R v Chung

Case [2018] QCA 161


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chung [2018] QCA 161

PARTIES:

R
v

CHUNG, David
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 238 of 2017
SC No 1221 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 20 September 2017 (Martin J)

DELIVERED ON:

10 July 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Morrison JJA

ORDER:

The application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine and MDMA over a period of 20 months and two counts of supplying cocaine – where on the trafficking charge he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and on the remaining two charges he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment – where the applicant had no prior criminal history – where the applicant was one of five couriers in a sophisticated drug trafficking operation – where the learned sentencing judge found that the applicant had become engaged “in the management area” of that operation – where another courier who had been engaged to a much lesser extent in the trafficking had received a sentence of four years, suspended after 14 months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Burrell[2013] QCA 41, cited
R v Challacombe[2009] QCA 314, cited
R v Cooney; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2008] QCA 414, cited
R v Keenan[2007] QCA 411, cited
R v Manning[2007] QCA 145, cited
R v Munoz[2012] QCA 269, cited

COUNSEL:

C F C Wilson for the applicant
S Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rostron Carlyle Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

  2. GOTTERSON JA:  I agree with the order proposed by Morrison JA and with the reasons given by his Honour.

  3. MORRISON JA:  Mr Chung was convicted and pleaded guilty to three counts of drug offending:

    (a)Count 1 – trafficking in cocaine and MDMA[1] over a period of more than 20 months between 1 June 2013 and 18 February 2015;

    (b)Count 2 – supplying cocaine on 23 February 2012; and

    (c)Count 3 – supplying cocaine on 21 July 2012.

    [1]3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

  4. On the trafficking charge he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.  Nine days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served and the parole eligibility date was fixed at 10 September 2019 (after serving two years).  On each of counts 2 and 3, the sentence was six months’ imprisonment with the nine days of pre-sentence custody declared as time served.

  5. Mr Chung challenges the sentence imposed upon him as being manifestly excessive.

    Circumstances of the offending

  6. An agreed schedule of facts was…

Continue reading R v Chung

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Chung [2018] QCA 161
Case
[2018] QCA 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chung, the applicant, who had no prior criminal history, pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine and MDMA over a period of 20 months, as well as two counts of supplying cocaine. The applicant was one of five couriers in a sophisticated drug trafficking operation and had become engaged in the management area of the operation. On the trafficking charge, the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, and on the remaining two charges, he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and if the applicant's role in the drug trafficking operation warranted a lesser sentence. The court considered the role of the applicant in the operation, their criminal history, and the sentences received by other couriers involved in the same operation.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and rejected the applicant's argument. The court noted that the applicant's role in the operation was significant, and their involvement in the management area was a factor that warranted a substantial sentence. The court also considered the sentences received by other couriers involved in the operation, and found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was appropriate in the circumstances. The court concluded that the sentence did not amount to a manifest excess and dismissed the appeal.

ORDERS:
The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused.

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

For those reasons, and noting that it was an Attorney-General’s appeal, Cooney is of no assistance in this case.Conclusion None of the matters raised by Counsel for Mr Chung demonstrate that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal should be refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.