AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 November 2023

R v Chung

[2023] NSWDC 604

Drugs
CRIMINAL SENTENCE OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS FINDINGS IN RE REMORSE AND CONTRITION “HIERARCHY” ROLE OF OFFENDER

Citation: R v Chung [2023] NSWDC 604
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 November 2023
Judge: King SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to a single charge of supplying a prohibited drug in an amount exceeding a large commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The charge arose from a controlled police operation in which undercover officers arranged to purchase one kilogram of methylamphetamine for $150,000.

On 9 June 2022, the offender drove to a pre-arranged location in Moorebank, entered an undercover officer's vehicle, and handed over a pink bag containing 998.3 grams of methylamphetamine at 80% purity. She had carried the bag from her apartment building, where CCTV footage captured her in the lift moments before the exchange. The exchange involved a verification process using Chinese currency banknotes as a security code, indicating a degree of organisational sophistication.

The offender was arrested on 15 September 2022 and exercised her right to silence during the charge interview. She was committed for sentence on 31 May 2023, having entered a plea that entitled her to a 25% discount.

  • What was the appropriate assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, having regard to the quantity, purity, value, and circumstances of the supply?
  • What was the offender's role in the broader transaction, and how did that bear on sentencing?
  • Whether remorse and contrition were genuinely established, or whether the plea of guilty alone sufficed to demonstrate those qualities.
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including absence of prior criminal history, low risk of reoffending, and personal background?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio.

Decision

Objective seriousness: King SC DCJ rejected the defence submission that the offence sat at the very bottom of the range of objective seriousness. The quantity, just under one kilogram, was described as a significant amount, being nearly twice the commercial threshold. Combined with the 80% purity and a wholesale price of $150,000, the court assessed the offending as objectively serious. The court also noted the broader social harm caused by methylamphetamine, which it described as highly destructive of social order in New South Wales.

The offender's role: Although the agreed facts stated the offender was criminally responsible on the basis she knew there was "a significant chance" the substance was a prohibited drug, the court read that standard as reflecting a very highly significant chance in the circumstances. The offender had carried the package from her own apartment, participated in a sophisticated identity verification process, and was solely responsible for delivering the drug. The court considered she must have had a reasonable appreciation of the quantity she was carrying.

Remorse and subjective matters: The court declined to accept statements made in the Sentence Assessment Report about the offender's motivations and circumstances, treating them as untested and self-serving. King SC DCJ noted the established principle that a plea of guilty does not, in itself, necessarily indicate remorse. The offender had no prior criminal history and was assessed as a low risk of reoffending, which the court accepted as reasonably accurate.

Sentence: The court determined a pre-discount sentence of nine years' imprisonment, reduced by 25% for the utilitarian value of the early plea to six years and nine months. No special circumstances were found warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio, given the absence of any drug or alcohol problem requiring an extended rehabilitation period. The non-parole period was set at five years.

Orders Made

  • Sentence of six years and nine months' imprisonment, commencing 23 February 2023.
  • Non-parole period of five years, expiring 22 February 2028.
  • Sentence to expire 22 November 2029.

Key Takeaways

  • A plea of guilty does not, by itself, establish remorse or contrition; the sentencing court treated those as separate considerations requiring independent evidence.
  • The District Court applied the principle from McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344 that the absence of aggravating features does not make an offence less serious than it objectively is.
  • Where an offender carries a large quantity of prohibited drug from their own premises and participates in a sophisticated security-coded exchange, the court may draw reasonable inferences about the offender's awareness of the nature and scale of the transaction, even where the agreed facts express criminal responsibility in qualified terms.
  • Untested, self-serving statements in Sentence Assessment Reports carry limited weight; the court here expressly declined to rely on them.
  • Special circumstances to extend the balance of term were not established where the offender had no drug dependency or rehabilitation needs requiring a longer supervisory period.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)

Cases
- McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344