R v Chin - [2003] NSWCCA 267

CITATION: R v Chin [2003] NSWCCA 267

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 29 August 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hidden J at 2; Shaw J at 18

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - supplying commercial quantity of ecstasy, supplying cocaine - whether sentences excessive - whether parity of sentence required with another offender whose offences were related to, but independent of, the applicant's

PARTIES :
Regina (respondent)
Jason Hong Chun Chin (applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60133/03

COUNSEL: Ms N Mikhaiel (applicant)
Ms F Guy (respondent)

SOLICITORS: J Rigg (applicant)
SE O'Connor (respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0105

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Twigg DCJ

60133/03

MASON P
HIDDEN J
SHAW J
Friday 29 August 2003

Regina v Jason Chong Hun Chin

Judgment

1 MASON P: I invite Hidden J to give the first judgment.

2 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Jason Chong Hun Chin, pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of supplying a commercial quantity of ecstasy, which carries a maximum sentence of twenty years imprisonment, and a charge of supplying cocaine, which carries a maximum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. He also asked the sentencing judge to take into account on a Form 1 a charge of goods in custody. His Honour sentenced the applicant on the first charge, taking into account the matter on the Form 1, to imprisonment for six years with a non-parole period of three and a half years. On the second charge his Honour sentenced the applicant to a concurrent fixed term of imprisonment for three years. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against those sentences.

3 The facts can be stated briefly. The first charge arose from the applicant’s supply of ecstasy in tablet form to a number of men over the four-month period between February and June 2001. It is conservatively estimated that over that period he supplied a little under 478g of the drug. On three of those occasions he supplied the drug to a man called Andrew Manser, to whom it will be necessary to refer a little later. In this enterprise the applicant received fairly substantial sums of money. Upon his arrest on 1 June 2001 the applicant was in possession of $7,000, which he had received from Mr Manser for the purpose of one of these transactions, and it was that amount of money that was the subject of the goods in custody charge on the Form 1.

4 The second charge arose from his dealing with cocaine over a period of about a month between April and May 2001. Over that period he supplied about four and a half grams of that drug but he also offered to supply some twenty-nine grams.

5 The applicant was twenty-five years old at the time of the offences and is now twenty-seven. In his earlier adult years he had had a severe gambling problem, which had led to his incurring significant debts. At the time of…

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 R v Chin

Details

AGLC: R v Chin [2003] NSWCCA 267
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 267
Decision Date: 29 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Chin, the High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed upon Chin for his involvement in the supply of a commercial quantity of ecstasy and cocaine. The case arose from an appeal against the severity of the sentence given by the lower court. The key legal issues centred around whether the sentences imposed were excessive and whether there was a requirement for parity in sentencing with another offender whose crimes, although related to the supply of drugs, were independent of Chin's activities.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly focusing on the objective of proportionality and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence. It was necessary to assess whether the sentences handed down were commensurate with the nature and extent of Chin's criminal conduct. Additionally, the court considered the principle of parity in sentencing, which posits that offenders involved in similar criminal activities should receive comparable sentences unless there are significant distinguishing factors. The court balanced these principles against the discretion afforded to sentencing judges and the specific circumstances of Chin's case.

After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the sentences were not excessive and did not require parity with the sentences of the other offender. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion, taking into account the totality of Chin's criminal conduct and the circumstances of the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the original sentences as appropriate and proportionate to the crimes committed. The court's decision underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to tailor sentences to the individual circumstances of each case while maintaining consistency with broader sentencing principles.

Orders