R v Bui

[2014] ACTSC 182

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v TRONG RUYEN BUI

Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 182

Hearing Date(s):

20 June 2014

DecisionDate:

2 July 2014

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [14]

Category:

Sentence

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis

Parties:

R (Crown)

Trong Ruyen Bui (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr Lundy (Crown)

Mr Theakston (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 19 of 2013

1. Trong Ruyen Bui, on 1 April this year you entered pleas of guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely heroin, between 5 April 2012 and 6 July 2012 (CC12/6162); and one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, between the same dates (CC13/1041).

1. These pleas were entered on the second day of your trial for these offences.  Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.  The evidence establishes that over the period specified in the charges you purchased methylamphetamine and provided it to John Lyons, who then sold it. 

1. Despite your pleas of guilty, two matters remained in dispute, being:

a)First, whether you were using John Lyons in order to supply methylamphetamine to others on your behalf, or whether he used you to secure the methylamphetamine which he then on-sold on his own behalf; and

b)Secondly, the amount of methylamphetamine which you sourced and supplied to Lyons.

1. When he was arrested, Lyons was found to be in possession of $10,000 cash, whereas you were not in possession of any significant sum of money, and there is no suggestion that you are in possession of any significant assets. While this may suggest that Lyons was the principal and you were merely his agent, I note that you were a frequent gambler, which would explain your apparent lack of assets.  Having examined the intercepted telephone communications between yourself and Lyons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he was supplying methylamphetamine on your behalf.  In these conversations he reports to you how much methylamphetamine he has in his position from time to time, which he would not need to do if you were merely acting as his agent in purchasing the drug. He provides you with details about proposed purchases from him, which, again, he would not need to do if your role was simply to purchase the drug at his behest.  It is also relevant to take into account the fact that it was you who had the sources to obtain the methylamphetamine, suggesting that you are further up the supply chain than Lyons.

1. I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence of Lyons, that you supplied him with approximately 15 ounces of methylamphetamine, valued at approximately $150,000.  In your evidence at the sentence hearing you suggested that you had only supplied Lyons with a much smaller quantity of methylamphetamine, but in my opinion the evidence of Lyons on…