Heng v The Queen

The applicant, Mr Heng, sought permission to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him for defrauding the Commonwealth, specifically for conspiracy. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Livesey P, Doyle and Bleby JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the head sentence and the non-parole period imposed on Mr Heng were manifestly excessive. A related contention was whether the sentencing judge erred in attributing greater culpability to Mr Heng compared to his co-accused, Mr Sarinn.

The majority of the Court, comprising Doyle and Bleby JJA, found that there was a clear basis for differentiating Mr Heng's culpability from that of his co-accused, noting Mr Heng's role as the architect and instigator of the sophisticated, two-year scheme involving significant sums of money. They acknowledged the seriousness of the offending and the appropriateness of a lengthy imprisonment term, particularly given Mr Heng's lack of explanation, restitution, or remorse, and the importance of general deterrence. While the head sentence was considered heavy but not manifestly excessive, the majority concluded that the non-parole period, set at 75 per cent of the head sentence, was manifestly excessive in the absence of any findings justifying such a lengthy period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the sentence set aside, and Mr Heng was to be resentenced. Livesey P, in dissent, would have dismissed the appeal, finding no issue of disparity and that both the head sentence and non-parole period were not manifestly excessive in the circumstances.