R v Corey Samuel Yeo - [2020] NSWDC 387

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Corey Samuel Yeo [2020] NSWDC 387
Hearing dates: 22 July 2020
Date of orders: 24 July 2020
Decision date: 24 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:
See [16-17]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Indictable quantity

Legislation Cited:
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Wong v The Queen [2001] 207 CLR 584
Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA [157]
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Clark [2007] QCA 168
Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown (Regina)
Yeo (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Webb, solicitor advocate, for the Crown;
Ms Goodhand counsel for the offender

File Number(s): 2018/00393479
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Contents

Judgment

Introduction

Charge, maximum sentence, SNPP

Form 1 procedure

The facts

Objective seriousness

Section 21A.

Subjective case

Psychologist’s report
Guilty plea
Other mitigating factors
Parity

Sentencing considerations

Orders

Judgment

Introduction

The offender was born on 26 June 1992 and so is presently 28 years old. The date of the offending is in the period June to November 2018, so when the offender was 26 years old. The offender was arrested on 21 December 2018 and was in custody until 13 August 2019, so 7 months and 24 days, when he was released on bail into a rehabilitation facility. Apart from one further day in custody the offender was at three rehabilitation facilities at different times up until 22 February 2020 when his time at rehabilitation ended and his bail continued on his current conditions. The time spent in rehabilitation, or quasi custody, was therefore 6 months and 9 days.

Charge, maximum sentence, SNPP

There are 5 charges under section 25 (1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act.
The maximum sentence for each offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.
In addition, in relation to count 3, there is a further s25(1) matter to be taken into consideration by way of the Form 1 procedure.

Form 1 procedure

In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offence for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrence and the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.

The facts

The offending was carried out in the period June 2018 through to November 2018. The offender was one of a number of people performing drug supply work at…

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 Corey Samuel Yeo

Details

AGLC: R v Corey Samuel Yeo [2020] NSWDC 387
Case: [2020] NSWDC 387
Decision Date: 24 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yeo involved the defendant, Corey Samuel Yeo, who was charged with drug-related offences. Specifically, Yeo was accused of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and an indictable quantity of a different prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the relevant court which had jurisdiction over such serious criminal charges. The crux of the dispute was whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Yeo was involved in the supply of the prohibited drugs in the alleged quantities.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Yeo's actions constituted the supply of a commercial or indictable quantity of prohibited drugs as charged. This involved a careful analysis of the evidence presented, including the quantity of drugs involved and the circumstances under which they were supplied. The court had to determine if the prosecution had met the required burden of proof for each charge, considering both the direct and circumstantial evidence. The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the quantity and nature of the drugs supplied.

The court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution had indeed established the charges against Yeo to the necessary standard of proof. The court was satisfied that the quantity of drugs involved met the criteria for both commercial and indictable supplies, and the circumstances supported the conclusion that Yeo was involved in the supply of these drugs. Consequently, the court found Yeo guilty on both counts. The reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, including expert testimony on drug quantities and expert opinion on drug trafficking activities. The outcome was a conviction, and the court proceeded to consider appropriate sentencing.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of Yeo on both charges and the subsequent determination of his sentence. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and considered various factors, including the quantity of drugs, Yeo's role in the supply chain, and any mitigating circumstances. The precise details of the sentence were reserved for a later date, pending further submissions and considerations. The court's decision was final, with no appeal anticipated unless new evidence or significant legal issues were presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16-17]

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 Corey Samuel Yeo [2020] NSWDC 387
Hearing dates:	22 July 2020
Date of orders:	24 July 2020
Decision date:	24 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:	See [16-17]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Indictable quantity
Legislation Cited:	Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Wong v The Queen [2001] 207 CLR 584 Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA [157] Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 R v Clark [2007] QCA 168 Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown (Regina) Yeo (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Webb, solicitor advocate, for the Crown; Ms Goodhand counsel for the offender
File Number(s):	2018/00393479
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted