DPP v Chok [2025] VCC 1279

Mr Sargeant has pleaded guilty to a number of charges and his matter will proceed on 8 December 2025. 3. The circumstances of offending have been provided in the Summary of Prosecution Opening. It is agreed to be an accurate account of events. A general summary of the facts that relate to your offending is as follows: 4. On 9 November 2023, at approximately 7.25 am, Victoria Police investigators executed search warrants at your residence. At the time, you were in the bedroom of the apartment, in the company of a friend. David Sargeant was not present. 5. Police investigators commenced a search of the apartment. In the kitchen, they seized five bottles which contained 1,4-Butanediol (Charge 2). The volume of the 1,4-Butanediol that was seized is unspecified. 6. In the bedroom that you and David Sargeant occupied, police located a clear sealed bag, containing 1.9 grams of methylamphetamine (Charge 3). 7. You were arrested, conveyed to the Melbourne West Police Station and interviewed by police. In the course of the interview, you stated: * You resided at this address in Southbank, which you shared with David Sargeant. You had been in a de-facto relationship for five-and-a-half years. * You did not know where David Sargeant was at the time of the execution of the search warrants. You believed that he had left the apartment earlier that morning. * The methylamphetamine located in the bedroom of the apartment was yours. You had 'stolen it' from David Sargeant, and it was originally in the kitchen. It was located in the bedroom for you and your friend to consume. * You were a recreational user of methylamphetamine and GHB. You had taken '0.1' of methylamphetamine and had 'literally' just taken 2 mils of GHB, from a bottle in the kitchen, prior to the warrants being executed. 8. You were initially charged with a number of offences, including trafficking a large commercial quantity of 1,4-Butanediol. There was a significant amount of

1,4-Butanediol found in your apartment, although you told the police it was not yours. You were remanded into custody. You made two applications for bail in the Magistrates Court that were refused. On 7 February 2024, you made a successful application for bail in the Supreme Court. You were released after serving 91 days. This was your first time in custody. 9. When released from custody, you were subject to strict bail conditions, including a curfew between 10.00pm and 6.00am, a residential condition, and a requirement to report daily to a local police station. You were also required to participate in an 18-week addiction treatment program and undergo twice weekly and random urine screening on an ongoing basis. These conditions were in place until your bail was varied on 31 January 2025. Your reporting was reduced to one day a week, and your urine testing was removed. You were still subject to a curfew, but now between 12.00am and 6.00am. 10. All of the conditions of bail have resulted in a substantial intervention which may have assisted your drug use rehabilitation, but the conditions also amount to an imposition on your liberty and are a form of punishment already occasioned. I take that into account. I note that you complied with your bail conditions and have not re-offended since you were released. 11. During the Supreme Court bail application, the prosecution acknowledged that the case against you could not be described as overwhelming; however, they maintained the charges. In the ruling, the judge noted that, in his view, the case could not be properly described as strong.[1] 12. The case was initially in the indictable stream of the summary jurisdiction. You offered to plead guilty to trafficking simpliciter and to the current charges, at an early stage, as you wanted this matter to be resolved. This offer was rejected. The matter proceeded through a committal hearing, and you were committed to stand trial, which was listed on 13 August 2025. Hours before the trial was due to commence, the prosecution withdrew the charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity and the matter resolved. Your plea offer to the current charges was accepted and you pleaded guilty to the updated indictment. 13. The parties agree that your plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity. You were originally facing far more serious offences. Your guilty plea was immediately forthcoming when the lesser charges were agreed to be appropriate. You are entitled to receive a substantial benefit for your guilty plea, which has a significant utilitarian benefit. There is no dispute that you immediately acknowledged your misconduct, made admissions to the current offences in your interview, and offered to plead guilty to these charges at an early stage. I accept that your plea of guilty is consistent with remorse. 14. The evidentiary issues with the initial charges against you have been clear for some time. The evidence against you has not changed since you were arrested. In the circumstances, there is no dispute that you have served time in custody for offences that would not ordinarily attract a custodial sentence. 15. The defence position is that this case should have resolved a long time ago. The fact that you have faced this alleged criminal offending for almost two years is significant. The delay in the resolution of these proceedings is a highly relevant consideration and is a factor that I take into account. The risk of incarceration was hanging over your head for a lengthy period. I accept that you must have suffered considerable anxiety about the potential outcome of this case, which has been a very heavy burden on you. I take the delay into account. It weighs heavily in your favour. 16. You have admitted your criminal history, being three prior appearances in the Magistrates' Court between November 2018 and October 2019. You were previously found guilty of several offences, including one charge of trafficking and two charges of possession of drugs of dependence. The current charges are the only offences that you have committed since your last matter was dealt with. You have never previously served any time of imprisonment. 17. I turn now to your personal circumstances. You were born on in May 1984 and are now 41 years of age. You emigrated from Singapore to Australia in 2005 and are a permanent resident. Your family still resides in Singapore, and you have returned there many times since you first arrived. Your parents have also visited you, numerous times. You intend to continue to reside in Australia once this matter is concluded. You maintain regular contact with your family and hope to have your passport returned as soon as this matter is finalised, in order to visit them again. 18. Upon your arrival, you studied medicine and practised in the field until 2017. You experienced difficulties surrounding your sexuality during your early life, which is suggested to have had a lasting impact on your mental wellbeing. 19. Since the age of 33, you have experienced issues with substance abuse. Your relationship with your co-offender began in around 2018 and was marred by drug use. Your criminal history reflects your decline, with your prior matters relating to your drug use and funding that addiction. Due to this and your declining mental health, you ceased your practice in medicine in 2017. Since that time, you have mainly worked in hospitality and were fully employed at the time of your arrest. You currently work full-time at a hotel in reception and intend to continue in the same industry. 20. You currently reside in the same accommodation where you were arrested in relation to this matter. You have not been permitted to have any contact or communication with David Sargeant since you were released on bail. 21. You were diagnosed with HIV in 2023 and suffer from anxiety and depression. You are currently taking medication to manage these conditions. 22. You have had this case hanging over your head since November 2023. The weight and anxiety of such a serious criminal prosecution that is pending is difficult to comprehend. You have not re-offended and your prospects for rehabilitation are very good. This is particularly so, given that you have complied with all the conditions of your bail and engaged with treatment to assist you overcome your drug addiction. You have not committed any further offences. 23. I accept your counsel's submission that the time you spent in custody on remand for these offences is a significant factor in mitigation, as this period of 91 days is, in effect, 'dead' time. I am told that your significant physical and mental health concerns made your time in custody particularly difficult. 24. Your counsel submits that you have been disproportionately punished for the offending to which you have now entered your pleas. Regrettably, I agree that your case could and should have been dealt with in a more timely way in the Magistrates' Court, had the matter resolved earlier to the current charges. 25. Your counsel has submitted that an unconditional dismissal[2] is the only appropriate disposition given your circumstances. The prosecution accepts that the only real issue here is whether a conviction is appropriate. 26. When balancing all these factors as best I can, I accept that there is significant mitigating material in your favour. The potential trial hanging over your head for such a long time has caused a really considerable level of punishment. The sentence that I impose needs to be an appropriate disposition for the offending and punishment must be just and appropriate in all the circumstances. Given that you have a relevant criminal history where you have previously been convicted for trafficking and possession of drugs of dependence, I have concluded that a further conviction is appropriate. However, beyond this, you should not be further punished. I direct that you be convicted and discharged on each of these offences.[3]

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)