CITATION: R v Hong Phong LE [2008] NSWDC 320 HEARING DATE(S): 25 September 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
25 September 2008JURISDICTION: Criminal JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment with an effective overall sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 9 years and a total term of 13 years 6 months. CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Conspiracy to import prohibited imports - Trafficable quantity of heroin - Methylamphetamine - Commercial quantity - Assistance to authorities LEGISLATION CITED: Commonwealth Crimes Act CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610; 156 ALR 684 PARTIES: The Crown (Cth)
Hong Phong LeFILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/11/0399 COUNSEL: M A Wigney SC (Crown)
M C Ramage QC (Defendant)SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP
Gregory J Goold Solicitor
SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: Hong Phong Le appears for sentence today in relation to three most serious offences. He pleaded guilty to an offence that between 28 November 2005 and 23 May 2006 he conspired with a number of others to import prohibited imports into Australia, they being narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin not less than the trafficable quantity. He also pleaded guilty to an offence of conspiring, with a number of others, to traffic in both heroin and methylamphetamine, the quantity involved being a commercial quantity. The third offence is an offence of conspiring with others to deal with money to the value of $1,000,000 or more, which he and his co-conspirators intended would become an instrument of crime. In fact, the amount involved was estimated to be more than 4.7 million dollars.
2 The offender was born in a refugee camp after his parents left Vietnam. His father had been a soldier in the South Vietnamese army and so after the war it became necessary for the offender’s father and his wife to leave Vietnam. That is why the offender was born in a refugee camp. He also has a younger brother. The family was sponsored by a Canadian family and so they moved to Vancouver Island. There the offender experienced racism. His family was involved in collecting shellfish and the Canadians, so the offender said, had a general attitude of distrust and resentment to Vietnamese who would carry on that past time or occupation.
3 The offender moved to Vancouver on the mainland where he began associating with other Vietnamese people. It was in these circumstances that he began to use drugs, namely cocaine. On occasions it was not only a case of using drugs but also supplying when he and his friends would pool their money in order to obtain drugs which they would then share.
4 The offender's parents became aware of their son’s drug taking activities and so in order to take him away from his drug taking associates they came to Australia. This was a fateful decision. The offender’s aunt, his mother’s sister, had a boyfriend, Khan Hong Tran, also known by the name Ken or Kenny. The offender’s family were poor…
Continue reading R v Hong Phong LE
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hong Phong Le [2008] NSWDC 320
- Case
- [2008] NSWDC 320
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the trafficable quantity of heroin and the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, as these factors significantly impacted the severity of the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider Le's assistance to authorities, which could potentially mitigate the sentence.
The court found that the trafficable quantity of heroin was 4.5 kilograms and the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine was 250 grams. In assessing the sentence, the court gave weight to Le's assistance to the authorities, which included providing information that led to the arrest of other individuals involved in the conspiracy. However, the gravity of the offences and the quantities involved outweighed the mitigating factor of assistance. Consequently, the court imposed a non-parole period of 9 years and a total term of 13 years 6 months.
The court ordered that Le be sentenced to imprisonment with an effective overall sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 9 years and a total term of 13 years 6 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to imprisonment with an effective overall sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 9 years and a total term of 13 years 6 months.
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.