R v Gim Siang Lim - [2001] VSCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 195 of 2000

THE QUEEN

GIM SIANG LIM

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE,P., TADGELL and BUCHANAN,JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 60

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Trafficking in heroin in not less than a commercial quantity – 11 years with a minimum term of 8 years 6 months not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D.McArdle,Q.C.	Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr O.P.Holdenson,Q.C.	McNamaras

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Buchanan, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

The appellant, who is 31 years of age, is a Singaporean. On 14 April 1999 he travelled to Melbourne, where he stayed in a serviced apartment in South Yarra with two other men who were also recent arrivals from Singapore. On 28 April 1999 the appellant was arrested by police officers outside the apartment. He was carrying $A21,550 and $S2,655 and two mobile phones. The apartment was searched by the police, who found $A308,185 and $S4,040. Some of the money was in a locked safe in a wardrobe together with blocks of powdered heroin. The total weight of pure heroin was 2,633.7 grams.

On 14 July 2000 the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence contrary to the provisions of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 ("the Act") and was sentenced to a term of 11 years' imprisonment. A non-parole period of eight years and six months was fixed.

This appeal is one against the sentence. The grounds of appeal are:

"1.The sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge was manifestly excessive having regard to all the circumstances of the case and a lesser sentence should have been passed.
2.The learned sentencing judge erred in the matter in which he dealt with the issue of the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.
3.The learned sentencing judge erred in that he placed too much weight on matters of (i) specific deterrence; and (ii) general deterrence.
4.The learned sentencing judge erred in effectively treating certain moneys found in the possession of the appellant as a circumstance of aggravation of the offence charged.

5.The learned sentencing judge erred by failing to place sufficient weight on (i) the plea of guilty by the appellant and (ii) factors and matters personal to the appellant."

The only evidence led on behalf of the appellant during the plea was the tender of a psychiatrist's report. The report was based upon an interview with the appellant. The appellant told the psychiatrist that he had worked as a chef in Singapore. In 1997 the business failed and the appellant found himself in debt to suppliers and staff. He began gambling heavily in the hope that he could recoup his losses. Instead, his debts increased. As a result of his gambling his wife left him and he retained custody of his son. He said that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Gim Siang Lim 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: [2001] VSCA 60
Decision Date: 1 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gim Siang Lim involved the defendant, Gim Siang Lim, who was convicted of trafficking in heroin in a quantity exceeding a commercial amount. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on Lim by the lower court. The key issue before the court was whether the sentence of 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months, was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for the offence of trafficking in heroin in a commercial quantity. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court also assessed the balance between the deterrence and retribution aspects of the punishment and the rehabilitation of the offender.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It found that the penalty reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community from the harmful effects of drug trafficking. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for such a serious offence. Consequently, the High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the sentence. The defendant's appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original penalty stood as confirmed by the High Court.

Orders