R v Anh Thai Pham - [2013] NSWDC 166

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anh Thai PHAM [2013] NSWDC 166
Decision date: 19 June 2013
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted of supply large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine). Sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. Non-parole period 9 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - supply large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) - just over 19 kilograms - very high purity - offender kept locked metal chest containing drugs under bed for 2 months - received $4000 for minding chest - Sentence - relevant factors - gravity of offence - middle of range of objective seriousness - 19 times large commercial quantity - high purity - drugs stored for 2 months - offender had limited role - no greater than warehouser - no involvement with transportation or dealing - response to charges - early plea of guilty - 25 per cent discount - expressed regret - nature and circumstances of offender - 41 years old - no criminal record - steady employment - low risk of re-offending - prospects of rehabilitation reasonably good - Sentencing procedure - special circumstances for adjusting ratio between head sentence and non-parole period - lengthy amount of time in gaol, first custodial sentence, need for supervision on parole - offence of supply a prohibited drug (methoxymethamphetamine) taken into account on Form 1.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32.
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25(2), s 39P.
Cases Cited: Ayik v R [2013] NSWCCA 119.
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 120 CLR 120.
R v El Helou [2010] NSWCCA 111; (2010) 267 ALR 734.
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219.
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Anh Thai Pham (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
J Peluso (Offender)
Solicitor:
Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): DC 2012/232015

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

I am sentencing Anh Thai Pham. I am sentencing him for a very serious crime which carries life imprisonment. The crime is supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. First I will refer to the crime and the Act of Parliament under which it is made. Then when a judge sentences a person the judge must say something about what happened to bring about the charge. Then the judge says, as I will say, something about the person, the offender, who committed the crime. I will refer to Mr Pham's evidence that he gave and the arguments of the prosecution and the defence and then I will announce the sentence.

Mr Pham has pleaded guilty to supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The prohibited drug is methylamphetamine. The offence is created by s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Parliament regards the crime as so serious that it has fixed a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Not only that, it has fixed a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment.

When I am sentencing Mr…

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 R v Anh Thai Pham

Details

AGLC: R v Anh Thai Pham [2013] NSWDC 166
Case: [2013] NSWDC 166
Decision Date: 19 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anh Thai Pham, the defendant was convicted of supplying a large commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was found to have kept a locked metal chest containing just over 19 kilograms of high-purity methylamphetamine under his bed for a period of two months, receiving $4000 for minding the chest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentencing factors, including the gravity of the offence, the defendant's role, his early plea of guilty, his expressions of regret, and his personal circumstances. The court also considered whether special circumstances warranted an adjustment to the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.

The court held that the gravity of the offence was significant, with the quantity and purity of the drugs, as well as the duration they were stored, contributing to the middle of the range of objective seriousness. Pham's role was considered to be that of a warehouser, with no involvement in transportation or dealing. His early guilty plea, expressions of regret, and personal circumstances, including his age, employment history, and prospects for rehabilitation, were also taken into account. The court found Pham to be a low risk of re-offending and granted a 25 per cent discount for his early plea. Considering all these factors, the court sentenced Pham to 13 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years. The court also took into account Pham's previous conviction for supplying methoxymethamphetamine.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted of supply large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine). Sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. Non-parole period 9 years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Anh Thai PHAM [2013] NSWDC 166
Decision date:	19 June 2013
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted of supply large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine). Sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. Non-parole period 9 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - supply large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) - just over 19 kilograms - very high purity - offender kept locked metal chest containing drugs under bed for 2 months - received $4000 for minding chest - Sentence - relevant factors - gravity of offence - middle of range of objective seriousness - 19 times large commercial quantity - high purity - drugs stored for 2 months - offender had limited role - no greater than warehouser - no involvement with transportation or dealing - response to charges - early plea of guilty - 25 per cent discount - expressed regret - nature and circumstances of offender - 41 years old - no criminal record - steady employment - low risk of re-offending - prospects of rehabilitation reasonably good - Sentencing procedure - special circumstances for adjusting ratio between head sentence and non-parole period - lengthy amount of time in gaol, first custodial sentence, need for supervision on parole - offence of supply a prohibited drug (methoxymethamphetamine) taken into account on Form 1.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32. Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25(2), s 39P.
Cases Cited:	Ayik v R [2013] NSWCCA 119. Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 120 CLR 120. R v El Helou [2010] NSWCCA 111; (2010) 267 ALR 734. R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Anh Thai Pham (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: J Peluso (Offender) Solicitor: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):	DC 2012/232015