R v Wong - [2019] NSWDC 233

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wong [2019] NSWDC 233
Hearing dates: 16 May 2019
Date of orders: 16 May 2019
Decision date: 16 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hunt DCJ
Decision:
In both matters the offender is convicted and sentenced to concurrent sentences with an overall term of imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 7½ years with a non-parole period of 5 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Supply prohibited drugs – More than large commercial quantity – Methylamphetamine – Indicia of drug supply – Role of the offender – Offending for financial reward.
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act.
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
Cases Cited: Thomas v R [2019] NSWCCA 88
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Kim Ming Wong
Representation:
Counsel:
A Djemal – The Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2016/78886

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Kin Ming Wong is before the Court for sentence in relation to two index offences. Both are supplies of prohibited drug being more than the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, each in breach of s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. For each matter is provided a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years has application. In relation to count 1 the quantity averred is 997 grams and in count 2 the quantity averred is 18.9435 kilograms. There are no matters before the Court either on a Form 1 or pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
These reasons should be understood as delivered ex tempore on the day I considered evidence and sbmissions.
Although Mr Wong was committed for sentence from Central Local Court on 6 June 2017 there was a defect in the Court Attendance Notice documentation and accordingly he was re-arraigned before me today on an indictment containing the two counts to cure that formal defect and entered pleas of guilty. It is common ground between the parties however, that Mr Wong entered his pleas of guilty an early stage and is entitled to a full utilitarian discount of 25%.
I will have regard to the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period as benchmarks or guideposts in the way contemplated by the authorities. In due course it will become obvious that I have determined not to impose the standard non-parole period in part because these matters have been the subject of a plea of guilty. Additionally because of findings that I make about the objective seriousness of the offending and other features of the offender’s subjective case that make it inappropriate and less of a guide in this case than it may be in some other circumstances.
It is also common ground that the offender has been in custody since 12 March 2016. I will return to the chronology and relevant dates in due course.
The facts are agreed and set out in full in the Crown sentence bundle. I do not propose to read all of the facts…

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 Wong

Details

AGLC: R v Wong [2019] NSWDC 233
Case: [2019] NSWDC 233
Decision Date: 16 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wong, the defendant was found guilty of supplying more than a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, a prohibited drug, under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant faced charges related to drug supply and possession with intent to supply. The evidence presented indicated that the defendant played a significant role in the supply chain and acted for financial gain. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offence and the defendant's culpability.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in the supply of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine. The court considered various factors, including the nature and extent of the offending, the defendant's role in the criminal activity, and the indicia of drug supply. The court also evaluated the circumstances of the offence, including the defendant's motive for engaging in the illegal activities and the potential harm caused by the supply of prohibited drugs. The court was required to balance these factors in accordance with the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 1992.

The court found that the defendant's involvement in the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine was a serious offence, warranting a significant custodial sentence. The court emphasised the need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar criminal activities. In assessing the defendant's culpability, the court considered the defendant's role in the drug supply chain and the financial gain derived from the illegal activities. The court also noted the potential harm caused by the supply of prohibited drugs, which included the risk of addiction, health problems, and broader societal issues. After considering all relevant factors, the court imposed a sentence consisting of a head sentence of 7½ years with a non-parole period of 5 years, to be served concurrently with any other sentences imposed in related matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

In both matters the offender is convicted and sentenced to concurrent sentences with an overall term of imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 7½ years with a non-parole period of 5 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wong [2019] NSWDC 233
Hearing dates:	16 May 2019
Date of orders:	16 May 2019
Decision date:	16 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hunt DCJ
Decision:	In both matters the offender is convicted and sentenced to concurrent sentences with an overall term of imprisonment consisting of a head sentence of 7½ years with a non-parole period of 5 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Supply prohibited drugs – More than large commercial quantity – Methylamphetamine – Indicia of drug supply – Role of the offender – Offending for financial reward.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act. Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
Cases Cited:	Thomas v R [2019] NSWCCA 88
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Kim Ming Wong
Representation:	Counsel: A Djemal – The Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2016/78886