to be totally cumulative.
91There are several mitigating factors to be taken into account. Your plea of guilty was made at the earliest possible opportunity as negotiations were taking place for a prolonged period. It has avoided a possibly complex trial which is of significant assistance to the justice system, particularly at this time. That means you are entitled to a discount on your sentence.
92It is accepted as an indication of remorse in the sense of having taken responsibility for your offending by making partial admissions in your record of interview, and that pleading guilty is an acknowledgment of wrongfulness.
93That point is relevant to your prospects for rehabilitation, as is the fact that you have no prior convictions and you are still a relatively young man with a long life ahead of you.
94You have been fined for some subsequent offending. When in possession of a stolen wallet, you used the cards found inside to attempt to obtain some small loans, none of which were successful. I have already referred to Mr Swan’s submission that this painted a picture of an offender who was not a supplier of the drug and did not have resources consistent with that. However, as I have said, it was the quantity that altered that picture.
95Having not had any opportunities for drug rehabilitation in the past, you have taken up those chances offered to you whilst in custody. You have abstained from drug use, and recent test results were negative, and you have done a course in drug and alcohol abuse.
96As a remand prisoner, other courses have been unavailable, but you are willing to take up further courses and study if and when they become available. Meanwhile, as at the date of the plea hearing, you have been working six days a week in the kitchen and laundry and as a cleaner.
97As a very young man in Malaysia, you demonstrated some ability in starting a business, and it is far more likely that you will be capable of living a productive life once released and deported to Malaysia than becoming an entrenched criminal. Those good prospects can serve to reduce your sentence somewhat.
98In sentencing you, I also take into account the principle of totality and the need to avoid a crushing sentence.
99Both general and specific deterrence are relevant in sentencing you because of the seriousness of your role in distributing the drugs into the community, and the need for a prison sentence to deter others and to ensure that you do not offend again.
100The question of parity in these cases does not arise, because neither of the other co-accused have been dealt with yet. As I have already said the plea of Guan is due to be heard later this month,and following a committal hearing Xiao's matter is still the subject of discussions.
Sentence - Jack Heng
101Mr Heng, I sentence you as follows:
102For Charge 1, trafficking in a large commercial quantity, nine years' imprisonment.
103For Charge 2, possessing a tablet press, 12 months.
104For Charge 3, trafficking in a drug of dependence, 18 months.
105For Charge 4, trafficking in a drug of dependence, 18 months.
106For Charge 5, possessing a drug of dependence, a fine with conviction of $1,000.
107The sentence for Charge 1 is the base sentence for purposes of cumulation.
I order that two months of the sentence for Charge 2 and nine months of each of the sentences for Charges 4 and 5 be served in cumulation upon the base sentence.108This results in a total effective sentence of 10 years and eight months.
109I order that you serve a minimum period of six years before being eligible for parole.
110You have been in custody for 533 days. I declare that time to be reckoned as already served, and that shall be noted on the court record.
111If you had pleaded not guilty to these charges, I would have sentenced you to 13 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years.
112And once again, the prosecution seeks an order for disposal of drugs and related items, including mobile phones and laptops, and I make that order.
113INTERPRETER: I will repeat the whole sentence to Mr Heng?
114HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you, Mr Interpreter. Mr Regan, can I just correct one thing, please? I referred earlier to a forfeiture order. I seem to have had that written in my notes somewhere. But I have only signed a disposal order. Is that correct?
115MR REGAN: For Mr Heng, Your Honour? Disposal order was the only order sought, Your Honour.
116HER HONOUR: I see. I will just strike out any reference to the forfeiture order. Are there any other matters from counsel?
117MR REGAN: No, Your Honour. The prosecution will shortly sign off to allow the read back to take place.
118HER HONOUR: Tshank you very much, Mr Regan. Good.
119MR REGAN: Good. We'll wait for Your Honour to leave.
120HER HONOUR: Thank you. Now, Mr Swan, I will leave it now to you and
Mr Interpreter to explain anything that needs to be explained to Mr Heng.121MR SWAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
122HER HONOUR: Thank you. Anything from you, Mr Pyne? No? All right.
123MR PYNE: No, Your Honour.
124HER HONOUR: Can you hear me, Mr Pyne?
125MR PYNE: Yes, I can, sorry. I had to unmute my - nothing arising.
126HER HONOUR: All right, thank you.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
8
0