DPP (Cth) v Goh (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 11 March 2021)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Attempting to possess border controlled drug in commercial quantity – Appellant recruited and coordinated others to possess 8.31 kg of heroin – Expendable mid-level functionary – Cooperation with authorities, including consenting to searches – Guilty plea – Lack of prior convictions – Deportation – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Parity – Where co-offender sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months – Appeal dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr S Ranjit
Papa Hughes Lawyers
For the Respondent
Ms R Champion
Mr S Bruckard, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)
T FORREST JA WALKER JA:
On 22 February 2021, the appellant pleaded guilty before a judge of the County Court to a single charge of attempting to possess a border controlled drug (heroin) in a commercial quantity.[1] The quantity in issue was 8.31 kilograms — more than five times the commercial quantity for that drug.[2] The appellant had cooperated with the authorities and had thus assisted in the police obtaining much of the evidence against him.
[1]Contrary toCriminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.1(1), 307.5(1), read with s 311.14.
[2]The prescribed commercial quantity for heroin is 1.5 kilograms: Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth), sch 4.
On 11 March 2021, the appellant was sentenced as follows:[3]
[3]DPP (Cth) v Goh (County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 11 March 2021) (‘Sentencing Reasons’).
Charge
Offence
Maximum
Sentence
Cumulation
1
Attempting to possess a border controlled drug in a commercial quantity
Life imprisonment
11 years’ imprisonment
Base
Total Effective Sentence:
11 years’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:
6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment
Pre-Sentence Detention Declared:
764 days
Section 6AAA Statement:
14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months
The appellant’s co-offender, Kee Tan, had earlier pleaded guilty to the same charge. However, Tan’s charge related to a much smaller quantity of heroin: 2.58 kilograms, being less than twice the commercial quantity. Tan was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. Tan had not cooperated with the authorities.
On 24 August 2021 McLeish JA granted the appellant leave to appeal.[4] The appeal is based on a single ground, as follows:
1. The total effective sentence and non-parole period fixed [are] manifestly excessive.
Particulars:
a.The Learned Sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to:
i. The [appellant’s] cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
ii. 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 Goh v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Goh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 24
Case
[2022] VSCA 24
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Goh, appealed against a sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months, imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to possess a border controlled drug in a commercial quantity. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Goh had recruited and coordinated others to possess 8.31 kilograms of heroin. He was considered an expendable mid-level functionary within the drug trafficking operation and had cooperated with the authorities, including consenting to searches.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Goh was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of parity, comparing Goh’s sentence with that of a co-offender who was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. The court also took into account various mitigating factors, including Goh’s role as a mid-level functionary, his cooperation with authorities, the absence of prior convictions, his prospects for rehabilitation, and the likelihood of deportation post-sentence.
The court found that while Goh’s role in the drug trafficking operation was significant, it was not at the highest echelon. His cooperation with authorities and the absence of prior criminal history were noted as mitigating factors. The court considered the disparity in sentences between Goh and his co-offender but held that this alone was not sufficient to conclude that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The overall circumstances of the case, including the quantity of drugs involved and the nature of Goh’s involvement, supported the sentence imposed. The appeal was dismissed.