CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence by one of five co-offenders – Trafficking in a drug of dependence in a large commercial quantity – TES 16 years 4 months with NPP 12 years – Co-offender given same TES and NPP – Manifest excess – Not reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Parity – Not reasonably arguable that individual sentences, orders for cumulation or TES infringe parity principles – Differences between co-offenders as to prior criminal history and prospects of rehabilitation – Not open to judge to impose identical NPPs given differences between co-offenders’ circumstances – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – NPP set aside – Resentenced to NPP of 11 years – All other sentences and orders confirmed.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Applications for extensions of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence by three of five co-offenders – Trafficking in drugs of dependence in commercial quantities and large commercial quantities – Total effective sentences of 11 years 4 months, 7 years 7 months and 12 years 6 months – Manifest excess – Not reasonably arguable that any sentence manifestly excessive – Parity – Not reasonably arguable that any sentence infringes parity principles – Applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time refused.
---
Counsel
Applicant in S EAPCR 2023 0211 (Lang):
Mr PJ Smallwood
Applicant in S EAPCR 2024 0020 (Cheng):
Ms E Clark
Applicant in S EAPCR 2024 0023 (Tran):
Mr J Connolly
Applicant in S EAPCR 2024 0032 (Mong):
Mr PJ Smallwood
Respondent in all proceedings:
Ms E Ramsay with Mr B Kerlin
Solicitors
Applicant in S EAPCR 2023 0211 (Lang):
Garde Wilson Lawyers
Applicant in S EAPCR 2024 0020 (Cheng):
Giorgianni & Laing
Applicant in S EAPCR 2024 0023 (Tran):
Theo Magazis & Associates
Applicant in S EAPCR 2024 0032 (Mong):
Valos Black & Associates
Respondent in all proceedings:
Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
BEACH JA MCLEISH JA:
On 16 October 2023, the applicants, Jimmy Kwong Yew Lang (‘Lang’), Yong Seng Cheng (‘Cheng’), Janet Tran (‘Tran’) and Khai Mong (‘Mong’) pleaded guilty before Judge Carmody in the County Court to trafficking in a drug of dependence (in the cases of Lang and Cheng, in a large commercial quantity; and in the cases…
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 Lang v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lang v The King [2025] VSCA 49
Case
[2025] VSCA 49
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Lang v The King, five co-offenders were involved in trafficking large commercial quantities of a drug of dependence. Lang, one of the co-offenders, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, while three other co-offenders sought extensions of time to make similar applications. The sentences for each co-offender varied, with Lang receiving a total effective sentence (TES) of 16 years and 4 months with a non-parole period (NPP) of 12 years. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the validity of these applications and the fairness of the sentences imposed.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether they infringed the principles of parity. The court considered whether it was reasonably arguable that the sentences were excessive or violated parity principles, given the differences in the co-offenders' criminal histories and prospects for rehabilitation. Lang's argument focused on the parity principle, asserting that the judge should not have imposed identical non-parole periods given the differences in their circumstances.
The court found that it was not reasonably arguable that Lang's sentence was manifestly excessive or that it infringed parity principles. However, the court did conclude that it was not open to the judge to impose identical non-parole periods on all co-offenders due to the differences in their circumstances. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted for Lang, and the appeal was allowed. The non-parole period was set aside and Lang was resentenced to an NPP of 11 years, while all other sentences and orders were confirmed. The applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time by the other three co-offenders were refused, as the court found that it was not reasonably arguable that any of their sentences were manifestly excessive or infringed parity principles.