Legal Research
Cases
An Lanh Vo v The Queen

An Lanh Vo v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 278 23 November 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0034

AN LANH VO	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	REDLICH, BEACH and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	3 November 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT	23 November 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2016] VSCA 278
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Vo (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Coish, 4 December 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – Role of offender as principal in conspiracy – Plea of guilty – Sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment on conspiracy count – Whether sentence on count, total effective sentence or non-parole period manifestly excessive – Use of ‘comparable cases’ – Sentence not outside range – Application refused.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R F Edney	Chris McLennan & Co
For the Respondent	Mr L K Crowley	Mr M Pedley, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

REDLICH JA:
BEACH JA:
KAYE JA:

The applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of dealing with money, to the value of $100,000, or more, reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), and one charge of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, contrary to s 11.5(1) and s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). Following a plea on her behalf, she was sentenced as follows:

Charge

Offence

Max. Penalty

Sentence

1

Deal with money to the value of $100,000 or more reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime — s 400.9(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

3 years’ imprisonment

18 months’ imprisonment

(6 months’ cumulation)

2

Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug — ss 11.5(1) and 307.1(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

Life imprisonment

18 years’ imprisonment

TES

18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Pre-Sentence Detention

994 days

Non-Parole Period

13 years

Section 6AAA Declaration 25 years’ imprisonment/20 year non-parole period

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed on the conspiracy charge (charge 2), the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of offending

Charge 2 alleged that between 16 August 2012 and 20 March 2013 the applicant and others, including Suky Lieu (‘Lieu’), Van Thi Hong Nguyen (‘Nguyen’) and Thi Quyen Le (‘Le’) conspired to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely heroin, into Australia from Vietnam. As part of their conspiracy, heroin was to be imported on an ongoing basis, as and when it was available to the Vietnamese suppliers and sought by Australian buyers. Pursuant to the conspiracy, various importations were planned and carried out, using recruited couriers to bring the drugs into Australia.

Lieu and the applicant were the principal Australian based participants in the conspiracy. As and when required, they would communicate with each other about the placement of ‘orders’ and arrangements for the supply…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading An Lanh Vo v The Queen

Details

AGLC: An Lanh Vo v The Queen [2016] VSCA 278
Case: [2016] VSCA 278
Decision Date: 23 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vo, a Vietnamese national, appealed against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug. The appeal concerned the sentence of 18 years' imprisonment for the conspiracy count, which formed part of a total effective sentence of 20 years and a non-parole period of 15 years. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering Vo's role as a principal in the conspiracy.

The court examined whether the sentence imposed for the conspiracy count, the total effective sentence, or the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for comparable cases. The court assessed Vo's role as a principal in the conspiracy, his plea of guilty, and the potential deterrent effect of the sentence. It concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it fell within the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences, considering the offender's role and the totality of the circumstances.

Given the court's determination that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence imposed on Vo, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period were all within the appropriate range for cases of this nature. The appeal did not succeed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders