R v Qiang James Chen - [2017] NSWDC 187

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Qiang James Chen [2017] NSWDC 187
Hearing dates: 20 March 2017 to 29 March 2017
Date of orders: 17 July 2017
Decision date: 17 July 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Letherbarrow SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Commonwealth Crime - Sentence – aid and abet – Import border controlled drug – methamphetamine – commercial quantity – role of the offender – objective seriousness – offender’s knowledge as to the nature of and amount of drugs imported
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.2(1), 307.1(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(1), 17A, 19AB
Cases Cited: GAS v R [2004] HCA 22, 217 CLR 198;
Lau v R [2011] VSCA 324;
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25;
Power v R [1974] HCA 26;
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45.
Category: Sentence
Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Qiang James Chen (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Kellaway (Crown)
Mr I Lloyd QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms S Hatch (CDPP)
George Sten & Co (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/299294

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

On 29 March last after a trial lasting some eight days, the offender was found guilty of the single charge contained in the indictment presented against him, being that between about 10 March 2014 and about 5 May 2014 at Sydney, he did aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by another person, namely the importation of a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to subsections 11.2(1) and 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (“the Code”).
The maximum penalty for such an offence is life imprisonment and/or 7500 penalty units.
The commercial quantity of methamphetamine relevant to this offence is an amount of 750 grams or higher. In the present matter, there is no issue that the bulk amount of methamphetamine imported which was in liquid form, was 37.31 kg which analysis revealed was 37.9% pure, thereby resulting in an equivalent amount of pure methamphetamine of 14.14 kg. There was also no dispute that this amount of methamphetamine, as at the relevant time, had a wholesale value of approximately $4.1 million and a street value of approximately $11.2 million. However, on sentence there is an issue as to the level of the offender’s knowledge concerning the amount of drugs imported.
The bulk amount of methamphetamine was contained in numerous cardboard boxes which themselves contained several coiled hoses some of which had the drug hidden inside in liquid form. The cardboard boxes comprised a single consignment which arrived by sea from a port in Shenzen, China. Upon its arrival, the true nature of the shipment was discovered and a controlled delivery operation was undertaken on 5 May 2014 at a residence located at 22 Kentucky Road Riverwood. The offender himself was arrested at his own residence on 3…

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 Qiang James Chen

Details

AGLC: R v Qiang James Chen [2017] NSWDC 187
Case: [2017] NSWDC 187
Decision Date: 17 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Qiang James Chen, the appellant was found guilty of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine into Australia. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant's involvement in the importation of the controlled drug. The central issue before the court was the appropriate level of punishment for the offence of aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine, considering the offender's knowledge and role in the crime.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including the objective seriousness of the crime, the role of the offender, and the offender's knowledge of the nature and amount of drugs imported. The court emphasised the importance of a sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence while also taking into account the individual circumstances of the offender. In this case, the appellant's involvement in the importation of a significant quantity of a dangerous drug warranted a substantial sentence, but the court also recognised the need to consider the appellant's role and knowledge in arriving at a just outcome.

Upon review, the court determined that a sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months was appropriate. This sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence, while also taking into account the appellant's role and knowledge in the crime. The court found that this sentence was sufficient to achieve the aims of punishment, including retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender.

The High Court of Australia ordered that the appellant be sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months. This sentence aims to address the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the individual circumstances of the offender, while also ensuring that the punishment is proportionate and just.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Qiang James Chen [2017] NSWDC 187
Hearing dates:	20 March 2017 to 29 March 2017
Date of orders:	17 July 2017
Decision date:	17 July 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Letherbarrow SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Commonwealth Crime - Sentence – aid and abet – Import border controlled drug – methamphetamine – commercial quantity – role of the offender – objective seriousness – offender’s knowledge as to the nature of and amount of drugs imported
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.2(1), 307.1(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(1), 17A, 19AB
Cases Cited:	GAS v R [2004] HCA 22, 217 CLR 198; Lau v R [2011] VSCA 324; Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; Power v R [1974] HCA 26; Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Qiang James Chen (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Kellaway (Crown) Mr I Lloyd QC (Offender) Solicitors: Ms S Hatch (CDPP) George Sten & Co (Offender)
File Number(s):	2014/299294