R v Lau - [2009] WASCA 99

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: R -v- LAU [2009] WASCA 99

CORAM: OWEN JA
WHEELER JA
MILLER JA

HEARD: 1 APRIL 2009

DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2009

FILE NO/S: CACR 43 of 2008

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
CHUCK SUN LAU
Respondent

FILE NO/S :CACR 46 of 2008

BETWEEN :CHUCK SUN LAU
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :McKECHNIE J
File No  :INS 153 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Possession of a commercial quantity of heroin - Being knowingly concerned in the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin - Manifest excess - Cooperation - Guilty plea - Time spent in custody resisting extradition

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16E(1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 87

Result:

CACR 43 of 2008
Appeal allowed
CACR 46 of 2008
Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

CACR 43 of 2008

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S D Hall SC
Respondent: Mr T F Percy QC & Mr S D Freitag

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Respondent: AKN & Associates

CACR 46 of 2008

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr T F Percy QC & Mr S D Freitag
Respondent: Mr S D Hall SC

Solicitors:

Appellant: AKN & Associates
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Allen v The Queen (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 950215; 27 April 1995)
Australia v Ho [2006] BCCA 449
Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Buxton v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 6
Cheung v The Queen (1997) 97 A Crim R 283
Commonwealth of Australia v Ho [2000] BCSC 1744
Lau v Australia [1999] CanLII 5373 BCSC
Lau v Australia and Canada [2002] BCSC 1843
Lau v The Commonwealth of Australia and Canada [2006] BCCA 484
Lau v The Commonwealth of Australia and Canada [2006] BCCA 485
Lau v The State of Australia [2003] BCSC 63
Lau v The State of Australia and Canada [2005] BCSC 1021
Lau v The State of Australia and Tim Stiles [2001] BCCA 40
Ma v The Queen [2001] WASCA 325
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393
Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210
R v Cheung (Unreported, NSWCCA, 22 March 1991)
R v Ho [2002] BCSC 1575
R v Lam [2005] VSC 98
R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Scalise (1985) 7 Cr App R(S) 395
R v Stone (1988) 10 Cr App R(S) 322
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584

OWEN JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wheeler JA. I agree with those reasons.
WHEELER JA: These are an appeal against sentence by the…

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 Lau

Details

AGLC: R v Lau [2009] WASCA 99
Case: [2009] WASCA 99
Decision Date: 5 JUNE 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Lau, the respondent was convicted in the Federal Circuit Court for possession of a commercial quantity of heroin and being knowingly concerned in the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin. Lau appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that he should have received a substantial discount for his early guilty plea and cooperation with the authorities. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive, and whether the respondent was entitled to a discount for his early guilty plea and cooperation with the authorities. The court considered the principles of sentencing for drug offences, the role of cooperation and early guilty pleas in sentencing, and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence and deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the respondent's early guilty plea and cooperation with the authorities. The court noted that while the respondent had cooperated with the authorities, he had not disclosed the full extent of his involvement in the importation of the heroin until shortly before his arrest. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders