R v Chee Hui Tiew

Case [2019] NSWDC 35

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chee Hui Tiew [2019] NSWDC 35
Hearing dates: 17 January 2019
Decision date: 01 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For Orders see [63]

Catchwords: Supply prohibited drug greater than a large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Hernandez v R [2013] NSWCCA 51
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Tiew (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Fokkes (Offender)

  Solicitors:
K Moran (Crown)
File Number(s): 15/353679
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to a charge of supply prohibited drug greater than a large commercial quantity, namely 67.477 kilograms of methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”), and s 29 of the DMTA. The maximum penalty proscribed for the offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. There is a Standard Non‑Parole Period proscribed of 15 years imprisonment.

  2. The offence occurred in October 2015. The offender was one of a number of Malaysian citizens involved in a drug trafficking operation in Australia. Three co-offenders have already been sentenced, and the offender is to be sentenced along with two further co-offenders, Chung Keat Chong and Bunny Bannister.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 17 January 2019. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It included an Agreed Statement of Facts, which may be summarised as follows.

  2. The offender arrived in Australia on 8 May 2015. He first stayed on the Gold Coast and then travelled to Sydney between 10 and 12 May 2015, whereupon he resided at premises in Burwood with the co-offender Bannister. The offender was contacted by a police informant who arranged to meet him on 21 November 2015 at Lansvale. On that occasion, a conversation took place in which the offender asked the informant whether he was “out here because you owe people money?”, to which the informant answered, “Yes”. The offender told the informant that he also owed money and that he had been in Australia for some months. He then said:

“The container arrived last month and the clothing have been moved to my place and I’ve watched it for the entire month and there is nothing going on …

It will probably take around three to four trips to clear the stock. It is better to clear it off quickly then it will be pay day …”

The informant said:

“So the person who arrives first at the next meeting will check and see if the place is safe?”

The offender said:

“Of course not. I will be the one transporting the thing so I will be the one in danger and the opposite will apply if you’re the one that has to transport it, you’ll be the one in danger.”

  1. On 27 November 2015, the offender met the…

Details
AGLC
R v Chee Hui Tiew [2019] NSWDC 35
Case
[2019] NSWDC 35
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chee Hui Tiew involved the appellant, Chee Hui Tiew, who was convicted of possessing and trafficking a large quantity of a prohibited drug. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant contested the severity of the sentence imposed by the primary judge, arguing that the sentencing was excessive and disproportionate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The appellant submitted that the sentence should be reduced, contending that it did not adequately reflect the principles of proportionality and the inherent humanity of the criminal justice system. The prosecution, in contrast, argued that the sentence was proportionate and reflected the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct.

The Full Court considered the arguments presented and examined the sentencing principles applicable to the case. The court acknowledged the significant quantity of drugs involved and the appellant's role in the trafficking operation. However, the court also took into account the appellant's personal circumstances, including his cooperation with authorities and his remorse. Ultimately, the court determined that while the sentence was at the upper end of the scale, it was not so excessive as to warrant interference. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's role in it.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The appellant was to serve the full-time custodial sentence imposed by the primary judge. The detailed orders, including the specific sentence, were outlined in paragraph [63] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For Orders see [63]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.