Legal Research
Cases
Tang v The Queen

Tang v The Queen

Case [2020] WASCA 194 24 November 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   TANG -v- THE QUEEN [2020] WASCA 194
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   21 JULY 2020
DELIVERED          :   24 NOVEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CACR 141 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CHEE SENG TANG
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   FIANNACA J
Citation:   R -v- LAW & ORS [2018] WASCSR 123
File Number            :   INS 62 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Appeal against a sentence of 23 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years for importing 145.6 kg (pure weight) of methamphetamine - Whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of comparative criminality of the appellant and his co-offenders - Whether sentence infringed the parity principle - Whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.1

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	A Robson
Respondent	:	D Renton and J Johnston

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid Commission
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 226 A Crim R 354
Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58
Bembo v The Queen [2019] VSCA 308
Chong v The Queen [2020] WASCA 143
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Aisbett [2009] VSCA 172
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Brown [2017] VSCA 162; (2017) 268 A Crim R 309
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Wang [2019] VSCA 250; (2019) 279 A Crim R 491
Heng v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 317
Higgs v The Queen [2015] VSCA 223
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Jackson v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 230
Karam v The Queen [2015] VSCA 50
Kuo v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 270
Luo v The Queen [2020] WASCA 184
Ngo v The Queen [2017] WASCA 3
Parker v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 206
R v Campillo-Vaquere [2004] NSWCA 271
R v Flavel [2001] NSWCCA 227
R v Gonzales-Betes [2001] NSWCCA 226
R v Le [2019] QCA 200
R v Ng [2012] WASCA 180
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Reaves [2004] WASCA 106; (2004) 147 A Crim R 26
R v Scott [2017] SASCFC 96
R v Suarez-Mejia [2002] WASCA 187; (2002) 131 A Crim R 577
Samardali v The Queen [2018] WASCA 220
Sevilla v The Queen [2007] WASCA 116
Shakhanov v The Queen [2019] VSCA 38
Sukkar v The Queen (No 2) [2008] WASCA 2; (2008) 178 A Crim R 433
Sukkar v The Queen [2007] WASCA 166
Vanit v The Queen (1997) 190 CLR 78
Wangsaimas v The Queen (1996) 6 NTLR 14
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Summary

On 14 December 2017, the appellant was convicted after…

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 Tang v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tang v The Queen [2020] WASCA 194
Case: [2020] WASCA 194
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tang was convicted of importing 145.6 kilograms (pure weight) of methamphetamine into Australia. The High Court of Australia was asked to review the sentence of 23 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years, which Tang was given. The main legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge made an error in assessing the relative criminality of Tang and his co-offenders, whether the sentence violated the parity principle, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not err in assessing the relative criminality of Tang and his co-offenders. The judge correctly considered the different roles played by Tang and his co-offenders, as well as the degree of Tang's involvement in the offence. The court also held that the sentence did not infringe the parity principle, as the judge had properly considered the circumstances of the case and the need to deter and punish Tang for his serious crime. Finally, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for an offence of this nature.

The High Court of Australia dismissed Tang's appeal against sentence, affirming the 23 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the comparative criminality of Tang and his co-offenders, that the sentence did not infringe the parity principle, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders