Fong v R

The Remarks on Sentence 36The sentencing judge recounted, in a way that has not attracted criticism, the facts of the offences, as they applied to all three offenders. In considering the objective gravity of the offences, he took a global approach. He said: "The Crown's submission is that this offence is above mid-range of objective seriousness because of the size of the business, the lease of premises, the hire and purchase of vehicles, the conversations and telephone calls indicating the range of customers and the capacity to supply, both claimed and demonstrated. Taking these arguments into consideration, I would find this crime as being in upper half of the mid-range of objective seriousness. This finding expressed in general terms, refers to the purely physical acts of each offender. ... having considered the actus reus , the consequences of their conduct and the mens rea of each offender, I would classify this offence as in the middle of the range of objective seriousness. There is no basis for separating out these three offenders, although that will be necessary when considering the punishment which is appropriate to each ." (ROS p6, italics added) 37His Honour then made reference to the standard non-parole period, which he noted was "prima facie" required in the co-offenders, but not in that of the applicant. 38In specific reference to the applicant, his Honour said: "[The applicant] was involved, either directly or as the driver, in five separate supplies to the police source. The items on the Form 1 to be taken into account are sufficient to make a measurable but not significant increase in the penalty which would otherwise have been applicable to his involvement because those are acts which are really comprehensible within the substance of the charge on which he is to be sentenced." (ROS p 7) 39Later, after referring to some of the evidence of the applicant's personal circumstances, he said: "[The applicant] had been involved with this distribution ring for about 12 months prior to his arrest. During this time, the Crown suggests, he was operating fully aware of his role in a well organised enterprise with access to large amounts of heroin. He was a relatively minor but important functionary, in that he usually drove the car in which the deals were conducted and from time to time actually supplied the drugs. He had access to the smaller safe which contained what might be described as immediately saleable amounts of heroin. Over the period covered by the records, he received ... less than $9,000. He did not have possession of the large sums of money under the control of Wong or Chow nor is there any evidence that he had access to the safe in which the larger quantities of heroin were stored." (ROS p 8) 40He noted the applicant's progress towards rehabilitation since his arrest and assessed his prospects of rehabilitation as "good", provided he remained abstinent from drugs. He also noted the evidence concerning the personal circumstances of the co-offenders. Wong had been sentenced, in 1998, to two terms of imprisonment to be served by periodic detention. The order that the sentences be served in that way was subsequently cancelled by the Parole Board and Wong served full time custody for a little over 2 months. He had a "sparse" work history. He said that he had engaged in drug supply to fund his own addiction to heroin and to make some money. He had at least twice before attempted to wean himself off heroin but had failed. 41Chow also had a significant criminal record, commencing when he was a juvenile. In 1993 he was sentenced in respect of two counts of possession of prohibited drugs and possession of money suspected of being the proceeds of crime. In December 1993, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years. The remarks on sentence do not specify the offence for which this sentence was imposed. 42In 2006 he was again charged with possession of a prohibited drug, and given the benefit of a bond under s 9 of the Sentencing Procedure Act . His response was satisfactory and the supervision, which was a condition of the bond, was terminated after six months; the bond remained current at the time of committing the present offence. Also current was a further s 9 bond entered into in March 2009 for two charges of possession of prohibited drugs. His Honour regarded the existence of the two bonds, and the fact that Chow was subject to conditional liberty at the time of committing the present offence to be a seriously aggravating feature.

The grounds of the application 43Four grounds of appeal were proposed. They were pleaded as follows: "Ground 1: The trial judge erred in the conclusion that having regard to the objective criminality there was no basis for 'separating out these three offenders'. Ground 2: The trial judge erred in his approach to sentencing the applicant by adopting a two step approach where the standard non-parole period did not apply. Ground 3: To the extent that the proportionality principles applied his Honour failed to recognise the differences in the sentencing regimes that applied between the applicant and Wong and Chow. Ground 4: The sentence is manifestly excessive." 44On the hearing of the application, leave was granted to amend Ground 2, so that it reads: "The trial judge erred in his approach to sentencing the applicant by adopting the two-step approach; the mischief, identified in Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2006) 228 CLR 357." 45In written submissions, counsel for the applicant argued Grounds 1 to 3 concurrently. As I understand the written submissions, it is intended to be asserted that manifest excess (the subject of Ground 4) follows from the substance of the preceding three grounds. No submission was made that, absent the considerations raised by these grounds, the sentence imposed was outside the range legitimately available in respect of the offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty. 46The application revolved around that passage in the Remarks on Sentence in which his Honour said that there was no basis for separating out the three offenders (see the sentence highlighted in the extract above at [36]). 47This, it was contended, was an incorrect approach. There were, it was put, three bases for separating the applicant from the co-offenders. The first was his level of involvement in the enterprise; the second was his favourable personal circumstances particularly the absence of any criminal history (in contrast to both co-offenders); the third was the inapplicability of a standard non-parole period to the offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty. 48The remark concerning not separating out the three offenders calls for some analysis. It was made in the context of considering the objective gravity of the offences committed by each of the three offenders. Although his Honour immediately noted that differentiation would be required when considering punishment, it seems to me that he did not so differentiate in the assessment of the objective gravity. 49There were, in fact, considerable distinctions to be drawn between the applicant and each of the co-offenders in that respect. Important in this consideration is the manner in which the agreed facts were framed, stating that Chow and Wong were both "involved in all facets of the operation" (which was shown to be of considerable magnitude) and the omission of any such assertion against the applicant the agreed facts do draw a clear distinction between the applicant and his co-offenders in respect of the extent of their involvement in the operation. The role the offender plays in a drug distribution network is of major importance in determination of sentence. Given the agreed facts, I do not think it could accurately be said that there was no basis for separating the objective gravity of his offence from the objective gravity of the other two offences. 50Further support for that conclusion is to be found in the significant difference in the financial rewards received by the co-offenders (in excess of $100,000) compared with those received by the applicant ($9,000, together with the use of a motor vehicle). Aggravating the objective gravity of Chow's offence was the commission of the offence while on conditional liberty. Also relevant were the very serious money-laundering offences on the Form 1 in respect of both Wong and Chow, compared with the two Form 1 offences to which the applicant admitted his guilt, and which his Honour considered called for "a measurable but not significant increase in" penalty. Another distinction, not relevant to objective gravity, but relevant nevertheless, is the criminal histories of both Wong and Chow, compared with the absence of any such history in the applicant. 51Although it was never expressly so stated, it seems to me that the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant depends on that part of the decision of the High Court in Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; 289 CLR 295 (at 301-2), which extended the "parity principle" ( Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; 154 CLR 606) to proportionality between sentences imposed on co-offenders whose culpability and personal circumstances are not necessarily comparable. 52What the High Court said was: "Discrepancy or disparity is not simply a question of the imposition of different sentences for the same offence. Rather, it is a question of due proportion between those sentences, that being a matter to be determined having regard to the different circumstances of the co-offenders in question and different degrees of criminality." (p 302) 53Treating the three offenders as equivalent in objective gravity led to a further matter, said to amount to error. This was this Honour took a forbidden two-step approach to sentencing.) 54Counsel referred to authorities of this Court to the effect that, where no standard non-parole period is applicable to an offence, it is neither necessary nor desirable for a sentencing judge to make an express finding of where on a scale of objective gravity a particular offence lies. Those authorities include R v Andrew John Sivell [1009] NSWCCA 286 and Georgopolous v R [2010] NSWCCA 246. There are others to similar effect. The submissions went on: "30. It is apparent that his Honour commenced from the proposition that the objective criminality was comparable but there were subjective factors which warranted a distinction in penalty. Whilst the latter was no doubt correct the former has infected the sentencing exercise and the extent to which proportionality is relevant in the outcome."

Resolution 55It is true, also, that the finding as to where the offence lay in the mid-range of objective seriousness appears to apply to each of the offenders. The sentences were imposed at the time when R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168 was thought to state the law applicable to sentencing where a standard non-parole period has been prescribed. That is no longer the case: see Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 85 ALJR 1154. But, even before the decision in Muldrock , it was well recognised that to specify where an offence to which no standard non-parole period is applicable lies in a notional range of objective gravity is conducive to error: see, for example, R v Sivell ; Georgopolous v R . 56In my opinion the error asserted cannot be substantiated. The Remarks on Sentence make it perfectly clear that his Honour was well aware that the standard non-parole period applied to the offences of which Wong and Chow admitted their guilt, and not to that charged against the applicant. There is nothing in the Remarks on Sentence that suggest that a two step approach to sentencing was taken. A finding of objective gravity is required in all cases. 57The remaining ground, Ground 3, (which is really an aspect of Ground 1), however, cannot be so easily dismissed, particularly in respect of the sentence imposed on Chow. For convenience, I set out below a table showing the sentences: Applicant Wong Chow Total sentence 5 years 3 months 7 years 6 months 6 years Non-parole period 3 years 5 years 3 years

58I conclude that the Wong sentence can be put to one side. The total sentence was significantly greater than that imposed on the applicant, as was the non-parole period. That sentence adequately reflects the differences between the two offenders. 59That is not the case, however, with respect to the sentence imposed on Chow. Although Chow's involvement was greater, and his personal circumstances significantly less mitigatory than those of the applicant, his head sentence was longer than that of the applicant by only 9 months (14%) and the non-parole period identical. The difference between the two called for a greater disparity. 60The difficulty, however, is that the offence committed by the applicant was serious and called for significant punishment. Without the "proportionality" issue it could not be said to be manifestly excessive. I would therefore reduce the non-parole period but only by a relatively small margin. 61The orders I propose are:

1. Leave to appeal granted;
2. Appeal allowed, sentence quashed;
3. In lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and three months, to commence on 18 April 2009 and expire on 18 July 2014, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, expiring on 17 October 2011. 62The applicant was eligible for consideration for release on parole from 17 October 2011. 63ADAMSON J: I agree with Simpson J

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 22 December 2011