SENTENCE – Importing prohibited imports into Australia – Aiding and abetting the importation of prohibited imports into Australia – Largest known importation of heroin into Victoria – Pleas of guilty by four offenders – Whether head sentences of between 22 and 24 years imprisonment and/or non-parole periods of between 15 and 16 years imprisonment manifestly excessive – Whether parity principle infringed – Whether Judge erred in findings as to roles played by offenders, their backgrounds and other circumstances relied upon in mitigation – No sentence manifestly excessive – Parity principle infringed – Three offenders re-sentenced.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr J R Champion SC
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant (Mr Teng)
Ms F L Dalziel
Clarebrough Pica
For the Appellant (Mr Lam)
Mr D A Dann with Mr M Gumbleton
Melinda Walker
For the Appellant (Mr Tan)
Mr L C Carter
Robert Stary and Associates
For the Appellant (Mr Wong)
Mr C B Boyce
Leanne Warren & Associates
---
MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA, LASRY AJA:
Each of the appellants[1] Kiam Fah Teng (‘Teng’), Wee Quey Tan (‘Tan’) and Yau Kim Lam (‘Lam’) pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the importation of prohibited imports into Australia.[2] The appellant Ta Song Wong (‘Wong’) pleaded guilty to one count of importing prohibited imports into Australia.[3] As will appear, they were all participants in a sophisticated scheme to import a large quantity of heroin into Australia using the MV Pong Su, a ship owned by a North Korean shipping company. The operation involved 150 kilograms of heroin, of which 125 kilograms reached the shore. It was the largest known importation of heroin into Victoria.
[1]Teng sought an extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal. We indicated to counsel that, in the interests of the efficient disposition of the matter, we would hear the substantive arguments on the grounds of appeal in Teng’s notice of appeal and decide the ancillary applications in the light of those arguments.
[2]Contrary to para 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (‘Customs Act’) and by operation of s 11 2(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).
[3]Contrary to para 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
The table below shows the respective sentences imposed on…
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 Teng v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Teng v The Queen [2009] VSCA 148
Case
[2009] VSCA 148
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Teng v The Queen, the four appellants, Teng, Cheng, Lim, and Lee, appealed against their sentences for their involvement in the importation of a substantial quantity of heroin into Victoria. The primary dispute revolved around the severity of the sentences imposed, particularly the head sentences and non-parole periods, and whether these were manifestly excessive given the roles and backgrounds of the offenders. The appeals were heard in the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, whether the principle of parity was infringed, and whether the trial judge erred in his findings regarding the roles played by the offenders, their backgrounds, and other mitigating circumstances. The court was required to balance the gravity of the offence with the individual circumstances of each offender, while also ensuring consistency in sentencing across similar cases.
The court found that while the sentences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive, considering the nature and scale of the offence. However, the court did determine that the parity principle had been infringed, as the sentences imposed varied significantly among the offenders despite their similar roles in the crime. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the roles and backgrounds of the offenders, which influenced the severity of their sentences. Consequently, the court re-sentenced three of the offenders, while affirming the sentence of the fourth offender.
The final orders of the court involved the re-sentencing of three of the offenders, with the court providing detailed reasons for the adjustments to their sentences. The court emphasised the importance of consistency and fairness in sentencing, ensuring that the sentences reflected the individual circumstances of each offender while maintaining parity with similar cases.