R v Chun Keat Chong - [2019] NSWDC 36

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chun Keat Chong [2019] NSWDC 36
Hearing dates: 23 November 2018
Decision date: 01 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
For orders see [51]

Catchwords: Supply prohibited drug greater than large commercial quantity; knowingly direct activities of a criminal group
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Le v R [2017] NSWCCA 26
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Chun Keat Chong (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C Young (Crown)
Mr A Webb (Offender)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 15/253943
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

Sequence 3 – supply prohibited drug greater than large commercial quantity. The offence is pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”) and has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, together with a Standard Non-Parole Period of 15 years imprisonment.

Sequence 2 – knowingly direct activities of criminal group pursuant to s 93T(4A) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment.

In addition, there is a related offence on a Certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 of possession of a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine (0.63 grams).
The offences 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, Chee Hui Tiew and Bunny Bannister.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 23 November 2018. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It included an Agreed Statement of Facts which may be summarised as follows.
The offender is a Malaysian National who arrived in Australia on 11 October 2015. The offender had been recruited in Malaysia for the purpose of financial gain. The drug operation involved two facets. The first involved methylamphetamine that was imported into Australia concealed in shelving type boards. The prohibited drug was to be extracted from those boards, and in particular, the co-offender Ho was responsible for that part of the operation.
The second facet was an operation involving transporting substantial quantities of methylamphetamine from Perth, Western Australia, to Sydney. A scheme was devised whereby a number of Toyota Prado 4-wheel drive vehicles were assembled in Perth and the spare tyre, normally mounted on the rear of each vehicle, was removed and quantities of packaged drugs placed inside the tyre, which was then refitted and inflated normally. The vehicles were to be driven from Perth to Sydney where they would meet the offender. He eventually met three of the four vehicles and therefore was directly involved with not less than 30 kgs, but expected to have been involved with not less than 40 kgs…

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 Chun Keat Chong

Details

AGLC: R v Chun Keat Chong [2019] NSWDC 36
Case: [2019] NSWDC 36
Decision Date: 01 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chun Keat Chong was convicted by the Supreme Court of Victoria for trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, a prohibited drug, and for knowingly directing the activities of a criminal group. The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal, where Chong appealed against his conviction and sentence.

The appeal focused on two main legal issues. First, whether the trial judge erred in concluding that Chong was aware of the methylamphetamine and its quantity. Second, whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Chong knowingly directed the activities of a criminal group. Chong contended that the prosecution had failed to establish his knowledge and direction of the drug trafficking activities beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in finding Chong's awareness of the drug and its quantity. The court found that the evidence demonstrated Chong's involvement in the drug trafficking operation, his knowledge of the methylamphetamine, and the significant quantity involved. Regarding the direction of the criminal group, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to establish Chong's role in directing the activities of the group. The appeal was dismissed, and Chong's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

For the orders made by the Court of Appeal, see paragraph [51] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

For orders see [51]

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 Chun Keat Chong [2019] NSWDC 36
Hearing dates:	23 November 2018
Decision date:	01 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	For orders see [51]
Catchwords:	Supply prohibited drug greater than large commercial quantity; knowingly direct activities of a criminal group
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Le v R [2017] NSWCCA 26 Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Chun Keat Chong (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C Young (Crown) Mr A Webb (Offender) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	15/253943
Publication restriction:	Nil