DPP v Lieu (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Coish, 26 June 2015)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – One count each of trafficking a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – Principal offender in respect of two substantial drug businesses – Plea of guilty – Sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Use of ‘comparable cases’ – Sentence not outside range – Application refused.
---
Appearances:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Mr T Marsh
Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent
Mr L K Crowley
Mr M Pedley, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)
REDLICH JA:
I have had the benefit of reading in draft the joint reasons of Beach and Kaye JJA and agree that leave to appeal should be refused for the reasons they have given.
The applicant placed significant reliance on ‘comparable cases’ in support of the submission that the sentences imposed on him were manifestly excessive. The principles relating to the use of comparable cases have been discussed in a number of decisions of the High Court in Wong v The Queen;[1] Hili v The Queen;[2] Green v The Queen;[3] Zirilli v The Queen;[4] Barbaro v The Queen[5] and Rv Pham.[6]As Green, Barbaro and Pham followed after this Court’s decision in Hudson v The Queen[7], and as I discern that these decisions give a greater and also different emphasis to the importance of the role of comparable cases in the sentencing task, it is, I think, preferable to refer to the most current exposition of those principles in the High Court as summarised in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Thomas[8] rather than rely upon the earlier examination of principle as discussed in the joint reasons in Hudson in which I participated.
It is convenient to commence with some brief consideration of the important function which the High Court has said comparable cases play in the task of sentencing. The joint reasons of French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ in Green v R quoted with…
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 Lieu v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lieu v The Queen [2016] VSCA 277
Case
[2016] VSCA 277
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Lieu v The Queen, the appellant, Lieu, sought leave to appeal against his sentence in the High Court of Australia. Lieu had pleaded guilty to trafficking a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. As the principal offender in two substantial drug businesses, Lieu was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The central issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The Court examined the principles of sentencing in relation to drug trafficking and the appropriate range of sentences for such offences. It considered the gravity of the offences, Lieu's role as a principal offender, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The Court found that the sentence did not fall outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for such offences, given the circumstances. The Court also noted the importance of considering comparable cases in determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Lieu's sentence was not outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate and refused the application for leave to appeal.
The High Court's decision highlights the importance of considering the totality of circumstances in sentencing, including the gravity of the offence and the offender's role. The Court also emphasised the need to consider comparable cases in determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive. In this case, the Court found that Lieu's sentence was not outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate and, therefore, refused the application for leave to appeal.