R v Ta Song Wong - [2006] VSC 126

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1439 of 2006

THE QUEEN

TA SONG WONG

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 July 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 April 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ta Song Wong
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 126

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Importation of commercial quantity of heroin – Role of accused in criminal activity – Large quantity of heroin imported by sophisticated and extensive criminal undertaking – Section 233B(1)(b) Customs Act 1901 (Cth).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Champion, SC with Mr M. Cahill	Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr A.R. Lewis	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

You, Ta Song Wong, have pleaded guilty before me to one count of importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia contrary to paragraph 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Your plea of guilty was entered before me on 11 July 2005.

Background

The background to your offence, such as it is known, is that either shortly before midnight on 15 April 2003 or in the early morning of 16 April 2003 you, together with a deceased man whose name remains unknown to authorities and who has not been identified by them, left a ship, the Pong Su, which was then anchored a short distance from the shore at Boggaley Creek. You and he left the ship by way of an inflatable dinghy. In that dinghy were six packages of heroin, each of approximately 25 kilograms in weight. The inflatable dinghy suffered problems with its fuel supply and overturned in the surf near Boggaley Creek resulting in the death of the deceased man. One package of heroin was lost at sea but approximately 125 kilograms of heroin were landed on the beach. That heroin was removed from the beach by three persons who were awaiting your arrival on shore. That importation of heroin into Victoria is the largest known such importation of its type in this State and one of the largest known importations into Australia. The total bulk weight of the heroin that was seized was 123.32 kilograms containing a total of 82.29 kilograms of pure heroin. The quantity of pure heroin far exceeded the minimum amount which is required pursuant to the Customs Act to establish a commercial quantity for the purposes of passing sentence under the Act. The Customs Act 1914 provides that 1.5 kilograms of pure heroin is a commercial quantity of heroin.

As is apparent from the decided authorities, the issue of the value of such heroin is not a matter which should weigh heavily in my considerations. There is evidence before me from a statement provided by Federal Agent Buxton that such an amount of bulk heroin broken down to “street deals” of approximately 10% purity would be in the region of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ta Song Wong and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] VSC 126
Decision Date: 6 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ta Song Wong, the defendant was involved in the importation of a significant quantity of heroin into Australia, which was concealed within a shipment of wooden crates. The defendant's involvement was identified through a comprehensive investigation which uncovered the sophisticated and extensive criminal operation. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's role in the importation of the commercial quantity of heroin.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of section 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). This section pertains to the importation of commercial quantities of drugs and provides for severe penalties. The court was required to consider the defendant's role in the criminal activity and the nature of the importation, including whether it was a primary or secondary role. Additionally, the court needed to assess the quantum of the sentence in light of the significant quantity of heroin involved and the sophistication of the criminal operation.

The High Court, in its judgment, emphasised the importance of considering the defendant's role within the broader criminal activity. The court noted that while the importation of commercial quantities of heroin warranted severe penalties, the precise sentence should reflect the individual circumstances of the offender. The court acknowledged the defendant's involvement in a sophisticated criminal operation but also recognised the need for a proportionate sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence while also considering the defendant's role and the overall circumstances of the importation. The court imposed a sentence that, while severe, was deemed appropriate given the nature and extent of the criminal activity.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for the defendant, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's role within the criminal operation. The court's decision underscored the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, ensuring that penalties are both deterrent and proportionate to the individual's involvement in the crime.

Orders