Chan v R; Kwan v R [2020] NSWCCA 335

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Chan v R; Kwan v R [2020] NSWCCA 335 Hearing dates: 9 October 2020 Date of orders: 14 December 2020 Decision date: 14 December 2020 Before: Brereton JA at [1] Johnson J at [2] Davies J at [165] Decision: Grant the Applicant Chan leave to appeal against sentence.

Dismiss Chan's appeal against sentence.

Grant the Applicant Kwan leave to appeal against sentence.

Dismiss Kwan's appeal against sentence. Catchwords: APPEAL – sentence – applicants convicted at trial of offence of attempting to possess an unlawfully imported border controlled drug (methamphetamine) in a commercial quantity – 81.4 kg of pure methamphetamine – co-offender pleaded guilty to the same charge – whether Chan had legitimate sense of grievance arising from lesser sentence imposed on co-offender – where co-offender's involvement in offences effectively indistinguishable – where utilitarian discount to co-offender due to guilty plea at commencement of trial – where co-offender had favourable subjective factors – no legitimate sense of grievance – whether error in assessment of Kwan's objective criminality – whether Kwan had legitimate sense of grievance arising from lesser sentence imposed upon Chan – held that findings of fact concerning objective seriousness of offence and subjective circumstances were open to sentencing Judge – no legitimate sense of grievance – whether applicants' sentences were manifestly excessive – consideration of other sentencing decisions regarding offences concerning importation of commercial quantities of drugs – sentences imposed were stern but within the reasonable exercise of sentencing discretion having regard to the gravity of the offence – claims of manifest excess rejected – appeals dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth) Customs Act 1901 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: Adams v R [2018] NSWCCA 139 Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143; [2008] HCA 15 Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35 Bond v R [2020] NSWCCA 277 Conte v R (2018) 86 MVR 239; [2018] NSWCCA 209 Dao v R [2011] NSWCCA 183 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Peng [2014] VSCA 128 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Hong v R [2020] NSWCCA 225 Kaurasi v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 253 Kuo, Huang and Shih v R [2018] NSWCCA 270 Lam v R [2014] NSWCCA 50 Lau v R [2014] NSWCCA 179 Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Munda v State of Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Pham v R; Tang v R [2012] VSCA 101 R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Bartle; R v Roberti (2003) 181 FLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 329 R v Chan; R v Kwan [2019] NSWDC 507 R v Hong and Lee [2012] NSWDC 267 R v Le [2010] NSWDC 101 R v Lembke [2020] NSWCCA 293 R v Moore [2005] NSWCCA 212 R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238 R v Pham, Tran and Dang; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2017] QCA 46 R v To (2007) 172 A Crim R 121; [2007] NSWCCA 200 R v Vakatalesau [2019] NSWDC 505 R v Yuan (2015) 252 A Crim R 422; [2015] NSWCCA 198 Rae v R [2011] NSWCCA 211 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Donald Chan and Chun Man Kwan (Applicants) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms NS Carroll (Applicant Chan) Mr R Rajalingam (Applicant Kwan) Mr DG Staehli SC; Mr N Roucek (Respondent)