R v Chung [2023] NSWDC 604

R v Chung [2023] NSWDC 604

The appropriate sentence for the supply of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) of more than a large commercial quantity, under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, is determined by reference to the quantity, purity, offender's role, and objective seriousness of the offence. The offender's guilty plea attracted a 25% discount for utilitarian value but did not, in the absence of further evidence, demonstrate remorse. The presence of a large quantity and level of organisation justified a substantial sentence focused on general deterrence, notwithstanding the offender's first-offender status and subjective material.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Defendant: Wai Sze Chung
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence
Outcome
Convicted; sentenced to imprisonment.
Legal Topics
Supply of Prohibited Drug, Sentencing, Objective Seriousness, Remorse and Contrition
Criminal Law Supply of Prohibited Drug Sentencing Objective Seriousness Remorse and Contrition

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Wai Sze Chung

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for supply of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine), more than a large commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, having regard to the objective seriousness, role of offender, and absence of special circumstances?
  2. 2 Does the offender's plea of guilty attract a finding of remorse?
  3. 3 Is there evidence of a criminal hierarchy in the commission of the offence?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate sentence for the supply of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) of more than a large commercial quantity, under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, is determined by reference to the quantity, purity, offender's role, and objective seriousness of the offence. The offender's guilty plea attracted a 25% discount for utilitarian value but did not, in the absence of further evidence, demonstrate remorse. The presence of a large quantity and level of organisation justified a substantial sentence focused on general deterrence, notwithstanding the offender's first-offender status and subjective material.

Court Disposition

Convicted; sentenced to imprisonment.

Orders

  • Convicted and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months, comprising a non-parole period of 5 years commencing on 23 February 2023 and expiring on 22 February 2028, with a balance of term of 1 year and 9 months expiring on 22 November 2029.
  • Eligible for release to parole on 22 February 2028.