District Court
New South Wales
Case Title: R v Lim, R v Tan Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWDC 327 Hearing Date(s): 29/04/2013 Decision Date: 09 May 2013 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: S Norrish QC Decision: Lim - Supplying not less than a commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 5 years with a balance of sentence of 2 years.
Two offences of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine: in relation to each offence - sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 6 years with a balance of sentence of 3 years.
Supplying not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 6 years, 6 months with a balance of sentence of 4 years.Tan - Supplying not less than a commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period being 5 years with a balance of sentence of 2 ½ years.
Two offences of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine: in relation to each offence - sentenced to a term of imprisonment by way of non parole period of 6 years with a balance of the sentence of 3 years.
Supplying not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 2 ½ years with a balance of sentence of 4 years.Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence, supply prohibited drugs (heroin) - large commercial/commercial quantity, parity, objective criminality. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985Cases Cited: Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cahyadi (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Wong v The Queen (2007) 207 CLR 484
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] 199 CLR 270
R v Buttrose [2011] NSWCCA 35
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
R v Muldroch [2011] 244 CLR 120
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
Lau v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 43
Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136
Lee v R [2007] NSWCCA 234Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown (Cth)
Cheng Coy Lim - offender
Yong Hon Tan - offenderRepresentation - Counsel: Mr N Adams - The Crown
Mr Gartelmann - accused Mr Lim
Ms Fanning - accused Mr TanFile Number(s): 2011/256951
2011/256874
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: I propose to impose identical sentences on both prisoners, taking into account the objective and subjective circumstances for reasons I will explain shortly. The total sentence I will impose is fourteen years imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years. The effective non-parole period of ten years, I obviously have adjusted the non-parole period to reflect two special circumstances, the first special circumstance being the accumulation of sentences, the second special circumstance that may invoke the discretion under s…
Continue reading R v Lim, R v Tan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lim, R v Tan [2013] NSWDC 327
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 327
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the gravity of the offences, emphasising the significant harm caused by the supply of prohibited substances. In determining the sentences, the court applied the principles of objective criminality, taking into account the quantity and type of drugs supplied. The court also assessed the defendants' roles in the criminal activities and the need for deterrence and denunciation. In applying the principle of parity, the court aimed to ensure that similar sentences were imposed on co-offenders who played comparable roles in the criminal enterprise.
After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court sentenced Lim to a term of imprisonment for each offence, with specified non-parole periods and balances of the sentence. Similarly, Tan was sentenced to imprisonment for each offence, with non-parole periods and balances of the sentence as determined by the court. The court emphasised the need for the sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to serve as a deterrent to others involved in similar criminal activities.
The final orders of the court were that Lim and Tan were each sentenced to imprisonment for various offences of supplying prohibited drugs in commercial and large commercial quantities, with specific non-parole periods and balances of the sentence for each offence. The sentences were designed to reflect the gravity of the offences and to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Lim - Supplying not less than a commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 5 years with a balance of sentence of 2 years.
Two offences of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine: in relation to each offence - sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 6 years with a balance of sentence of 3 years.
Supplying not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 6 years, 6 months with a balance of sentence of 4 years.
Tan - Supplying not less than a commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period being 5 years with a balance of sentence of 2 ½ years.
Two offences of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine: in relation to each offence - sentenced to a term of imprisonment by way of non parole period of 6 years with a balance of the sentence of 3 years.
Supplying not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin: sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 2 ½ years with a balance of sentence of 4 years.
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.