R v Chee Hui Tiew [2019] NSWDC 35

R v Chee Hui Tiew [2019] NSWDC 35

The offence was above the mid-range of objective seriousness because the offender came to Australia as part of a syndicate to import and supply a very large quantity of methylamphetamine, stored and delivered drug-impregnated shelving, met the civilian participant, and his name was used to facilitate the business arrangements. The Court rejected duress as mitigation because, although he may have been assaulted over his debt, he had clear alternatives and did not seek help from family, friends or authorities. After considering parity with co-offenders, hardship in custody, the maximum penalty, the standard non-parole period, aggravation from disregard for public safety, and a 10% late plea...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Supply Prohibited Drug Greater Than a Large Commercial Quantity / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to full-time custody for 14 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 10 years and 10 months.
Legal Topics
['supply Prohibited Drug Greater Than a Large Commercial Quantity' 'methylamphetamine' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'duress as Mitigation' 'parity in Sentencing' 'hardship in Custody' 'forfeiture']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply Prohibited Drug Greater Than a Large Commercial Quantity' 'methylamphetamine' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'duress as Mitigation' 'parity in Sentencing' 'hardship in Custody' 'forfeiture']

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 Supply Prohibited Drug Greater Than a Large Commercial Quantity / Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for supplying 67.477 kilograms of methylamphetamine, greater than a large commercial quantity.' "How the offender's role, the quantity of drug, planning, financial gain and disregard for public safety affected objective seriousness." 'Whether alleged duress arising from gambling debt threats mitigated the sentence.' 'Whether parity with co-offenders Ho and Seong affected the appropriate sentence.' 'Whether hardship in custody, lack of criminal record, gambling disorder and prospects of rehabilitation warranted special circumstances or other mitigation.' 'What utilitarian discount should be allowed for the late guilty plea.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was above the mid-range of objective seriousness because the offender came to Australia as part of a syndicate to import and supply a very large quantity of methylamphetamine, stored and delivered drug-impregnated shelving, met the civilian participant, and his name was used to facilitate the business arrangements. The Court rejected duress as mitigation because, although he may have been assaulted over his debt, he had clear alternatives and did not seek help from family, friends or authorities. After considering parity with co-offenders, hardship in custody, the maximum penalty, the standard non-parole period, aggravation from disregard for public safety, and a 10% late plea...

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to full-time custody for 14 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 10 years and 10 months.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of the charge of supply a prohibited drug greater than a large commercial quantity, namely 67.477 kgs of methylamphetamine, pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.' 'The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years and 10 months commencing on 1 December 2015 and terminating on 30...