R v Tak Hok Chong

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tak Hok Chong [2016] NSWDC 248
Hearing dates:23 September 2016
Date of orders: 14 October 2016
Decision date: 14 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

The offender is convicted;

 

The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 3 months to date from 9 December 2015 and to expire on 8 March 2024, comprised of a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months and a balance of term of 2 years and 11 months; and

 The offender is eligible to be released to parole on the expiry of the non-parole period on 8 April 2021.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG TRAFFICKING – not less than large commercial quantity – methylamphetamine – SENTENCING – principles of sentencing – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 22, 44
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment (Methylamphetamine) Regulation 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Elyard v R [2006] NSWCCA 43
Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244
Mansour v R [2011] NSWCCA 28
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Cheikh; R v Hoete [2004] NSWCCA 448
R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430
R v Huang [2000] NSWCCA 238; (2000) 113 A Crim R 386
R v Leroy [1984] 2 NSWLR 441
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001)127 A Crim R 369
Regina v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
Regina v Wai Thung Chu (Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 16 October 1998)
Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mr Tak Hok Chong (Offender)
Representation: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s):2015/3621460
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

  1. On 23 September 2016, Mr Tak Hok Chong pleaded guilty before me to a charge of supplying a prohibited drug, namely, 923.1 grams of methylamphetamine, being an amount which was not less than the large commercial quantity pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). [1]

    1. Hereinafter the “1985 Act”

FACTS

  1. On 9 December 2015, the police attached to the Transport Action Group were conducting an authorised drug detection dog operation at Central Railway Station, commencing at about 10:30 am. At 2:45 pm, the offender approached a police dog handler at the top of the escalators which separated the country and suburban platforms and asked for directions. The offender was carrying a black satchel bag over his shoulder. At that time the drug detection dog “Rachey” was nearby and working with a dog handler, Senior Constable Grand. Rachey had a change of behaviour and indicated at the offender.

  2. Senior Constable Grand approached the offender and informed him that the dog had detected a scent of prohibited drugs in the free air space around him. The offender was advised that he…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Tak Hok Chong 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
[2016] NSWDC 248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Tak Hok Chong, who was charged with drug trafficking in relation to a significant quantity of methylamphetamine. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the quantification of the drugs, the application of the principles of sentencing, and whether any special circumstances were present that warranted a particular sentence.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the quantity of methylamphetamine amounted to a "large commercial quantity" as defined by the statutory framework, and if so, whether this constituted a special circumstance for sentencing purposes. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing applicable to drug trafficking offences, including the need to ensure justice is served, the offender is adequately deterred, and the community is protected.

The court found that the quantity of methylamphetamine was indeed a large commercial quantity, which qualified as a special circumstance under the relevant legislation. The court then proceeded to apply the principles of sentencing, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and the need for deterrence and community protection. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced the offender to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months.

The final orders of the court were that the offender is convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months, and is eligible for parole release on 8 April 2021. This decision underscores the court's commitment to applying the law fairly and ensuring that justice is served in drug trafficking cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted;

The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 3 months to date from 9 December 2015 and to expire on 8 March 2024, comprised of a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months and a balance of term of 2 years and 11 months; and

The offender is eligible to be released to parole on the expiry of the non-parole period on 8 April 2021.

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.