DPP v Chen [2026] VCC 187

(A) Kennard's Self Storage, 151 Capel Street, North Melbourne - 22 October 2022 to 14 December 2022

1. By way of background, in relation to the first instance of trafficking in a large commercial quantity, I was told that between 25 July and 14 December 2022 Ms Wu leased the following storage units on your behalf:

(a) Storage Unit X73 at Kennard's Self Storage in Port Melbourne;

(b) Storage Unit X02 at Kennard's Self Storage in Port Melbourne;

(c) Storage Unit 3303 at Kennard's Self Storage in Capel Street, North Melbourne; and

(d) Storage Unit 0287 at National Storage in Box Hill.

1. Ms Wu leased the storage units on your behalf. You would reimburse her for the initial and monthly costs associated with this, as well as providing her with an additional fee of $500.
2. You had access to these storage units during the relevant time.
3. On 22 October 2022, at about 6.12 pm you, Wu and Yu attended the Port Melbourne Kennard's Storage facility where you retrieved a number of items from Storage Unit X02 including a white suitcase, black suitcase, blue duffle bag, hessian bag, and a camp chair.
4. At about 7.25 pm on that same evening, you and Co-offender, Yu, attended at Kennard's Storage in North Melbourne where you transferred the retrieved items from Port Melbourne into Storage Unit 3303.
5. These activities were recorded in the Kennard's access logs and captured on CCTV.
6. You were also captured on CCTV at National Storage Box Hill in company with Yu on 9 December 2022.
7. On that day, 9 December 2022, investigators from the OCIU executed Search Warrants under the State Crimes Act as well as the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act at Storage Unit 3303 at Kennard's Self Storage in North Melbourne.
8. Police seized a white suitcase, black suitcase and blue duffle bag.
9. Inside these bags were multiple clip seal bags containing a white crystalline substance which on subsequent analysis revealed that the bags contained methylamphetamine.
10. The total weight of the substance was 17.84 kilograms.
11. On 14 December 2022, further Search Warrants were executed in connection with the investigation.
12. It is alleged that you accessed the Kennard's Storage Unit in Capel Road, North Melbourne to house the 17.84 kilograms of substance containing methylamphetamine and had access to three other storage units during this time, which were leased by Ms Yu at your behest.

(B) Trafficking methylamphetamine from Melbourne to Perth - 1 April 2023 - 21 April 2023

1. In April 2023, you facilitated the transportation of 20 kilograms of methylamphetamine from Victoria to Western Australia. You engaged Yu and Hsu to drive the drugs to Western Australia in a 2010 Nissan Elgrand vehicle, registration number 1XC 8VC.
2. Both Yu and Hsu were to be paid $15,000 for the successful transportation of the drugs to Perth, which were concealed in the rear compartment of the car.
3. Yu and Hsu embarked on the journey to Perth, stopping at Port Augusta in South Australia on 17 April and Mandurah, Western Australia on 18 April, before arriving in Perth on the evening of 19 April.
4. The movements of each of these offenders were monitored by investigators from Western Australian Drugs and Firearms Squad ('WAPOL'). The two men were arrested on 21 April 2023 after police observed the exchange of 9,960 grams of methylamphetamine by Yu and another male.
5. A subsequent search of the Nissan Elgrand vehicle that you had provided to Yu and Hsu revealed two duffle bags containing approximately 10 kilograms of methylamphetamine divided into one kilogram bags. Between two bags, which had been removed from the car and the duffle bags in the car, a total of 19.933 kilograms of methylamphetamine with an average purity of 76.8 percent was seized. The methylamphetamine had been concealed in the rear compartment of the car.
6. Yu and Hsu were charged with the possession of drugs pursuant to Western Australian legislation and remanded in custody.
7. Forensic examination conducted on the car identified fingerprints belonging to you, Mr Chen.
8. The prosecution alleges that you suspected that Yu and Hsu had been arrested. The morning after the arrests, you and your partner, Aojie Wu, engaged in text messages with each other. Aojie Wu suggested that you seek alternative accommodation under a pseudonym in order to hide and prevent being apprehended by police.
9. Ms Wu also suggested deleting your respective SMS history as, 'we have discussed these issues', and suggested that you and she concoct a ruse to damage property within your apartment to persuade police that you and she had separated.
10. The prosecution alleges that you paid Yu and Hsu or arranged for each to be paid $15,000 each to transport the 19.933 kilograms of a substance containing methylamphetamine from Melbourne to Perth.

(C) Extraction of methylamphetamine from bed linen at 108/32 Lilydale Grove, Hawthorn East - 1 April 2023 to 22 April 2023 (Charge 1); and possession of methylamphetamine (Charge 2)

1. The basis for the third instance of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine concerns the following.
2. On 15 February 2023, you facilitated the short term lease of a property in Lilydale Grove, Hawthorn East. The premises were owned by a Changqian You, who advertised the property on a Mandarin language website.
3. You contacted Ou using WeChat and advised that you were renting the property for a friend. You rented the property for two to three months for $475 per week and paid a bond to Ou.
4. The premises in Lilydale Grove, Hawthorn East were primarily used by you and co-offender, Keh, for the manufacture and extraction of drugs.
5. I have previously sentenced Mr Keh and I will refer to details of this a little later.
6. Police conducted surveillance in relation to this investigation. You were observed in the Bundoora and Reservoir areas on 6 March 2023. On that day you were seen meeting with Yu in Reservoir and delivering a red plastic bag to him. The bag then appeared to then be returned to you.
7. On 24 March 2023, Yu attended an address in Schafer Road, Blackburn North where he collected a cardboard box from the front yard of the property. The cardboard box contained bedding sheets which had been impregnated with methylamphetamine.
8. On or around 1 April 2023, you and Tien Keh set about extracting methylamphetamine at the address in Lilydale Grove, Hawthorn East. This involved the use of washing machines, glassware and heating utensils.
9. You and Keh washed the bedding in a washing machine and retained the dirty 'yellow' water. You then boiled the water on a stove to reduce the volume of the water. The reduced liquid was then placed into dishes. As the water cooled, crystals of methylamphetamine formed.
10. You and Keh accessed the Lilydale Grove, Hawthorn East address on eight and nine separate days respectively.
11. Several significant events were captured either through CCTV footage or through observations of investigators/surveillance operatives.
12. On 4 April 2023, you and Keh were in possession of an electronic hotplate, which was used for extraction of drug related materials.
13. On 11 April 2023, you and Keh were in possession of a cardboard box identified as containing bedding sheets impregnated with methylamphetamine.
14. On 17 April 2023, you brought a dehumidifier to the premises for use in the extraction of drug related materials.
15. On that same day you discarded the cardboard box used to store the dehumidifier in a dumpster outside your residential address. Also in the dumpster was an empty cardboard box labelled 'Salter brand electronic scales' and a large snap lock bag containing 1.8 grams of methylamphetamine. The 1.8 grams of methylamphetamine gives rise to Charge 2, possession of methylamphetamine. The prosecution alleges that this substance was related to trafficking by way of manufacture, however, concedes that you were discarding the 1.8 grams of methylamphetamine which I take into account.
16. On 20 April 2023, you brought a second dehumidifier to the premises in Hawthorn East for use in the extraction of drug related materials.
17. Later investigations revealed that 1.759 kilograms of methylamphetamine had been extracted from the linen, with your knowledge of the weight agreed to be 1.2 kilograms based on the following:

(a) Exhibits 1, 2 and 3: 986.1 grams, with your knowledge being at least 900 grams.

(b) Exhibit 5: 770.8 grams with your knowledge being at least 300 grams;

(c) Exhibit 9: 2.7 grams.

1. Therefore, the total quantity alleged is 1.759 kilograms with your knowledge being at least 1.2 kilograms.
2. In relation to the Hawthorn East apartment, it is alleged that you did the following things:

(i) set up the property and attended the property during the period when the extraction took place;

(ii) engaged and paid co-offender Keh to extract methylamphetamine at the property;

(iii) were involved in the extraction process and had the substance in your possession with Keh;

(iv) brought two dehumidifiers to the property which you and Keh both used to boil the substance;

(v) sometimes you were not present at the property and from time to time you gave Keh instructions in relation to the extraction process;

(vi) would handle the next steps after the methylamphetamine had dried out; and

(vii) paid Keh $10,000 to extract methylamphetamine.

1. The prosecution relies on the three instances, A, B, C previously referred to in relation to the charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The total quantity of the substance containing methylamphetamine seized weighed 39.53 kilograms.
2. The threshold for the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is a substance weighing 750 grams which contains methylamphetamine.
3. Further investigation revealed that you were using three different mobile numbers in a handset operated by you as follows:

(a) Mobile phone number ending 689 between 1 July 2022 and 23 September 2022;

(b) Mobile phone number ending 073 between 11 October and 24 December 2022;

(c) Mobile phone number ending 214 from 28 December 2022.

1. Wu communicated with you on numbers ending 689 and 073 during the relevant periods. You were intercepted at a location consistent with using the number ending 214 during the relevant period.
2. Later analysis of your Samsung mobile phone located images of identity information belonging to 44 other people including the following:

(a) three immigration documents;

(b) 18 foreign passports;

(c) two foreign driver licences;

(d) one translation of a foreign driver's licence;

(e) 21 Australian state issued drivers licences or permits;

(f) three receipts for Australian state issued drivers permits;

(g) two Australian state issued proof of age cards;

(h) three Australian banking cards;

(i) seven messages containing identity information; and

(j) one set of images relating to mobile phone registration.

1. The mobile phone numbers operated by you and just referred to were subscribed to three identities whose details were later found amongst identity information contained in your Samsung mobile phone.
2. After notification of the arrests of Yu and Hsu in Western Australia, investigators from the OCIU commenced, 'the resolution phase of the operation'.
3. At about 11.46 am on Saturday, 22 April 2023, you were arrested by investigators from OCIU at the Dutton One Garage in Box Hill South. You were found in possession of three mobile phones and 17 individually-packaged and labelled SIM cards, as well as three identification cards in the name of Malaysian national, Tek Ye Lee.
4. You were taken to the Spencer Street Police Complex, where you took part in a record of interview with the help of a Mandarin interpreter. You did not make any admissions to the offending.
5. Your co-offender in relation to one of the large commercial trafficking instances, Keh, was interviewed at the Spencer Street Police Complex with the help of a Mandarin interpreter. He detailed to investigators his association with you through the construction industry and how you recruited him to assist with the drug-extraction process undertaken at Hawthorn East. Keh further provided specifics of the mobile phone provided and payments to him by you.
6. Your partner, Aoije Wu, was interviewed, but not charged.
7. Ciao-Jhen Wu made a statement to police and gave evidence at the committal hearing involving charges against you. Ms Wu was not charged in connection with renting the storage units on your behalf. Ms Wu pleaded guilty to a charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime in the amount of $14,344.80, which was cash seized at her address on 31 August 2022 and was said to be part of the money she received from you for leasing the units. She was convicted and fined $2,000 for this offence.

1. At about 2.24 pm on 22 April 2023, OCIU investigators executed search warrants under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) at your residential address in Carnegie.
2. A number of items were seized, including 53.2 grams of cannabis, giving rise to Charge 3 and .7 grams of tetrahydrocannabinol, which was stored in a snap-lock bag, giving rise to Charge 4.
3. VicRoads' paperwork relating to the car used to transport drugs from Victoria to Western Australia by Yu and Hsu was also found. I was told by the learned prosecutor after enquiring that the car was registered in the name of one of the identities to which you had access due to the various documents in your possession. Therefore, the car was registered with false identification documents, but can be sheeted back to you, Mr Chen.
4. At about 1.15 pm on 22 April 2023, investigators from the Clandestine Laboratory Squad ('CLS') executed search warrants under relevant legislation at the Hawthorn East address.
5. Forensic examinations conducted on glassware seized from the address identified fingerprints belonging to you and Keh.
6. DNA material extracted from exhibits also indicated your connection and Keh's connection with the address.
7. While investigators were processing the search warrant at Hawthorn East, Keh arrived in a car registered in his name and he was arrested. Police seized mobile phones from the car.
8. Banking records which were obtained after execution of a search warrant indicated that a payment of $9,550 was made from your account to Mr Yu on 21 April 2023, at a time when he was in Perth, Western Australia.
9. Analysis of the methamphetamine seized at the Hawthorn East address was conducted and a table indicating the results of the analysis were set out in a table in the prosecution opening which I have reproduced and incorporated in my sentencing remarks. I incorporate that table into my sentencing remarks. It was set out in the prosecution opening, however I do not intend to repeat the analysis there set out, and everyone is aware of it, and adopt it as part of my sentencing remarks.
10. In reference to that table, Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 weighed a combined weight of 986.1 grams. It is alleged that you had knowledge that at least 900 grams of a substance containing methylamphetamine, combined, was across these three Pyrex dishes.
11. The liquid in Exhibit 5 weighed 770 grams and it is alleged that your knowledge was that this contained a substance with methylamphetamine in it of at least 300 grams, so, at least similar to the amounts extracted in each of the three Pyrex dishes.
12. Analysis of CCTV footage of the Hawthorn East apartment building showed that you, Mr Chen, and Keh attended the apartment on the following dates in 2023: 1 April, 2 April, 4 April, 5 April, 6 April, 11 April, 18 April and 19 April.
13. On 17 and 20 April, you are seen to attend alone.
14. On other occasions, the fob was used to access the apartment, but the prosecution were unable to say who attended on the other occasions.

1. On 18 May 2023, investigators from the OCIU conducted recorded interviews with Yu and Hsu in Perth, Western Australia.
2. The prosecution say that Yu and Hsu provided frank accounts of their actions, implicating you in the offending.
3. I was told that Co-offender Yu and Hsu provided statements adopting their respective records of interview and gave evidence at the contested committal hearing for this matter. Each of these accused pleaded guilty to their offending in Western Australia, being a charge of 'Possession with intent to sell or supply a trafficable quantity of Methylamphetamine'-this related to the 9.33 kilograms of a substance containing methylamphetamine which was transported by them. Each of them were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years, with a non-parole period of six years, allowing for a 25 per cent discount in the sentence that would otherwise have been received because of their pleas of guilty, past co-operation, finding of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, as well as assisting the administration of justice. His Honour, the learned sentencing judge, Judge Staude, District Court of Western Australia, indicated that, if not for these factors, he would have imposed a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment. He backdated the sentence of imprisonment in each case to 21 April 2023, to reflect the time already served by each of those offenders.
4. I have had regard to these sentences but note that those offenders were sentenced for a different offence in a different jurisdiction, and their offending related to one of the three instances of offending in which you were involved. Also, they had a subordinate role to yours and were afforded a substantial discount due to their undertakings to give evidence, and indeed they did give evidence at committal, which is not what you have done.
5. On 13 June 2025, I sentenced Tien Keh to 11 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years for one charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methamphetamine. 783 days' imprisonment was declared as already served.
6. Mr Keh had no prior convictions, had a lesser role to yours and was involved in the third instance only of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - only one instance.
7. Mr Chen, your offending is most serious and deserving of a punishment which is just in all the relevant circumstances. Your conduct must be firmly denounced.
8. You chose to involve yourself in three instances of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, with the total weight of a substance containing the drug being over 50 times the threshold for a large commercial quantity, which is most serious. You were actively involved in each of the instances of trafficking in a large commercial quantity in the various ways set out in the prosecution opening, engaging others to perform more menial roles, arranging for storage units, transportation, extraction and leasing of premises, as well as paying underlings to perform the various roles that they did. You were also responsible for obtaining a car in respect of the second instance of trafficking a large commercial quantity. Clearly, you were entrusted with both valuable quantities of methylamphetamine and with the ability to instruct others to perform the various duties to carry out the various aspects of this most significant criminal enterprise. I am unable to determine at what point in the hierarchy you sat, however it was at a highly trusted level, albeit that I am unable to find that you were at the top of the hierarchy. Clearly, however, you were a good deal above those you engaged to perform the various tasks which are set out in the prosecution opening.
9. Your counsel frankly acknowledged that you are not addicted to methylamphetamine yourself, which places your moral culpability at a high level, with your motivation being to make a profit.
10. Your counsel submitted that you were to be paid for your significant role in this enterprise, however, was unable to advise as to what you were to receive. I note that when you were arrested you were at a prestige car dealership. I was told that you were driving an older model Mercedes which you were wanting to sell and was valued at $50,000.
11. I accept that there appears to be no evidence of you leading a lavish or extravagant lifestyle, apart from having a rather nice vehicle which was worth a fairly substantial sum.
12. In respect of your role, I accept that you were an integral part of the drug trafficking in all three instances and at a level above the various co-offenders, each of whom were only involved in one instance. There was no indication that the profits made from the sale of methylamphetamine in each instance were to go back to you, but your counsel did not have instructions from you as to what you would be paid by others for your role in the enterprise, which, as I have said, was a highly trusted one. I cannot be satisfied that your role was at the top of the hierarchy as I have said or involved you liaising with offenders who were overseas.
13. You have no prior convictions, which is a matter in your favour, as it means that you are of otherwise good character.
14. On the other hand, I also note the level of your activity in relation to Charge 1 and that this endured over a period of six months.
15. I was told the following by way of your background:
16. You are now 37 years old and you were born in Taiwan.
17. Neither of your parents had any real fixed employment, but engaged in casual labouring roles and spent a good deal of your childhood, and their own time, engaging in gambling on poker machines and playing Mahjong.
18. You are the youngest of three children. Your brother works in a restaurant and your sister works in retail.
19. You have ongoing contact with your siblings, however you do not regard them as close to you. They did not grow up under the same roof, by and large, as they had all but left the home when you were young. However, they remain in some contact with you, although they did not remain in contact with either of your parents when they left home.
20. I was told that your childhood and time beyond this, which was spent with your parents, was miserable and involved a good deal of violence, rejection and humiliation.
21. Your mother held you responsible for various challenges she had in her life and made it clear to you that you were unwanted. She routinely berated you and held you responsible for a number of her difficulties.
22. She was extremely abusive and would routinely use harsh forms of corporal punishment upon you, often extending to the use of implements such as brooms, as well as regularly threatening you with knives and other items found around the house.
23. I was told that in one extreme example, after a minor transgression on your part of swearing, your mother forced you to drink urine as a punishment.
24. Your father would do nothing to protect you when your mother was punishing you in these various ways, remaining passive, and on occasion agreeing with your mother's verbal abuse.
25. When you were 12 or 13 years old, your mother had an affair. At the initial plea hearing, your Counsel told me that the man she was seeing would occasionally attempt to assault you or, in fact, assault you when your mother was not present. You are unsure whether your mother knew about this or not. Your Counsel told me that on one occasion, this man placed his penis upon you and on other occasions he would touch, or try to touch, your penis. I shall refer to the Forensicare report in a moment as your account to Mr Gallus, psychologist, was somewhat different to this.
26. You left home as soon as you could, which was when you turned 19 and had little or no contact with your parents after this.
27. However, about three years after leaving home in about 2010, when you were about 22, your uncle became ill and required a liver transplant. You were coerced by your father and threatened by other family members until you agreed to provide part of your liver for a transplant. After the operation in about 2010, you found yourself to be very depressed and even further isolated. I was told that you fell into a 'deep malaise'. After a time, you decided to leave Taiwan and you came to Australia in May 2013.
28. In terms of your education, you went to school in Taiwan until finishing the equivalent of Year 12. After leaving school, you worked doing a lot of odd jobs, principally in hospitality and car detailing. In Australia, you worked in a number of odd jobs also, in farming and restaurants. I was told that, while in gaol, you have been a kitchen billet.
29. While in Australia and working on a farm, you were introduced to marijuana. This is the only illicit drug you have used, hence your counsel's frank concession in respect of your moral culpability for the current offending.
30. Having said this, your counsel relied on Bugmy[2] principles in a general way, which was not accepted by the prosecution originally, and I ordered a Forensicare psychological report in further exploration of the matters which you reported had occurred during your childhood.
31. I was told that when here you overstayed your initial visa, which was in the nature of a tourist visa, or similar, having arrived here with a view to working, which you were not entitled to do. In any event, you were desperate for money.
32. I was told that some of the people you knew from working introduced you to others who advised you as to how to make easy money in pursuits that led to you offending. At the plea hearing, Mr Sala, told me that you were talking to people on WeChat who introduced you to some others in relation to the offending, but you had never met these people. Mr Sala said that there was no evidence connecting you with any contact in Asia or the like in relation to importation of methylamphetamine and no device was found connecting you with trading in drugs overseas. You were simply told to contact a person and to do what they said, which apparently is what you did.
33. After reading material provided to me by the Prosecution in respect of the findings of Judge Staude in respect of two co-offenders in this matter, I became concerned about some of the things that your Counsel had told me as to how you came to be involved in the offending and some other matters. These concerns were communicated through my associate to the parties and I have now received further submissions in respect of these aspects and Bugmy.
34. As I indicated this morning before I commenced my sentencing remarks, I have put my concerns to one side in view of the further submissions of the parties and sentence you on the basis as agreed by the parties.
35. In relation to background matters, Mr Sala told me that you instructed him that your mother making you drink urine was the most impactful incident in your childhood and you felt very ashamed about this. The operation on your liver caused you ongoing pain for some time, and you bear a massive scar on your torso, which is an ongoing memory of these most difficult times.
36. In relation to your visa status, I was told that your initial visa expired, however, you went on to apply for a protection visa but this was rejected. You have appealed that rejection which means you are now on a bridging visa. However, although you have a partner here, or you did have, your counsel acknowledged that you did not really have a life here to strip away from you and did not submit that the prospect of deportation provided a form of hardship in your case.
37. You told Mr Gallus that you and your partner are no longer together.
38. Your counsel submitted that I ought take into account that you may well be required to serve the whole of your sentence rather than the non-parole period before being deported and I ought moderate the head sentence having regard to this. As I told your counsel, I am unable to speculate as to what will occur in this regard and I must sentence you having in mind that you may be required to serve the whole of that sentence in any event as any prisoner might well do. However, in your circumstances if you are not facing the prospect of deportation, then all things being equal it would be more likely that you would become eligible for parole; but again, I cannot speculate about this. However, I take into account that you have a level of anxiety hanging over your head about the prospect of serving the full sentence which will make time in custody harder for you than would otherwise be the case, and that hardship also attaches to the time you have already spent in custody.
39. In sentencing you I take into account your pleas of guilty and the stage at which they were entered, which as your counsel frankly accepted, was not the earliest stage available. However, this did occur before a trial at an initial directions hearing after a few adjournments for resolution discussions to occur. I understand that the matter had not been listed for trial. You conducted a contested committal hearing, which is your right, but means that you are not entitled to as great a discount as you would have been had you pleaded guilty at an earlier stage. In taking the course that you have, you have saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence at trial and the time and expense of running a trial, however, you did not save the witnesses or the community the time, trouble and expense in relation to committal proceedings. In the end, I allow for a fairly substantial discount in the sentence you would otherwise receive because of the stage at which you entered pleas of guilty in the matter.
40. In taking the course that you have, I have also factored in that there were two separate briefs pertaining to you which goes to the significance of the utilitarian benefit for pleading guilty in respect of these matters.
41. I have also factored in that, in contrast to Mr Keh, you made no admissions to police.
42. Your counsel submitted that your pleas of guilty indicated remorse on your part, and also referred to character references and your letter of apology where you express remorse. As against this, you engaged in extensive, serious and deliberative offending and only pleaded guilty after contested proceedings in the Magistrates' Court where co-offenders were subjected to cross-examination which is not indicative of remorse on your part, in my view, at least at that time. In the end, I accept that you feel shame, and are sorry that you are in your present predicament, however, I am unable to find much in the way of heartfelt and insightful remorse insofar as your offending had the capacity to affect others. In this regard, I note your preparedness to traffic large quantities of methylamphetamine to others whilst not even being addicted to the drug yourself. In my view, your remorse is very much a work in progress which has some way to go.
43. As there was a dispute about the application of Bugmy in your case at least originally, I was persuaded by your counsel to order a Forensicare psychological report to see whether this provided support for the things you previously told your counsel concerning your childhood, but also noting that your sister spoke of difficulties in this regard in her character reference.
44. Clinical psychologist, Mr Andrew Gallus, provided that report dated 3 December 2025.
45. Mr Gallus interviewed you via video link with the assistance of an interpreter on 7 October 2025, and the interview was overseen by his colleague, principal psychologist, Dr Rachel Campbell.
46. He said that due to the video call assessment and language barriers, he was not able to undertake psychometric assessments which would provide additional information to inform his opinion and recommendations. However, within the assessment limitations, he was of the view that his report provided an accurate picture of your mental health and offending behaviour as was possible to obtain. He also explored the issue of childhood trauma and its relevance to your offending.
47. I have considered his report, noting that there is some inconsistency in relation to your report to him of sexual abuse and what I have heard previously in this regard. You told Mr Gallus that you were sexually abused by a male whom you walked in on having sex with your mother. He then sexually assaulted you in the genital and anal region. You told him that your mother instructed you not to tell anyone about the abuse or her affair. Mr Gallus noted that you had said in other documentation that you were subjected to sexual abuse from the male on three occasions, that your mother was not present on these, and was perhaps unaware of the abuse.
48. Clearly, on your most recent account, your mother did know about the alleged sexual abuse because she swore you to secrecy, according to you.
49. I must say that I regard this aspect of your account as materially inconsistent and I have some misgivings about its veracity.
50. Mr Gallus said that you may have been consciously or unconsciously trying to 'create an impression of disturbance or impairment by exaggerating problems and negative characteristics.'[36]
51. However, broadly, your account to Mr Gallus aligned with what you had previously told others in respect of your childhood and upbringing.
52. You reported longstanding problems with fluctuating mood and anxiety, which Mr Gallus found was heavily suggestive of persistent depressed mood, low self‑esteem and feelings of hopelessness.
53. Mr Gallus was of the view that despite the presence of trauma in your background, there was little evidence that led him to think that your offending for which I sentence you was strongly influenced by 'this proposed mechanism'. He said:

More general links to his experience of childhood trauma may be available via his low self-efficacy, lack of effective parental/adult guidance during his formative years and poor/ineffective help seeking behaviours. His offending appeared more directly attributable to his desperate financial circumstances culminating from his accrual of gambling debts, the restrictions around movement necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions on his ability to obtain work due to his residency status. That engagement in criminal behaviour for financial purposes was normalised within his family of origin seems to have been a more direct predisposing factor. Ongoing gambling behaviour (he said that he only ceased gambling once he entered custody) and the need to continue to finance such activity was the most probable sustaining factor to his offending. [39]

54. Mr Gallus observed that your lack of language proficiency and low level of pre-existing personal and professional support may mean that a period of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you compared with the 'average' offender without these issues.
55. He said that while you appear to have experienced remand relatively positively by participation in billet duties, in the face of a lengthy custodial sentence you may struggle to cope with the extended period of isolation and may face barriers to accessing support services in custody due to language barriers and your own characteristic reticence to seek help from others.
56. He noted that there were very limited opportunities for Chinese language support in Victorian prisons, especially for help with mental health problems. He said that any worsening mental health problems may go unnoticed in the custodial system and may likely worsen as a result.
57. However, he said you were not currently suffering from a depressive illness although you appear to have a long history of persistent low mood and low motivation to seek help. He said that should you experience prison negatively, it was possible that your depressive symptoms may worsen into an acute depressive episode. (Pages 8 and 9)
58. In view of the fact that Verdins[3] principles need to be established on the balance of probabilities, I am unable to find that there is any impairment of mental function which impacted upon you at the time of your offending so as to reduce your moral culpability, and I cannot find a basis for reduction of the weight to attach to relevant sentencing principles insofar as Verdins is concerned. I am unable to make an allowance that time in custody will be harder for you because of any impairment of mental function either, as Mr Gallus' opinion is somewhat speculative in this regard. Indeed, your Counsel, Mr Sala, quite properly did not rely on Verdins.
59. However, I take into account the Forensicare report in a general way in sentencing you, and concerning the application of Bugmy principles.
60. I note that the Prosecution now concede that Bugmy principles apply in a general sense but submit that they ought be given limited weight.
61. I have allowed that time in custody for you will be and has been harder because this is your first time in custody, because of language barriers and the prospect that you may not receive necessary attention in respect of wellbeing issues, if these develop, due to your lack of English and also your reticent personality.
62. In all of the relevant circumstances, I allow for Bugmy in a general way so as to marginally reduce your moral culpability, and I make commensurate marginal reductions in respect of the weight that would otherwise attach to specific and general deterrence.

I note that Mr Gallus assessed you as being at medium risk of re-offending. Further, I have had regard to the character references from your sister and your partner, although noting that your partner was involved in most concerning exchanges with you, which were set out in the Prosecution Opening such that I have some misgivings about her character, so I give her remarks about you lesser weight. In any event, as previously observed, you have told Mr Gallus she is no longer your partner.

1. However, I factored in what your sister has said about you, your childhood and your character and her belief that you have learned from this experience and will build a better life in the future. I have also taken into account the other matters that she says about you.
2. In all of the relevant circumstances, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being quite good and place less than moderate weight on specific deterrence after allowing for marginal reduction because of the general application of Bugmy. I place strong weight on general deterrence, after allowing for marginal reduction due to Bugmy. I place fairly minimal weight on protection of the community.

1. In sentencing you I must have regard, to some extent, to the principle of parity in circumstances where co-offenders were dealt with in relation to one of the three instances of traffic in a large commercial quantity where you have committed all three instances comprising Charge 1, which is a rolled up charge.
2. I have previously referred to features of the sentences concerning Mr Yu and Mr Hsu.
3. In respect of Mr Keh, who was involved in the third instance, I was told that in his case he came to Australia on a tourist visa but also applied for a protection visa albeit he could not recall why this was refused. He had a wife and six-year-old child in Malaysia and worked in Australia illegally in order to send money back to Malaysia. He was also involved in labouring type work here and faced the prospect of deportation upon his sentence being completed. He suffered from symptoms of PTSD emanating from his childhood and violent treatment at the hands of his mother and grandfather and he was neglected by his father. I found that his PTSD symptoms would make time in custody harder than it might otherwise be and took into account that leaving his mental health untreated would likely continue to cause him issues in the future. He pleaded guilty following a sentence indication in this Court. Like you, he conducted a contested committal hearing, however, unlike you, at the committal hearing the drug analyst and police informant were the only witnesses who were cross-examined. The matter had not been listed for trial in this Court at the stage that he accepted the sentence indication from me. In those circumstances I allowed for a fairly substantial discount in the sentence he would otherwise receive, also factoring in his level of co-operation with police including answering their questions and providing details such as pin numbers for his phones. I found that his co-operation was extensive, which is not your situation Mr Chen. For these reasons, I allowed for a more substantial discount in his case than I have in yours.
4. I found that he was remorseful for his conduct insofar as it had now placed him in his current predicament, however, he did not exhibit remorse insofar as his offending had the potential to impact others.
5. Like you, Mr Kek was motivated to engage in the offending to make money, however, as I have said, his role was inferior to yours and I would expect that the profit he might expect was inferior to yours. Also, at a fairly late stage, he said he wished to stop being involved in the offending, however, notwithstanding this he continued to be involved. I found that his insight and remorse were works in progress.
6. He was only 27 years old at the time of the offending so substantially younger than you, Mr Chen.
7. He also had the standard sentence applicable to him and in sentencing him I had regard to current sentencing practice, referring to Kwag v R [2024] VSCA 279, which set out a number of sentences for the offence which he and you have committed.
8. I also found he had a strong work ethic and assessed his prospects of rehabilitation as being quite good, placing less than moderate weight on specific deterrence but strong weight on general deterrence. Obviously a far lesser quantity of methylamphetamine was involved in his offending and this was not a rolled up charge.
9. In sentencing you, I have had regard to current sentencing practice, noting that this is but one matter to take into account when sentencing you and is not a controlling principle.
10. You are convicted of the offences.
11. I make the disposal order sought by the Prosecution and which is not opposed by you.
12. You are sentenced as follows:

(a) Charge 1, 18 years' imprisonment;

(b) Charge 2, six months' imprisonment;

(c) Charge 3, one month imprisonment;

(d) Charge 4, you are fined $200.

1. The sentence on Charge 1 will be the base sentence and the sentences on Charges 2 and 3 are to be served wholly concurrently with each other and the base sentence, producing a total effective sentence of 18 years imprisonment.
2. I am required to fix a non-parole period which is at least 60 per cent of the head sentence and I do so. I impose a non-parole period of 12 years' imprisonment.
3. I declare that you have already served 1038 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
4. In sentencing you I have had regard to the standard sentence of 16 years and indicate that I have applied all relevant sentencing considerations noting that the sentence I have arrived at exceeds the standard sentence by two years.
5. If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 21 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years.
6. MR SALA: Sorry, Your Honour, I take it the first sentence was the base.
7. HER HONOUR: Yes.
8. MR SALA: Would Your Honour please detail cumulation and was it all - - -
9. HER HONOUR: Sorry, it is by operation of the law, but in any event, 18 years is the base sentence. The six months and one month imprisonment will be served concurrently with each other and with Charge 1.
10. MR SALA: So we are looking at a total effective sentence of 18 years and a

non-parole period of 12 years. 11. HER HONOUR: That's right, yes. 12. MR SALA: Thank you, Your Honour, no further matters from me. 13. HER HONOUR: Mr Sala, did you want to have a word with your client once we adjourn with the help of the interpreter? 14. MR SALA: Very briefly, if I can have that indulgence, Your Honour? 15. HER HONOUR: Very well, thank you.

[2] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 ('Bugmy').

[3] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102 ('Verdins').