R v Yan Huang

Case [2012] NSWDC 298


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yan Huang [2012] NSWDC 298
Hearing dates:17 August 2012
Decision date: 07 September 2012
Before: Letherbarrow SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months with a recognizance release order after 7 months

Catchwords: CRIME - Sentencing - importation of pseudoephedrine - role of offender - whether a principal - recklessness - probable effect of sentence on offender's family or dependants - whether exceptional circumstances - whether intensive correction order appropriate
Legislation Cited: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s233BAA(4)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s5(4)(1)
Social Securities Act (Cth), s1158
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s16A, s17A, s20AB
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW), s67
Crimes Regulation (1990)(Cth), clause 6
Cases Cited: R v Sinclair (1990) 50 ACrimR 418, R v LE [1990] NSWCCA 146; R v Luong [2000] NSWCCA 139; R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 553; R v Lo; R v Wang [2004] NSWCCA 382, R v Hart [1999] NSWCCA 204; R v Alla [2004] NSWCCA 378; R v Wood [2005] NSWCCA 223 Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136, R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93 , R v Gardard [2004] NSWCCA 170, R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234, Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, R v Boughen: R v Cameron [2012] NSWCCA 17, Hili v The Queen: Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45, Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Yan Huang - Offender
Representation: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Brassil
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Lloyd Truman Sadiq Solicitors
File Number(s):2011/160924
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 21 June 2012 at the Sydney District Court the offender was found guilty by a jury of the sole count in the indictment presented against her, namely that, contrary to s 233BAA(4) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (the section) on or about 16 May 2011 at Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, she did, without the requisite approval being obtained, intentionally import goods being tier 1 goods comprising pseudoephedrine, being reckless to the fact that the goods were tier 1 goods and being goods the importation of which is prohibited under that Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years imprisonment and/or a fine of $110,000.

THE FACTS

  1. The facts surrounding the offence which were not challenged by the offender and are consistent with the verdict of the jury may be summarised as follows:

(i)   On 14 May 2011 Customs officers stationed at Mascot examined a package which had arrived by air from China. The package was addressed to "Coco" Huanu at an address in Claremont Road, Campsie and included a mobile phone number. A declaration on the package stated that it contained "Dust brush 10PCS". When opened the package was found to contain, inter alia, ten plastic brush handles which themselves were found to contain pink and…

Continue reading R v Yan Huang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Yan Huang [2012] NSWDC 298
Case
[2012] NSWDC 298
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Yan Huang, was convicted of importing pseudoephedrine, a precursor chemical used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the sentencing phase followed the conviction. The prosecution sought a sentence that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence, while the defence argued for a more lenient penalty, considering Huang's role and the impact on his family.

The court needed to determine Huang's role in the importation, whether he was a principal or an accomplice, and the level of recklessness involved. Furthermore, the court had to consider the potential impact of the sentence on Huang's family and whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The defence also proposed that an intensive correction order might be a suitable alternative to imprisonment.

The court found that Huang played a significant role in the importation, acting with a high degree of recklessness. Despite the severity of the offence, the court recognised the potential adverse effects a custodial sentence might have on Huang's family, particularly his young children. The court concluded that an intensive correction order was inappropriate due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Huang to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, with a recognizance release order after serving seven months. This sentence balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with consideration for the impact on Huang's family.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months with a recognizance release order after 7 months

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.