Director of Public Prosecutions v Trinh and Trinh
[2016] VCC 274
•26 February 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCase No. CR-15-01479
CR-15-01493
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THUY TRINH LINH TRINH |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 25 February 2016 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 February 2016 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Trinh & Trinh |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 274 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – traffic drug of dependence large commercial quantity (heroin) – traffic drug of dependence commercial quantity (heroin) – possess drug of dependence (heroin) – Operation Isoleucine
Legislation Cited: Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:R v Wilson & Ors [2012] VSCA 141; R v Pidoto & O'Dea [2006] VSCA 185; R v D'Aloia [2006] VSCA 237; R v Hasan [2010] VSCA 352; Ibbs v R (1987) 167 CLR 447; Nguyen v R [2010] VSCA 127;
Sentence:Thuy Trinh – Convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years – Linh Trinh – Convicted and sentenced to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr. P. Pickering | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For Accused Thuy Trinh | Mr. V. Andreou | Victor Andreou |
| For Accused Linh Trinh | Mr J. Gullaci (Plea) Mr. S. Andrianakis (Sentence) | Stephen Andrianakis & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1In this joint Indictment, involving three parties, one I have already dealt with, today I sentence, Linh Trinh who is aged 28, born on 28 December 1987 and her sister, Thuy Trinh, 29 years of age, born on 30 November 1986. Linh, by occupation, is that of home duties and Thuy was in real estate. Mr Pickering appeared on behalf of the Director and Mr Gullaci appeared on behalf of Ms Linh Trinh and Mr Andreou appeared on behalf of Ms Thuy Trinh.
2In Indictment No. C1409863.2, Linh Trinh pleaded guilty to the trafficking of a large commercial quantity of heroin. The period involved is a period of one month, from 8 August 2014 through to 9 October 2014.
3Such is an offence against s.71 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, and the seriousness of such is demonstrated from the fact that the Parliament has prescribed a period of imprisonment of life for such offending. Insofar as the other two charges of which I am dealing with in the Indictment today, they relate to Thuy Trinh. The first is a charge relating to a breach against s.71AA of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, that is trafficking in a commercial quantity of heroin. The offending in this instance takes place over a period of 8 days from 23 September 2014 to 1 October 2014.
4Again, while not as serious as the first charge, the offence has a maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament of 25 years indicating its seriousness. In addition, Thuy Trinh pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of heroin. Such charge occurred on 9 October 2014 when a warrant was issued at the premises, where both of the Trinh's live with their mother in the family home in Braybrook. As I said, the final charge on the Indictment concerns the mother, Suong Pham, whom I pronounced sentence upon on 18 February 2016.
5Exhibit A as tendered, was agreed by both counsel for the defendants, that is –
the summary of the prosecution opening – as the appropriate factual summary upon which I am to sentence their clients.
6The apprehension of both of the Trinh's in this matter came out of the police Operation Isoleucine. Such involved the observation of trafficking of heroin in Melbourne and surveillance bought about by this operation, the surveillance and tracking and observation led to the detection of these very serious offences.
7The Trinh's were involved in the bringing of heroin from Sydney and subsequently the supplying of heroin into Melbourne. The major operator in that regard was Linh Trinh.
8Once it was brought to Melbourne, it was then packaged at Gordon Street, Footscray, cut by other persons in the organisation, then conveyed to a number of persons whom then on-sold to street customers.
9Insofar as Linh Trinh's role was concerned, she was involved as the summary sets out, in all stages of this operation as detailed by the covert operation, in particular as set out in paragraph 27 of the opening. Linh Trinh actually flew to Sydney, having made arrangements to obtain supplies of heroin with Sydney persons, in order to secure those supplies, and through the auspices of those arrangements and her sister, brought those drugs back into Victoria.
10The particular circumstances of those steps taken, described in the opening as the sourcing of heroin, are set out at paragraphs 30 through to 42 of the prosecution opening.
11Insofar as the criminality in this matter is concerned, at least three trips to Sydney are involved. There was clearly obviously more. They involve the purchase, at a cost of between $95,000 and $98,000, of a block of heroin. That block was 350 grams and hence, in the criminality particularised, the total purchase price was in the region of some $285,000. One is unable, given the circumstances to precisely define what that meant by way of profits when it hit the street, but clearly this was an enterprise entered into for the making of profit.
12The precise large commercial quantity in regard to Linh Trinh is unable to be quantified. It was certainly more than one block, and was agreed at being not less than the large commercial quantity figure of one kilogram.
13Both of the prisoners have served a considerable amount of pre-sentence detention which, not including today, is agreed at 505 days. The disposal order, I think I have already signed which was consented to in regard - - -
14MR PICKERING: That - my instructor actually amended them Your Honour.
15HIS HONOUR: So do I sign those again now?
16MR PICKERING: If you can, Your Honour, yes. We are still working on the forfeiture, but we will have that next.
17HIS HONOUR: So the disposal order in regard to both parties I sign now. And as indicated, the forfeiture order is still being negotiated, if I put it that way, and that will be signed when it is presented to me, and there is no issue about the s.464ZF, Mr Prosecutor, that is determined by the legislation.
18Mr Gullaci appeared on behalf of Ms Linh Trinh, and in submission acknowledged not only by way of his defence outline of submissions, Exhibit L1, but orally during the plea, the seriousness of this crime, the objective seriousness of a crime of this dimension and the need for a sentence of immediate imprisonment. He also accepted that when you are dealing with a crime of this dimension, the particular sentencing factors of general and specific deterrence, denunciation and indeed, condign punishment were all appropriate considerations for this Court.
19Mr Gullaci’s concentration, both in his written submissions and orally, was to put a number of factors to the Court which go to the actual length of such a period of imprisonment and the parole period to be imposed.
20There are no priors of Linh Trinh. While not in any way put as an explanation or a reduction of culpability, by way of context, Mr Gullaci put, upon his instructions, albeit there was no evidence in this matter, that his client was involved in the partaking of the drugs and also gambling, and it was in that context, that she became involved.
21In particular, insofar as the plea was concerned, Mr Gullaci said that the prisoner had pleaded on the basis as to the agreement with the prosecution as set out in paragraph 42 of the summary. That is, that police are unable to say the exact amount trafficked by Linh Trinh, but say that it was not less than a large commercial quantity at the low end, but greater than one kilogram of heroin.
22Insofar as the submissions made, Exhibit L1, the matters in particular that were relied on in regard to mitigation were set out at p.2 of such document. The plea was made, and I accept, at the earliest occasion, given the negotiations in this matter. It was put that his client had realised the seriousness of her criminality and had accepted that she was a person who was appropriate to be sentenced for such crimes, and it was submitted to me that such was one of the reasons why there was no bail application, and why to this date, she has served 16 months in gaol. It is to be noted, of course, that has meant that she has been unable to care for her own daughter.
23It was put that Linh Trinh has no priors and no pending matters. Her relative age was put, that is, that these offences occurred when she was only 26 and she is now only 28. That is a relative young age.
24The effect upon her, albeit by her own criminality, but the effect that the Court understands of a period of imprisonment where a mother is separated from her daughter, and this instance, as I have said, given that I have sentenced the prisoner's mother and the particular circumstances of that sentence involved a consideration of the child's position, I am fully aware of that position. It was further put by Mr Gullaci that, given all these circumstances, I should take the view, especially as she had no priors to date, even with the seriousness of this offence, that his client is a person with good prospects for rehabilitation.
25That is always a difficult factor. One can only be positive in this regard. This is a very serious criminal charge. One would hope, given the impact and the sentence to be imposed today, that we would never see Linh Trinh committing such crimes again, and that she would, after serving this period of imprisonment, return to what we understand to be a law-abiding life.
26The key issue insofar as Linh Trinh was concerned, is an analysis of what her role was. It is accepted, and was accepted by Mr Gullaci, that she was a key player and it was put deliberately, that such applied particularly insofar as her elder sister is concerned. It was put that the prisoner accepted that she was the main motivator in regard to this criminality and that her sister's role was a lesser role, whereby she assisted her.
27Linh Trinh is clearly, in my view, higher in the hierarchy than Men Tran who I have already sentenced. However, in a quantity based sentencing regime, Mr Gullaci submitted that she should receive a lesser sentence. Men Tran was sentenced, in totality for some 87 transactions, which ultimately involve 2.813 kilograms, and as against Linh Trinh, Men Tran's period of criminality was four months as against the one month for Linh Trinh.
28As I say, given such differences, the submission of Mr Gullaci was that his client Linh Trinh should receive a lesser sentence than that given to Men Tran which was seven years with a minimum of five for exactly the same offence.
29The learned prosecutor in answer to such submissions submitted that there was, in fact, substantial differences between those two parties; that is the prisoner and Men Tran.
30Mr Pickering submitted that Linh Trinh was the person who was the major organiser and supplier. He described her as essentially the centre of the web of this trafficking organisation. He submitted that I should find that she was higher in the chain than Men Tran and insofar as the difference in periods of criminality, I should understand that Men Tran's supplying of various street dealers in street amounts, that is, half ounce lots, was necessarily a circumstance which meant a longer period was involved.
31Mr Pickering submitted that they had fundamentally different roles. It is clear on the evidence that the prisoner is the supplier, or was the supplier of Men Tran who on-sold to the street merchants, the 2.83 kilograms described. However, it was agreed for the purposes of Linh Trinh’s plea that she should be sentenced on the basis of a large commercial quantity at the lower end of such figure. As I said, in the paragraph I read out, it was agreed that it was over the one kilogram figure and that can easily be obtained because she was involved, that is Linh Trinh, in four transactions from Sydney, 24 September 2014, 27 September 2014, 1 October 2014, and 9 October 2014.
32It seems to me that the concession given in paragraph 42 is a very generous concession by the prosecution. Indeed, I think in looking at the circumstances, there is some unreality in such a concession. However, I do not say that critically, because these things are always difficult and there are two parties negotiating, but this was a very generous concession in my view, given the facts concerning Linh Trinh's role in this criminality.
33However, that is the manner in which the plea has been effected, and that is a fact upon which I am required to sentence.
34Insofar as my determination of her role, as I said, her role as described by the learned prosecutor as "the centre of a spider web." I personally would see as a better analogy as describing her as "the hub in the wheel." In my view, her role is fundamental to the trafficking of all of those concerned with Operation Isoleucine.
35Linh Trinh sourced the drugs in Sydney. She did the deal in each instance, buying blocks of heroin for a figure of between $95,000 and $97,000 for a 350 gram block of heroin. She arranged for the delivery of such blocks to Melbourne by her sister. The instances that were surveilled in each instance showed both sisters going to Sydney, Linh Trinh returning by plane and her sister, on three occasions, getting an overnight coach from Sydney.
36The drugs are then taken off to Gordon Street where they're packaged and cut and then, as part of this organisation of which the fundamental organiser was Linh Trinh, they were sent off for five separate street suppliers. That is, persons who supply persons selling in the street. The first of those, as I have said, was Men Tran. Those circumstances are set out at paragraphs 9 to 12 of the prosecution opening; Ut Nguyen, and those circumstances are set out at 18 to 21. Two other persons are supplied, being Thi La and Hung Tieu at paragraph 22 to 24, and then Collins, Linton, Walker and Hannah, who I have also sentenced, at paragraphs 13 to 17. Once those five separate suppliers of street purchasers were supplied with heroin by Linh Trinh they were then on-sold at the street level.
37I find that the role of Linh Trinh is higher than any of those five persons who were then on-selling. Her role is much higher, it seems to me, than any of the on-sellers, to street level dealers including Men Tran. As the learned prosecutor said to me in response to the submission to Mr Gullaci it is important to look at this particular trafficking. I had mentioned that we never get the people at the top and that is probably true in this instance. However, as he put, and I accept, when I describe her as the hub in this operation, she is the person who sourced the heroin in Sydney; she is the person who bought it down and is the person who can be described as being at management level.
38Insofar as the assessment of objective criminality of this crime, it must of course, given the type of crime, the plea and the sentence involved, be seen as criminality at a very high level. Not only by way of the amount, but obviously given the circumstances. The consideration that one has to take into account insofar as offences of this kind, were set out firstly by the Court of Appeal in R v Wilson & Ors [2012] VSCA 141 in particular at [21] where the following was said:
"In offending of this kind, primacy must always be given to considerations of general and specific deterrence, protection of the community and denunciation of anti-social behaviour."
39Then further, at [26] the following was said:
"Trafficking in a large commercial quantity is an offence of utmost seriousness as the maximum of the imprisonment unequivocally demonstrates."
40This is particularly so where you have deliberate offending in large quantities for profit. It was just that type of offending to which the quantity-based regime was directed. In regard to the quantity based regime imposed by Parliament, it is necessary to recall that where Parliament prescribes a maximum penalty of this type as was said in Wilson, such shows unambiguously how seriously the community through Parliament, views this particular crime. Indeed, it is irrelevant, as set out in R v Pidoto & O'Dea [2006] VSCA 185, what particular drug is involved. The system essentially is quantity-based and we have in regard to the criminal provisions in our State a quantity-based sentencing regime. I should point out that quantity as such has no arithmetical relationship to a sentence, but of course, is a very significant matter in sentencing.
41As I have said, such regime was fully detailed by the Court of Appeal in Pidoto in particular at [34], where four of the Appeal Court Justices noted that by such structure Parliament has adopted a hierarchy of seriousness defined by, and only by the quantity of the drug of dependence that has been trafficked. Further, in Pidoto at [62], the Court indicated the ultimate question for a sentencing Court to consider given such structure, is not whether trafficking in one drug is to be viewed more seriously than trafficking in another, but what sentence should be imposed for the particular trafficking, bearing in mind the maximum penalty that may be imposed in dealing with the material involved.
42Ms Linh Trinh, has I have said, the maximum penalty in regard to your offence is one of utmost importance and significance. Nettle JA in R v D'Aloia [2006] VSCA 237 [56], set out the general approach for sentencing Judges. In that particular case, he was dealing with MDMA and he said as follows:
"As far as the effects of MDMA are concerned, the matter may still be approached on the basis that all of the drugs which are described have deleterious consequences and anti-social proportions and that trafficking in any of them is therefore appropriate to be regarded as a serious criminal offence."
43There is no doubt, Linh Trinh, that your offence warrants a sentence of imprisonment. Mr Gullaci had no qualms about that. On the plea, Mr Gullaci realistically accepted that there was no such argument with that proposition. As I said, his submissions essentially involved the factors I should take into account in fixing both the head sentence and the minimum period you should serve before being eligible for parole.
44Insofar as current sentencing range, I quote from the latest Sentencing Snapshot, No.163, that indicates as I said yesterday, Ms Trinh, that you are somewhat unique because people sentenced in this crime, for this particular crime, are almost exclusively male.
45As I also said yesterday, with no aspersions against the Vietnamese race, we have in these series of trafficking charges, a number of persons who are not male. The figures show that that percentage of males being sentenced is some 98.7. In fact, such criminality is so exclusively male that there are no separate figures recorded in regard to women.
46In the period analysed in such snapshot, from 2008/2009 through to 2012/2013, the median sentence for this offence was one of seven years with a median period of eligibility of parole being one of five years. Those figures also show clearly that the range was much broader than that, given that I have only referred to median sentences.
47For example, as to head sentences, the range went up to a period of 20 years. It is important, however, when trying to assess current sentencing practice, to remember that snapshots are, as the Court of Appeal says, just that: a snapshot.
48Such issues as to that is the snapshot and how a Court takes those on board in its synthesis was considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Hasan [2010] VSCA 352 in [42] through to [54] under the topic "Consistency of Sentencing" and in those paragraphs there are a series of matters which are detailed, which a Judge should consider in seeking to ascertain the appropriate sentence in a particular case and by way of assessing the objective gravity of a particular offence.
49At [54], the Court in Hasan said the following:
"The principles to which a sentencing judge must have regard include those laid down by the relevant legislation. In Victoria, the most important repository of sentencing principles is the Sentencing Act1991 (Vic), in particular all the provision of s.5 and in particular from sub-s.(2) through to s.6. Such Act prescribes the matters in which the Court must have regard to when sentencing an offender. First amongst these is the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, the second is current sentencing practice. "
50All of those principles relate, not only of course, to Linh Trinh but generally, accepting of course, that Thuy Trinh is a lower category, but also to Thuy Trinh by way of generality.
51The issue, of course, put to me insofar as Mr Gullaci's submission, concern parity. Insofar as that issue of parity is concerned, one needs to consider the remainder of [62] of Pidoto:
"Of course, not all examples of trafficking are equally serious and it is obvious that the discrimination between offences and offenders is required. Based upon a wide range of considerations, in order to ensure that the sentences handed down in individual cases, are appropriate in the particular circumstances relating to the offences and the offenders concerned. "
52While the considerations that one often makes in assessing objective criminality in a crime, are not relevant to each of the individual offences in this matter; that is, the individual offence of Linh Trinh and the individual offence of Men Tran, (Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447 at [452]), for the purpose of the consideration of parity issues, one must consider the relative objective criminality in regard to the same offences in order to discriminate in the manner that I have referred to.
53Again, in Pidoto at [41], other things being equal, the larger the quantity trafficked, the more serious the offence, and I stress the comments made by the Court in that matter - "other things being equal."
54I consider, and would reject the submission of Mr Gullaci that Linh Trinh's role is less than that of Men Tran. There is, as the learned prosecutor put, and I agree, a major distinguishing factor from Men Tran. Linh Trinh is fundamental to this traffic operation. As I have described her, she is the hub, and I would, and do consider her role warrants, simply looking at the issue of role, a much harsher sentence than that handed out to Men Tran.
55However, in a quantity-based sentencing regime, what must be balanced is the actual quantities trafficked, albeit my comments about the luck of Linh Trinh to have done the deal she did. That was, indeed, how the pleas were settled with the prosecution.
56It is necessary, and must be taken into account, that there is a substantial difference between the amount trafficked, albeit in a different manner by Men Tran, as against Linh Trinh.
57Without that difference, and the time difference, I would have given Linh Trinh a considerably higher sentence than Men Tran. However, despite my finding as to her role, I am constrained by the agreed facts upon which this plea has been conducted. As I said, the lesser period of offending is also relevant, albeit the type of offending was quite different in degree. As I said, Men Tran's role was trading of two ounce lots, which would have been of a much lower purity, and trading essentially to those who are to supply at street-level. Men Tran equally, as with Linh Trinh, had no prior offences.
LINH TRINH
58Balancing all of those factors as I have to do, I will sentence Linh Trinh as follows. If you would stand please.
59For this very serious crime, you will be sentenced to seven and a half years gaol with a minimum period to serve before being eligible for parole of five and a half years gaol.
60Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that the 505 days that you have served to date, will be deemed as service of this sentence, and a record of such service be recorded in this court. I have signed a disposal order today and I will ultimately when it has been agreed, sign a forfeiture order.
61My declaration pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 is that had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of 10 years with a minimum of seven and a half years. Madam Interpreter, it is important, and it is a prescription of Parliament, that last determination is important for Linh Trinh to understand, that by pleading guilty, she has not been sentenced to what she would have otherwise have been sentenced to, a period of 10 years with a minimum of seven and a half years, but has been sentenced to a period of seven and a half years with a minimum of five and a half years. Such is an indication of the value to her of a plea of guilty. She can take a seat.
62Coming then to Thuy Trinh, as I said, Mr Andreou appeared on behalf of Ms Trinh and does today. He submitted, as was accepted by the Crown, that it is important even though this criminality is of a very serious nature, as described by me, from the maximum penalty prescribed, that as accepted by the Crown, such criminality took place over an 8 day period only, and, in circumstances where her younger sister, who I have just sentenced, was clearly the major motivator of such crime.
63However, it must be acknowledged that we are dealing here, the crime committed by Thuy Trinh, with a very serious criminal offence, which brings with it a maximum penalty of 25 years. The general principles that I have recited, as to sentencing of traffickers relates to this crime, albeit that is, a lesser penalty than is applicable to her sister. Again, the issue of role was discussed during the plea. Mr Andreou was at pains to stress that not only was her role much less than her sister, clearly by that she has been charged with a lesser offence, but wanted in regard to my prior sentencing, to compare her sentencing and did put the proposition that I should compare her criminality and indeed the sentence imposed, to that of which I imposed upon the prisoner, Walker, who was a supplier of street vendors.
64Both were charged with the same offence. In both instances, there was no clear prescription as to the amounts trafficked. Walker had conducted such criminality over a longer period, that is, three months, as against Thuy Trinh's period of 8 days, and the other discriminating point is that Linh Trinh was not a user.
65Again, as to range, I take into account all of the matters that I set out, earlier, insofar as general principles and determinations made by the Court of Appeal, sentencing generally of offences that warrant a sentence of imprisonment of this type, was considered by the Court of Appeal in Nguyen v R [2010] VSCA 127, albeit that that particular case related to a cultivation charge.
66I note the Court's comments in that case as to the adequacy of the current sentencing practice. However, as that Court of Appeal pointed out, and as this Court is bound, one is bound by current sentencing practice in these matters.
67Insofar as understanding and assisting the synthesising of the sentence of Thuy Trinh, one looks at Sentencing Snapshot No.162 which again indicates the majority of persons so sentenced are male, 89 per cent of those in that instance, were male. In regard to the period of such snapshot, 2008/09 through 2012, there was a range of sentences. Some were quite high. However, the median and maximum sentence or total effective sentence, was three years and six months with a minimum of some two years to be served by way of parole.
68I repeat my comments earlier as to the use by Judges of sentencing statistics as set out in Hasan and the comments made as to fundamental importance of taking into account the maximum penalty involved.
69Coming to the actual role, and assessing it as I have to, played by Thuy Trinh, albeit that such criminality lasted for only 8 days, as the learned prosecutor said, this was a very busy 8 days.
70In these 8 days, Thuy Trinh travelled to New South Wales and returned with three consignments of heroin to Victoria from New South Wales, of purchases made by her sister. Each of those consignments were of a purchase value of $95,000 and a weight of 350 grams. The mathematics of that, of which there is clear surveillance of Thuy Trinh, take one into the large commercial quantity range. Clearly negotiations made between the parties is of benefit to Thuy Trinh and she does not fall to be sentenced at that level. However, it should not be forgotten, albeit that is not at the top of the range as her sister, that we are talking about grave criminality. There is, of course, a requirement of condign punishment for anyone to be trafficking at any level.
71However, I find Thuy Trinh’s role is a very important role in that she is the person who voluntarily assisted her sister to bring these drugs into Victoria. Those drugs, at that time, were pre-cut and pre-street level, and by her actions in travelling on the coach as the learned prosecutor said, she has circumvented any steps taken within the airlines or within police operations at airways, to stop such trafficking.
72It is, of course, necessary to look at the individual circumstances in each case. I take the view that her criminality is at a higher level than the proposition put by Mr Andreou in regard to Ms Walker. Albeit that Walker had priors, Walker had never served gaol before she was sentenced. Walker was a long-term addict of drugs, and indeed, was involved in her crime not only to satisfy her own addiction, but the addiction of her partner and a number of friends.
73Insofar as the other matters put by Mr Andreou, I refer to his written submissions, Exhibit T1. He stressed the matters that I have spoken about, the family background, in particular what he called the naivety of Thuy in this matter, the fact that she has, in a way, been guided by her younger sister, and indeed, inveigled by her younger sister into this criminality. He reports the great steps Thuy has taken by way of education since being in Australia, and her good employment history. He also noted the lengthy time that she has been in gaol, the same as her sister, and the steps she has taken to improve herself in that regard, and he tendered as Exhibit T2, the certificates detailed at paragraph 19 of his submissions.
74As to whether she was an abuser herself, and I am told that her being found with the heroin, is simply a piece of heroin that she had apparently kept to herself, she was not an addict in the sense of Walker, although apparently she had tried it.
75Mr Andreou put to me that there was no evidence of financial gain or further involvement in the matter. As to financial gain, it seems to me that that submission, as I said yesterday, beggars reality. Here is a person involving herself, on at least three occasions, in bringing large amounts of heroin from Sydney to Melbourne. Here is a person who lives within a home in which large amounts of cash and drugs are found, in which the accoutrements of trafficking are found and the benefits of trafficking are found in regard to large amounts of cash and other luxury items.
76I find there is clear evidence, and a strong circumstantial evidence, to satisfy me that while it may be true that Thuy Trinh was overly influenced by her sister and it may have been family loyalty that bought her to be involved, clearly she was involved for financial gain. I have no doubt about that, and I am satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt.
77I take into account the matters put insofar as the lengthy period of imprisonment served; the utilitarian plea which I have also referred to, and the propositions put insofar as parity is concerned, that I have already considered.
THUY TRINH
78Doing as best I can and taking all matters into account put to me, would you stand please, Ms Thuy Trinh.
79For this very serious offence of which essentially you were assisting your sister, however as I found, also for your own benefit, an offence of which you put your liberty at risk, given your role and the manner in which I have defined your role and the importance of your role in getting this heroin, albeit that we are only looking at the three shipments that you were involved in, but the volume of that and the importance of your role is such that an appropriate period of imprisonment for you is a period of five years imprisonment, and in regard to the possession charge, I sentence you to a period of six months imprisonment.
80I will not cumulate that sentence, so that the total effective sentence for you is one of five years imprisonment. The minimum period that you will need to serve before being eligible for parole, is a period of three years.
81I declare the 505 days that you have served to date, as service of this sentence pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 and that such declaration is to be recorded in the records of this Court.
82Again Madam Interpreter, I want you to explain, pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that had Ms Thuy Trinh not pleaded guilty as she has in this matter, the sentence that I would have imposed on her is a sentence of six and three quarter years imprisonment with a minimum of four years imprisonment.
83It is important that she understands that there was benefit to her in pleading guilty, and that is necessary to be explained to her at the prescription of Parliament.
84Insofar as you are concerned, I have signed a forfeiture order - sorry I have signed a disposal order. You are not involved in the forfeiture order so that finalises that, but there is a s.464ZF matter but that is again, a matter for the legislation isn't it?
85MR PICKERING: Yes, Your Honour, except with the forfeiture order, there is going to be a forfeiture order for her and just - - -
86HIS HONOUR: I am sorry. She is undertaking that she would not seek - - -
87MR PICKERING: That is separate, but there is some other property as well, but that is being sorted out, along with the Linh Trinh one.
88HIS HONOUR: Is there? All right, I will sign that, the forfeiture, and I will sign it in due course.
89MR PICKERING: Your Honour.
90MR GULLACI: As Your Honour pleases.
91MR ANDREOU: Yes.
92HIS HONOUR: Any other matters that I need to mention to either counsel.
93MR PICKERING: Not for these persons, no Your Honour. There is another matter regarding Monday.
94HIS HONOUR: You will not want to mention that until Monday though, will you?
95MR PICKERING: I can mention it to your associate Your Honour.
96HIS HONOUR: All right. Take the prisoners away. Thank you and good luck.
- - -
0
6
0