R v Chu; R v Tang

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chu; R v Tang [2021] NSWDC 768
Hearing dates: 16 August 2021
Date of orders: 16 August 2021
Decision date: 16 August 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Chu - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period of 2 years 2 months.

Tang - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 5 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME - Cultivate large commercial quantity prohibited plant (cannabis);

SENTENCING- Relevant factors on sentence – guilty plea – role of offenders- uncontroversial personal histories

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:

GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22

Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 92; (2011) 208 A Crim R 432

Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Siwek v R [2017] NSWCCA 178

Category:Sentence
Parties: Dennis Chu (the offender)
Kim Seong Tang (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A Booker (for the offender Tang)
Ms E Parkes, Solicitor Advocate, Legal Aid NSW (for the offender Chu)

Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender Tang)
Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s): 2020/00140483 - Dennis Chu
2020/00140506 - Kim Seong Tang

sentence – ex tempore revised

  1. The sentence proceedings for Dennis Chu and Kim Seong Tang were conducted by way of virtual court. As Tang is a Malaysian national whose first language is Mandarin Chinese, we employed an interpreter throughout the proceedings. As we are experiencing interruptions because of the inadequate NBN facilities in Wollongong I will keep this judgment as short as possible.

  2. There are agreed facts before the Court. The prosecution have provided comprehensive written submissions. Mr Booker of counsel who appears for Mr Tang has provided detailed written submissions, as has Ms Parkes, solicitor advocate Legal Aid, for Mr Chu. Everyone has had an opportunity to speak to their submissions.

Agreed facts

  1. On 11 May 2020 Wollongong Drug Unit Police went to a rural property in Albion Park Rail. There were sheds and a number of large commercial style plastic greenhouses on the property. Inside one of the sheds were large living quarters with a kitchen, washing machine and tables. There was also an office with bunk beds, a mattress and a CCTV monitor. The monitor showed screen images of the shed and the greenhouses. Another shed held more mattresses and plastic drums of grow chemicals and soil additives. In that shed were, drying racks, fans and carbon filters and a box of cannabis stem remnants.

  2. In four of the greenhouses and in a shipping container were a large number of cannabis plants. Just over 1,600 were mature plants, the rest were in various stages of growth. It is estimated that the value of the crop wholesale would be over $2,000,600. The extent of the operation is shown…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Chu; R v Tang and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWDC 768
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Chu and Tang, the High Court of Australia was tasked with sentencing two individuals found guilty of cultivating a large commercial quantity of a prohibited plant, specifically cannabis. The two cases were heard together due to the involvement of the same drug syndicate and similar circumstances in the commission of the crime. The legal issues that the Court had to address included determining the appropriate sentences for each offender, taking into consideration the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentences for Chu and Tang. Both offenders pleaded guilty, which resulted in a discount to their sentences. The court also examined the role each offender played in the syndicate and their respective levels of involvement. Additionally, the court considered the personal histories of the offenders, which were described as uncontroversial, and their prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors against the need to deter others from engaging in similar criminal activities.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the offenders' guilty pleas and the relatively minor roles they played in the syndicate. The court also considered the offenders' uncontroversial personal histories and prospects for rehabilitation. However, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from engaging in similar criminal activities. The court ultimately sentenced Chu to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years and two months. Tang was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and three months, with a non-parole period of one year and five months. These sentences reflect the court's consideration of all relevant factors and its commitment to achieving a just outcome in each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Chu - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period of 2 years 2 months.

Tang - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 5 months.

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.