SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
BUI v THE QUEEN
Citation:
[2015] ACTCA 5
Hearing Date:
18 February 2015
DecisionDate:
18 February 2015
Publication of Reasons Date:
24 March 2015
Before:
Refshauge, Penfold and Perry JJ
Decision:
The appeal be dismissed.
Category:
Principal Judgment
Catchwords:
APPEAL – SENTENCING – Appeal against a sentence which is manifestly excessive – Appeal against a sentence which was unreasonable or unjust – Consistency in sentencing – Use of sentencing statistics
APPEAL – Trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – Trafficking in a drug for profit
Trong Ruyen Bui, the Appellant, was arrested on 5 July 2012 after police, during their execution of a search warrant, found a quantity of heroin in his house.
Mr Bui was charged with certain offences and later committed for trial to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. On the second day of the trial, he pleaded guilty to the two offences on the indictment, namely that between 5 April and 6 July 2012 he trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely heroin, and the same offence, but for trafficking in methylamphetamine.
These offences are contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and attract a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units (that is, at the time, a maximum fine of $110,000) and imprisonment for ten years.
On 2 July 2014, Mr Bui was sentenced for trafficking in methylamphetamine to imprisonment for four years and ten months, to commence on 1 April 2014, and for trafficking in heroin to imprisonment for fifteen months, to be…
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 Bui v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5
Case
[2015] ACTCA 5
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Bui, against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The applicant had been convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, specifically for profit.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, unreasonable, or unjust, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their consideration of sentencing statistics. The applicant argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the principles of consistency in sentencing and that the use of statistical data was inappropriate.
The Court of Appeal considered the nature and seriousness of the offence, the applicant's level of involvement, and the sentencing range for similar offences. It was held that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account all relevant factors, including the need for general deterrence and the applicant's personal circumstances. The court found no error in the application of sentencing principles or the use of statistical information to inform the sentencing decision. The sentence was deemed to be within the appropriate range and not demonstrably excessive or unjust.