R v Wee Quay Tan - [2006] VSC 177

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1424 of 2004

THE QUEEN

WEE QUAY TAN
(also known as CHIN KWANG LEE)

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2005, 8 May 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 May 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wee Quay Tan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 177

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty to aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia – Role of accused in criminal authority – 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 Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr A Shwartz	Robert Stary and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

You, Wee Quay Tan, have pleaded guilty before me to aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. Pursuant to s.235 of the Customs Act 1901 Commonwealth, this offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Background

The background to the offence such as it is known, is as follows. It would appear to be that you are aged 35 years. You have lived in Thailand in recent years, although what nationality you hold is not clearly established before me. You entered Australia from Bangkok on 9 April 2003. You did so under the name of Chin Kwang Lee. However, it is clear that that name was a false name. The passport which you held had indeed been issued to a person of that name but had been stolen from him in Singapore in October 2000. By the time you came to produce the passport to Australian authorities it had been altered to bear your photograph. How you came into possession of the passport is not established by the evidence before me.

At the time of your arrival in Australia both of your co-accused Teng and Lam were already here, having come from Beijing some time earlier. They were making preparations for the receipt of an importation by sea of a substantial quantity of heroin.

When you arrived in Australia you brought with you a falsified United Nations driving licence in the name of Chin Kwang Lee. In addition, you brought a falsified United Nations driving licence in the name of Lam.

Almost immediately upon arrival in Australia you arranged for an Optus pre-paid telephone service to be connected in the name of Andy Tan. That telephone service was thereafter used by you in connection with telephone services associated with Teng and Lam.

You met up with Teng on 13 April 2003 at Crown Casino. On the morning of the next day, 14 April 2003, you and Teng were observed leaving the Crown Hotel in a Tarago van which had been rented earlier by Teng. Unbeknown to you, a listening device was situated in that van, pursuant to a warrant…

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 Wee Quay Tan

Details

AGLC: R v Wee Quay Tan [2006] VSC 177
Case: [2006] VSC 177
Decision Date: 8 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wee Quay Tan involves the defendant, Wee Quay Tan, who pleaded guilty to charges related to aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for this offence, which was carried out as part of a sophisticated and extensive criminal operation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the defendant's role in the criminal enterprise, the quantity of drugs involved, and the severity of the crime. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for aiding and abetting in the context of drug trafficking, and the impact of the defendant's involvement on the broader criminal activity. Furthermore, the court had to balance the need for deterrence with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court held that the defendant played a significant role in the criminal undertaking, which involved a large quantity of heroin. The sophisticated nature of the operation and the substantial amount of drugs imported warranted a severe sentence. The court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and cooperation with authorities as mitigating factors but emphasised the gravity of the offence. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant's conduct warranted a substantial custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for the defendant, reflecting the considerations outlined above. The exact length of the sentence was not specified in the text, but the court's reasoning indicates a significant term of imprisonment. Additionally, the court may have considered ancillary orders, such as forfeiture of assets derived from the criminal activity, although this was not detailed in the provided text.

Orders