R v Teng - [2005] VSC 33

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1424 of 2004

THE QUEEN

KIAM FAH TENG

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 February 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 February 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kiam Fah Teng
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 33

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Plea of guilty to aid and abet the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia – Role of accused in criminal activity – Large quantity of heroin imported by sophisticated and extensive criminal undertaking.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Champion SC with Mr M.P. Cahill	The Solicitor for the Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

You, Kiam Fah Teng, have pleaded guilty before me to one count of aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia.

Pursuant to s.235 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) this offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Background

The background to your offence, such as it is known, is as follows. You are a citizen of Malaysia. On 6 September 2002 you were granted a visa to enter Australia. You arrived in Sydney on 27 March 2003 together with the accused man, Yau Kim Lam. You and Lam travelled from Beijing on the same flight, having both stayed at the same hotel in Beijing immediately before coming to Australia. You entered Australia under your own name and by using your own passport. Lam entered Australia on a false passport.

On 29 March 2003, you and Lam travelled together from Melbourne to Geelong by train. You then hired a taxi and visited several motels and motor inns in the City of Geelong. You have some command of the English language and you introduced yourself to the taxi driver as Danny. Apparently, both of you then returned to Melbourne. The following day you and Lam again travelled to Geelong by train and made a journey around Geelong and then returned to the Geelong Station.

On the following day, 31 March 2003, you and Lam again travelled to Geelong by train and were driven to various locations, including real estate agents, motels, motor inns and rental car companies. You were taken by taxi to the Europcar rental office in Geelong. That afternoon you rented a Toyota Tarago van from Europcar Geelong. You paid for the rental car in cash and produced credit card details in your name as a form of deposit. You produced your driver’s licence to Europcar personnel. Later that afternoon you and Lam attended at a camera shop in Geelong and began researching the purchase of binoculars and a camera. In your presence Lam paid cash for binoculars and a camera. On the same day you and Lam booked two rooms at the Sundowner Motor Inn in Geelong for the period 31 March 2003 to 2 April 2003. You…

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 Teng

Details

AGLC: R v Teng [2005] VSC 33
Case: [2005] VSC 33
Decision Date: 21 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Teng, the accused faced sentencing following a plea of guilty to aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty for Teng's involvement in this sophisticated and extensive criminal undertaking. The central issue revolved around assessing the severity and nature of Teng's role within the larger criminal enterprise.

The legal issues before the court included evaluating the extent of Teng's participation in the importation, his level of culpability, and the scale of the criminal activity. The court had to balance these factors against mitigating elements such as Teng's level of remorse and any personal circumstances that might warrant leniency. Additionally, the court considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in arriving at a just and appropriate sentence.

In its judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence and submissions to determine Teng's culpability. It found that while Teng played a significant role, he was not the mastermind behind the operation. The court acknowledged the severity of the offence, given the large quantity of heroin involved, but also recognised mitigating factors presented on behalf of the accused. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crime while taking into account Teng's degree of involvement and other relevant considerations.

The court ordered that Teng be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific details regarding parole eligibility and other sentencing conditions. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing justice with the need to consider all aspects of Teng's involvement in the criminal activity.

Orders