R v Choi - [2025] NSWDC 22

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Choi [2025] NSWDC 22
Hearing dates: 17 October 2024; 3 February 2025
Date of orders: 18 February 2025
Decision date: 18 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
1 I impose a term of imprisonment of 5 years to date from 11 March 2023 and expiring on 10 March 2028.
2 I fix a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months which will expire on 10 December 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Deakin v The Queen (1984) ALJR 367
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370
R v Nassir [2020] NSWCCA 88
R v Nguyen (2010) 205 A Crim R 106
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jae Choi (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Payten (Crown)
J Park (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Prolink Partners (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/81062
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

Jae Young Choi (the offender) appears for sentence after pleading guilty in the District Court for the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, being 2,358.1 grams of cocaine contrary to s 307.1(1) Criminal Code (Cth).
The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine 7,500 penalty units.

Approach to Sentencing

To the extent I make findings of fact adverse to the offender, I am satisfied of that act beyond reasonable doubt. To the extent that I make findings of fact favourable to the offender, I am satisfied of that fact on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
I must have regard to Part IB Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (the Act) in passing sentence and in particular the matters provided for in s 16A of that Act.
A court determining a sentence in respect of any person for a federal offence must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances: s 16A(1) of the Act. The Court must take into account the matters listed in s 16A(2) that are relevant and known to the Court: R v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370. The list of factors in s 16A(2) of the Act is not exhaustive and common law principles apply: Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616 at [15].
For a federal offence the non-parole period is the minimum period that justice requires the offender to serve in custody, fixed by reference to s 16A(1), the relevant matters in s 16A(2) and by application of the principles set out by the High Court in Power v The Queen (1974)…

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 Choi

Details

AGLC: R v Choi [2025] NSWDC 22
Case: [2025] NSWDC 22
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Choi involved a defendant, Mr Choi, who was charged with drug offences under Commonwealth law, specifically related to the importation of a border-controlled prohibited plant or drug. This case was heard and determined in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary dispute centred on the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the importation of prohibited substances and the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon conviction.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1901 and the Criminal Code Act 1995, particularly in relation to the importation of prohibited drugs. The court also needed to consider the appropriate sentence to impose on Mr Choi, taking into account the severity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The defence contested the applicability of the statutory provisions to Mr Choi's actions and sought a lenient sentence, while the prosecution argued for a stringent interpretation of the law and a significant custodial term.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully considered the statutory language and relevant case law to conclude that Mr Choi's actions fell squarely within the scope of the prohibition on the importation of border-controlled prohibited drugs. The court also found that the nature and circumstances of the offence warranted a substantial custodial sentence. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of five years, with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. The court determined that the sentence should commence on 11 March 2023 and expire on 10 March 2028, with the non-parole period ending on 10 December 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 I impose a term of imprisonment of 5 years to date from 11 March 2023 and expiring on 10 March 2028.

2 I fix a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months which will expire on 10 December 2025.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Choi [2025] NSWDC 22
Hearing dates:	17 October 2024; 3 February 2025
Date of orders:	18 February 2025
Decision date:	18 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	1 I impose a term of imprisonment of 5 years to date from 11 March 2023 and expiring on 10 March 2028. 2 I fix a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months which will expire on 10 December 2025.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Deakin v The Queen (1984) ALJR 367 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 R v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370 R v Nassir [2020] NSWCCA 88 R v Nguyen (2010) 205 A Crim R 106 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Jae Choi (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: A Payten (Crown) J Park (Offender) Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Prolink Partners (Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/81062
Publication restriction:	None