District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wu [2020] NSWDC 342 Hearing dates: 4 June 2020 Decision date: 02 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Custodial sentence to be served by way of intensive correction order; see [92]
Catchwords: Commonwealth offence. Possession of tobacco products knowing they were imported with intent to defraud the revenue
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Hussein v R [2016] VSCA 212
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Saleh [2015] NSWCCA 399
R v Tieu [2019] NSWDC 485
R v Zerafa (2013) 235 A Crim R 265; [2013] NSWCCA 222
R v Zhang [2017] SASCFC 5
Weininger v R (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Cth Crown)
Leifan Wu (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Robinson (Offender)
C Kim (Cth Crown)
A Wright (Offender)
File Number(s): 19/137848 Publication restriction: Nil
remarks on sentence
-
The offender is to be sentenced for an offence pursuant to s 233BABAD(2) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), of possess goods, being tobacco products, namely 368,480 sticks of various tobacco brands and 1.18 kilograms of loose tobacco, knowing that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue.
-
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence in the Local Court. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine specified pursuant to s 233BABAD(5) of $1,513,055.55.
-
The offender was arrested on 2 May 2019. He was born on 2 April 1989 and was 30 years of age at the time of the offence.
The sentence hearing
-
The sentence hearing took place in Sydney on 4 June 2020. The Commonwealth Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It contained an Agreed Statement of Facts which may be summarised as follows.
-
On 1 May 2019, staff at Kennards Storage in Ultimo, having conducted a review of their accounts and identified that a particular unit, H214, was in arrears, entered the unit to prepare the contents for auction or disposal. They found a large quantity of tobacco labelled with foreign writing. The staff then changed the lock and notified the Australian Border Force (“ABF”).
-
At about 11am on the following day, 2 May 2019, a pregnant female wearing a pink jumper attended Kennards storage and paid $2,050.00 in cash to renew the lease and clear the arrears for unit H214. That female was later identified as Yiping Chen (aka Carrie), wife of the offender.
-
At about 2.50pm, ABF officers located the offender inside the Kennards storage unit H214 at Ultimo. He was placed under arrest and did not respond to an offer to participate in a formal interview. A large amount of imported tobacco was located in the unit.
-
Later that evening, a search warrant was executed at the residence of the offender in Oatlands. The offender’s wife conceded she had paid…
Continue reading R v Wu
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Wu [2020] NSWDC 342
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 342
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue the Court of Appeal needed to address was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate. The Court considered various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent. The Commonwealth argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and failed to serve the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. In response, Mr Wu contended that the sentence was appropriate given the mitigating factors, including his cooperation with authorities and the absence of previous convictions.
The Court of Appeal carefully examined the sentencing principles applicable to the case. It found that while the offence was serious, involving deliberate intent to defraud the revenue, there were mitigating factors that warranted consideration. However, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and increased the penalty to a custodial sentence to be served by way of an intensive correction order, as it believed this would appropriately balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors present in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Custodial sentence to be served by way of intensive correction order; see [92]
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.