R v WAT, Kar Wang [2015] NSWDC 418
The offender knowingly played a central, vital and senior role in a planned and organised transnational drug-supply operation involving 218,764.5 grams of ephedrine, far above the large commercial quantity threshold, and did so for financial gain. Although the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was the principal of the importation, the offending was at the upper end of the middle range of objective seriousness and required substantial full-time imprisonment, with general deterrence especially important for foreign nationals who come to Australia to commit serious drug offences. Mitigating factors included the guilty plea attracting a 25% discount, age, good character,...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence for Knowingly Taking Part in the Supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of Ephedrine Contrary to S 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw) / Sentence After Plea of Guilty on Presentation of Indictment
- Outcome
- Convicted and sentenced to full-time imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years and a balance of sentence of five years.
- Legal Topics
- ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'ephedrine' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'foreign National Offender' 'general Deterrence' 'financial Gain' 'planned and Organised Criminal Activity']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Knowingly Taking Part in the Supply of a Large Commercial Quantity of Ephedrine Contrary to S 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw) / Sentence After Plea of Guilty on Presentation of Indictment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for knowingly taking part in the supply of 218,764.5 grams of ephedrine, a large commercial quantity.' 'Whether the offender was a principal of the importation or instead had a vital but non-principal role.' 'How the standard non-parole period and objective seriousness should be assessed.' 'What mitigating effect should be given to the guilty plea, age, absence of prior convictions, health, family circumstances, and limited attempted assistance to law enforcement.' 'Whether special circumstances should be found under s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offender knowingly played a central, vital and senior role in a planned and organised transnational drug-supply operation involving 218,764.5 grams of ephedrine, far above the large commercial quantity threshold, and did so for financial gain. Although the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was the principal of the importation, the offending was at the upper end of the middle range of objective seriousness and required substantial full-time imprisonment, with general deterrence especially important for foreign nationals who come to Australia to commit serious drug offences. Mitigating factors included the guilty plea attracting a 25% discount, age, good character,...
Court Disposition
Convicted and sentenced to full-time imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years and a balance of sentence of five years.
Orders
- ['The offender is convicted.' 'The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of ten years, dating from 8 October 2014 and expiring on 7 October 2024.' 'The offender will be eligible for release to parole at the conclusion of the non-parole period, subject to the Parole Authority.' 'No conditions of release to...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment