Lam was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 2 counts of possessing a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs contrary to ss 307.5(1) and 11.(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Offences related to 233.070kg of pure methamphetamine, and 174.484kg of pure heroin. Original sentence imposed 18 years imprisonment with a 12 year non-parole period. Offender appealed on the basis of Xiao error.
Lay was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 1 count of attempting to possess commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, methamphetamine and heroin, contrary to ss 307.5(1) and 11.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and 1 count of trafficking a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, methamphetamine, contrary to s 302.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Original sentence imposed was 17 years and 6 months imprisonment with an 11 year and 6 month non-parole period. Offender appealed on the basis of Xiao error and parity.
To was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 1 count of aiding and abetting TTP to traffick a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to ss 11.1(1), 11.2(1) and 302.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Offender sentenced for additional state offences. Offender sentenced to 14 years and 6 months imprisonment with an 8 year non-parole period. Offender appealed on the basis of Xiao error.
Guilty Plea: Sentences were handed down prior to the decision in Xiao v R. Although each offender received a discount on sentence to acknowledge the pleas of guilty, they were expressed as an acknowledgement of the willingness of each offender to facilitate the course of justice. Lam is entitled to discount on sentence of 25% in recognition of the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. Lay is entitled to a 25% discount.
Parity: Tang and Lee (co-offenders) had a greater organizational role than Lam, but Lam’s role was critical to the success of the enterprise and criminality was very high. The differences in the offences charged against Lay and To have some relevance to the differences in outcome, as do differences in the respective subjective cases. The difference in sentences was appropriately reflected by the relativities of sentences imposed.
The sentence to be imposed to reflect the great gravity of the offending conduct and which takes into account the particular subject case is not less severe than that imposed at first instance. Offenders are not to be resentenced.
Leave to appeal granted to all offenders. Appeals dismissed.
Lay was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 1 count of attempting to possess commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, methamphetamine and heroin, contrary to ss 307.5(1) and 11.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and 1 count of trafficking a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, methamphetamine, contrary to s 302.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Original sentence imposed was 17 years and 6 months imprisonment with an 11 year and 6 month non-parole period. Offender appealed on the basis of Xiao error and parity.
To was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 1 count of aiding and abetting TTP to traffick a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to ss 11.1(1), 11.2(1) and 302.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Offender sentenced for additional state offences. Offender sentenced to 14 years and 6 months imprisonment with an 8 year non-parole period. Offender appealed on the basis of Xiao error.
Guilty Plea: Sentences were handed down prior to the decision in Xiao v R. Although each offender received a discount on sentence to acknowledge the pleas of guilty, they were expressed as an acknowledgement of the willingness of each offender to facilitate the course of justice. Lam is entitled to discount on sentence of 25% in recognition of the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. Lay is entitled to a 25% discount.
Parity: Tang and Lee (co-offenders) had a greater organizational role than Lam, but Lam’s role was critical to the success of the enterprise and criminality was very high. The differences in the offences charged against Lay and To have some relevance to the differences in outcome, as do differences in the respective subjective cases. The difference in sentences was appropriately reflected by the relativities of sentences imposed.
The sentence to be imposed to reflect the great gravity of the offending conduct and which takes into account the particular subject case is not less severe than that imposed at first instance. Offenders are not to be resentenced.
Leave to appeal granted to all offenders. Appeals dismissed.
