R v Wong

Case [2009] NSWDC 376


CITATION: R v WONG [2009] NSWDC 376
HEARING DATE(S): 17/12/2009, 18/12/2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

18 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Williams DCJ
DECISION: The orders I make are that he is convicted. He is sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years to date from 21 December 2008 which means he is eligible for release on parole on 20 December 2012.
CATCHWORDS: SENTENCE-import commercial quantity of prohibited drug-642grams MDMA-Middleaged Canadian citizen-no particular background difficulties-questionable reasons for behaviour.
CASES CITED: Tyler [2002] NSWCCA 272
R v Nguyen [2006] NSWCCA 369
PARTIES: Regina
Gus Chi Yung WONG
FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/11999
SOLICITORS: Ms S Anderson (The Crown)
Ms S Radiq (The Offender)

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Mr Wong is a forty-year-old Canadian financial consultant who has pleaded guilty to importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely MDMA, being an amount of 642 grams in a bulk of 2,498.3 grams consisting of about 9,993 ecstasy tablets. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. A commercial quantity of MDMA is an amount in excess of 500 grams.

2. There is an agreed statement of facts and, as well, Mr Wong has also given evidence. The important objective facts from the agreed statement of facts are that Mr Wong arrived at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport on 20 December 2008 by Air Canada. He listed on his incoming passenger card that his intended address in Australia was Rydges World Square, 389 Pitt Street, Sydney 2000, New South Wales and that his intended length of stay in Australia would be fourteen days. His airline ticketing showed a booked and prepaid Air Canada flight corresponding with that length of stay.

3. A Customs drug sniffer dog reacted to Mr Wong’s person resulting in him being subjected to a full luggage and person search by Customs officers. During the course of that search the following conversations took place.


      Customs officers said, “Is this all your baggage?” He said, “Yes.” Customs officer said, “Can I please have your itinerary and baggage tags.” He said, “My itinerary is in my computer and I’m not sure where my baggage tags are.” Customs officers said, “Have you collected all of your baggage today, Mr Wong?” He said, “Yes.” “What is the purpose of you travelling to Australia?” He said, “I’m here to visit my girlfriend who I haven't seen in six months.” “Why did you leave it so late to book your holiday?” He said, “I work as a financial adviser and getting time off is not easy. My girlfriend suggested I come to Australia over Christmas.” “Is your girlfriend Australian or Canadian?” He said, “Canadian. She is living with her parents in Melbourne and is applying for a permanent resident status.” “If your girlfriend is in Melbourne, why didn't you fly directly to Melbourne?” He said, “She lives in Melbourne with her parents and she’s coming up to Sydney today.” “Do you have a hotel booking for Sydney?” He said, “Yes, it’s in my computer. I…

Continue reading R v Wong

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wong [2009] NSWDC 376
Case
[2009] NSWDC 376
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a middle-aged Canadian citizen, Mr Wong, who was charged with importing a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The drug in question was 642 grams of MDMA. Mr Wong had no particular background difficulties and the reasons for his behaviour were questionable. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the quantity of the drug imported was indeed a commercial quantity and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court was also required to consider Mr Wong’s personal circumstances and background when determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the quantity of the drug imported was indeed a commercial quantity and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court considered Mr Wong’s background and personal circumstances but found that his behaviour was questionable and that a significant sentence was necessary to deter future offences of a similar nature. The court also considered the impact of the drug on the community and the need to protect the community from the harmful effects of drugs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders I make are that he is convicted. He is sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years to date from 21 December 2008 which means he is eligible for release on parole on 20 December 2012.

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.