Wee Quay Tan aka Chin Kwang Lee v The Queen

WEE QUAY TAN aka CHIN KWANG LEE
v
THE QUEEN
[2014] HCASL 211
M85/2014

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Kellam J) to aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia[1]. The applicant was a participant in a sophisticated scheme involving the importation of 150 kilograms of heroin into Australia on board the MV Pong Su. On 8 May 2006, the applicant was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years[2].
[1]Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 233B(1), 235.
[2]R v Wee Quay Tan [2006] VSC 177.
The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentence to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Maxwell P, Ashley JA and Lasry AJA) on grounds of manifest excess and error in the application of sentencing principle and in fact-finding. On 19 June 2009, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
By application filed on 2 September 2014, the applicant applies for special leave to appeal. The application is substantially out of time[3]. The applicant seeks an order dispensing with compliance with the time limit[4].
[3]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.1 provides that an application shall be filed within 28 days after the judgment below was pronounced.
[4]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.2.
The applicant does not have legal representation and his application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The application does not raise any question of principle that would warrant consideration by this Court. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success. It follows that there is no utility in making an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wee Quay Tan, also known as Chin Kwang Lee, was involved in a sophisticated drug importation scheme where 150 kilograms of heroin were brought into Australia on the MV Pong Su. He pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting this importation and was sentenced to 24 years in prison with a non-parole period of 16 years. After his appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria was dismissed, he applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, arguing that his sentence was excessive and that there were errors in the application of sentencing principles and fact-finding. His application for special leave to appeal was made well beyond the statutory time limit.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the High Court should grant special leave to appeal despite the substantial delay in filing the application. The application was well beyond the statutory time limit, which is 28 days after the judgment below was pronounced. The applicant did not have legal representation and his application was evaluated under the appropriate rule of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The court considered whether the application raised any question of principle that warranted consideration, whether the appeal would have sufficient prospects of success if special leave were granted, and whether there was any utility in extending the time limit for bringing the application.

The High Court found that the application did not raise any question of principle that would warrant consideration. Furthermore, it concluded that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success. The court held that there was no utility in making an order to enlarge the time in which to bring the application. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in filing applications for special leave to appeal and the stringent criteria the High Court applies in considering such applications, particularly where they are substantially out of time and do not raise significant questions of principle or have a reasonable prospect of success.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established