R v Lam

[2001] QCA 399

[2001] QCA 399

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
CHESTERMAN J
MULLINS J

CA No 119 of 2001

THE QUEEN

v.

TYSON TATTAN-JAN LAM  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/09/2001

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in respect of each of six instances of supplying dangerous drugs, the terms to be served concurrently.  He seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentences are manifestly excessive and he points to suggested disparity between the treatment accorded him and that accorded his co-offender, one Bartorillo.  The applicant carried out the supplies in conjunction with Bartorillo who was his then de facto wife, and he appears to have been subject to her influence. 

They were both, it is recorded in the material, coerced into drug dealing by Bartorillo's former husband.  In these instances they supplied almost four grams of methylamphetamine, .249 grams of heroin and 25.1 grams of cannabis to an undercover police officer for a total consideration of $6,975. 

The applicant was 21 to 22 years old over the period of the supplies.  He had two prior drug convictions for which he was fined.  For a third offence committed prior to these he was convicted subsequently to his being sentenced in respect of these supplies and was again fined.  He pleaded guilty to these instant charges.

His co-offender was sentenced at the same time.  She received two-and-a-half years' imprisonment, as being the more culpable of the offenders.  Having committed these offences during a period of suspended imprisonment, she also suffered the activation of the 18 month suspended term, the other term to be served cumulatively. 

The learned sentencing Judge recommended eligibility for parole after one year of the cumulative terms but that was referable, as I have explained to the applicant, to Ms Bartorillo's horrendous family circumstances.  She was responsible for four children, three of whom had very serious personality and health problems, so that her situation was in that respect unique.  The Judge declined to make a recommendation for early parole in the case of the applicant.  It may be noted that counsel for the applicant conceded before the sentencing Judge that a term of up to two years was appropriate, although he sought a recommendation in relation to parole. 

In my view, requiring the applicant effectively to serve a year before being entitled to apply for parole was a justified approach to this offending and the treatment accorded the applicant sits comfortably with that given to his co-offender once one recognises the peculiar circumstances in which she was situated.  I would refuse the application.

CHESTERMAN J:  I agree.

MULLINS J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.

‑‑‑‑‑