District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v MOK, Hin Lok [2017] NSWDC 314 Hearing dates: 22 September 2017 Date of orders: 13 October 2017 Decision date: 13 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Judge S Norrish QC Decision: Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [105]
Catchwords: CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – Knowingly take part in an attempt to manufacture or produce a prohibited drug – methylamphetamine – large commercial quantity – 88.5 kg attempted to be manufactured – Chinese national – 39 years old – no prior criminal convictions – telephone intercepts – offender’s role was that of a ‘cook’ in the manufacture but was not the organiser nor did he source the pre-cursors – limited diminution of criminality where police prevented the drugs being disseminated into the public – criminality at the lower end of the middle-range – no mental or physical health conditions – no grounds for the diminution of weight for general or personal deterrence – no proof of non-exculpatory duress – inadequacy of sentencing statistics – full discount for the utilitarian benefit of the early plea of guilty – special circumstances resulting from the difficulty faced by the offender while in custody. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)Cases Cited: AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273
AD (2008) 191 A Crim R 409
Hill v R (2010) 244 CLR 520
Hristovski v R [2010] NSWCCA 129
Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
R v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455
R v Gao [2007] NSWCCA 343
R v Henry and Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v OPA [2004] NSWCCA 464
R v Spaliviero (unreported NSWCCA 15 December 1993)
R v Pedavoli (2002) 128 A Crim R 137
R v S (2000) 111 A Crim R 225
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
Ticknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Hin Lok Mock (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Ms Gallagher (DPP Solicitor)
Mr Coyne (Counsel)
File Number(s): 2016/00025208 Publication restriction: Nil
SENTENCE
-
HIS HONOUR: Hin Lok Mok today appears for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court, which is an offence of knowingly take part in an attempt to manufacture or produce a prohibited drug. Specifically it alleges that the offender between 18 January 2016 and 25 January 2016 at Campsie did knowingly attempt to take part in the manufacture of an amount of a prohibited drug to wit 88.5 kilograms of methylamphetamine, which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.
-
This is an offence contrary to section 24(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, a provision that is to be considered with section 33 of the same Act. The maximum penalty for which…
Continue reading R v Mok, Hin Lok
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Mok, Hin Lok [2017] NSWDC 314
- Case
- [2017] NSWDC 314
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the extent of the appellant's culpability and the factors that should be considered in mitigating or aggravating his sentence. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's role and contribution, the benefit of his early guilty plea, and the difficulties he faced while in custody. The court also considered the need for general and specific deterrence and the utilitarian benefits of the appellant's early guilty plea.
The court determined that while the appellant's criminality was at the lower end of the middle-range, there was limited diminution of criminality as the police had prevented the dissemination of the drugs into the public. The court noted that there were no mental or physical health conditions or non-exculpatory duress that would warrant a reduction in sentence. The inadequacy of sentencing statistics and the special circumstances resulting from the appellant's difficulties while in custody were also considered. The court granted a full discount for the utilitarian benefit of the early plea of guilty, resulting in a full-time custodial sentence.
The court ordered that the appellant receive a full-time custodial sentence. For details on the specific sentence, refer to [105].
Orders
Orders of the court
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [105]
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.