R v Kong

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Chanthorn Kong, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The respondent acted as an intermediary in the sale of 9991 methylamphetamine tablets, a quantity weighing 2568 grams and containing 103 grams of pure methylamphetamine. The sentencing judge had imposed a head sentence of three years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 months, which was suspended upon the respondent entering into a three-year good behaviour bond.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge erred in suspending the sentence of imprisonment. The Crown argued that the sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence, and that there was no good reason to suspend the sentence.

The Full Court held that the head sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. However, despite this finding, permission to appeal was refused. The Court reasoned that while the offence was serious, it would be unjust to the respondent to allow the appeal and disturb the suspended sentence. This decision was influenced by the respondent's difficult childhood history, his demonstrated progress towards rehabilitation since his arrest, his continued release into the community, and his ongoing commitment to rehabilitation. The Court considered that imposing an immediate custodial sentence would unravel the positive steps the respondent had taken.