R v Qiang James Chen [2017] NSWDC 187

R v Qiang James Chen [2017] NSWDC 187

The offender was aware, or believed, that the shipment contained a significant amount of illicit drugs, had taken steps to avoid detection, and played a very significant role in receipt of the drugs in Australia, reasonably high up the hierarchy and at middle management level. Given the significant quantity and value of methamphetamine, the offender's financial motivation, the seriousness of Commonwealth drug importation offences, and the need for general and specific deterrence, the offending was objectively mid-range and no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate. Taking account of the offender's lack of prior convictions, absence of remorse, subjective circumstances and above...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Aiding, Abetting, Counselling or Procuring the Importation of a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug / Remarks on Sentence After Jury Verdict of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.
Legal Topics
['importation of a Border Controlled Drug' 'methamphetamine' 'commercial Quantity' 'aid and Abet' 'objective Seriousness' "offender's Knowledge of Nature and Amount of Drugs" 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'commonwealth Criminal Law'] ['importation of a Border Controlled Drug' 'methamphetamine' 'commercial Quantity' 'aid and Abet' 'objective Seriousness' "offender's Knowledge of Nature and Amount of Drugs" 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence for Aiding, Abetting, Counselling or Procuring the Importation of a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug / Remarks on Sentence After Jury Verdict of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What findings of fact should be made consistently with the jury verdict for sentence' 'Whether the offender knew the shipment contained a significant amount of illicit drugs' "The offender's role in the importation enterprise and the objective seriousness of the offending" 'Whether any sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate' 'What head sentence and non-parole period were of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was aware, or believed, that the shipment contained a significant amount of illicit drugs, had taken steps to avoid detection, and played a very significant role in receipt of the drugs in Australia, reasonably high up the hierarchy and at middle management level. Given the significant quantity and value of methamphetamine, the offender's financial motivation, the seriousness of Commonwealth drug importation offences, and the need for general and specific deterrence, the offending was objectively mid-range and no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate. Taking account of the offender's lack of prior convictions, absence of remorse, subjective circumstances and above...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 years commencing on 29 March 2017 and expiring on 28 March 2029.' 'A non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months is set, commencing on 29 March 2017 and expiring on 28 May 2024, when the offender will be eligible for parole.']