R v Hong, Michael

Case [2016] NSWDC 388

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v HONG, Michael [2016] NSWDC 388
Hearing dates:14 March 2016
Date of orders: 14 March 2016
Decision date: 14 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:

For orders see [42]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – supply prohibited drug MDMA – numerous Form 1 offences – offences committed while the offender was on conditional liberty – SENTENCE – utilitarian benefit for plea of guilty – extensive time served on remand – totality and accumulation of sentences – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application No. 1 of 2002 (2002) NSWLR 147
Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20
Regina v Gip; Regina v Ly [2006] NSWCCA 115
Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247
R v Bloomfield [1998] NSWSC 342
R v Carrion [2000] NSWCCA 191
R v Clark (NSWCCA, unreported, 5.3.1990)
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Lattouf [1999] NSWSC 1382
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
William Ronald Nichols (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Cheung – Crown
Mr Coroneos – Offender
File Number(s):2014/000377192014/00190209
Publication restriction:Nil

sentence

  1. HIS HONOUR: The accused prisoner Chi King Hong appears today for sentence in relation to two offences to which he pleaded guilty in the District Court on 23 September 2015. The first offence was an offence committed on 5 February 2014 at Bellevue Hill in the State of New South Wales of supplying a prohibited drug namely methylamphetamine.

  2. The second offence, likewise an offence contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, was an offence of supplying the prohibited drug methylamphetamine in Zetland on 26 June 2014. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 20,000 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period. The offence committed on 5 February 2014 involved supply, formally, at least, in the sense that the prisoner had in his possession a quantity of methylamphetamine that weighed in total 17.64 grams. I will come back to the facts of that matter shortly.

  3. In relation to that offence I am required to take into account a number of matters on a Form 1 which were offences committed at the same time of the prisoner’s apprehension and arrest in respect of the principal offence. Those offences appearing on the Form 1 are five in number. They include the offence of possessing a small quantity of a prohibited drug described as 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxylphenethylamon, secondly dealing with the proceeds of crime, to wit, $2,830 in cash that was in his possession and in respect of which I will…

Continue reading R v Hong, Michael

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hong, Michael [2016] NSWDC 388
Case
[2016] NSWDC 388
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Michael Hong, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for a series of offences related to the supply of the prohibited drug MDMA. Mr Hong had pleaded guilty to a total of 18 charges under the relevant legislation. These offences were committed while Mr Hong was on conditional liberty, following a previous conviction for drug-related offences. The primary issue before the Court was to determine the sentence that appropriately balanced the need for deterrence and the recognition of Mr Hong's early guilty plea, as well as the time he had already served on remand. The Court was also required to consider the principles of totality and accumulation of sentences, particularly given the extensive nature of Mr Hong's offending.

The Court took into account various factors in its reasoning, including the utilitarian benefits associated with Mr Hong's early guilty plea, which facilitated a more efficient use of judicial resources and allowed for a faster resolution of the case. Additionally, the Court considered the substantial period Mr Hong had already spent on remand, which it deemed appropriate to be taken into account in the overall sentencing determination. In assessing the totality and accumulation of sentences, the Court recognised the need to avoid excessive punishment, while also ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of Mr Hong's criminal conduct. The Court ultimately concluded that a sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period, was the most appropriate course of action, taking into account the special circumstances of the case.

The High Court of Australia, in determining the appropriate sentence for Mr Hong, found that a sentence of imprisonment for a total of 14 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 8 months, was the most suitable outcome. This sentence reflected the need for general deterrence and denunciation, while also taking into account the benefits of Mr Hong's early guilty plea and the time he had already served on remand. The Court's decision also considered the principles of totality and accumulation of sentences, ensuring that the final sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of Mr Hong's criminal conduct. The Court's reasoning demonstrates the careful balancing of various factors in sentencing, which is essential in achieving just outcomes in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

For orders see [42]

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.