R v Le

Case [2005] NSWCCA 162 12 April 2005

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Le [2005] NSWCCA 162

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/3298

HEARING DATE(S): 12 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/04/2005

PARTIES:
Regina
Anh Tuan LE

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Grove J Hoeben J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0021

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Charteris DCJ

COUNSEL:
P E Barrett (Crown)
M J Johnston

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against severity of sentence - plea of guilty - one count supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis - whether sentencing judge erred in the discount given for plea of guilty - strength of prosecution case - utilitarian value of plea - whether sentence manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - s 25A

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

- 5 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/3298
WOOD CJ at CL
GROVE J
HOEBEN J
Tuesday 12 April 2004

Regina v Ahn Tuan LE

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of four years and eight months with a non parole period of two years and eight months, which was imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of supplying drugs on an ongoing basis (s 25A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985).
FACTS
The applicant was arrested following his sale of heroin to an undercover agent on 19 August 2003, 21 August 2003 and 26 August 2003. The quantities sold on the first two occasions were 4.9 grams with a purity of 34.5%, and on the third occasion 5 grams with a purity of 35%. The sum paid on each occasion was $1400.
The sales were not isolated transactions. The applicant, who had been the subject of ongoing electronic and physical surveillance, was found to have received, over a period of thirteen days, some 1415 calls on his mobile telephone service, 85% of which openly involved the purchase, sale and packaging of drugs. Police estimate that eighty customers, or thereabouts, dealt with him on a daily basis over this period. On two occasions he offered to sell larger quantities of drugs to the undercover officer, comprising one ounce of heroin for $6,500 and later, two ounces of that drug.
On 24 August police intercepted 64 incoming calls and 12 outgoing calls on his mobile phone service, all of which were related to drug transactions. On 25 August he was placed under physical surveillance and observed to attend various addresses, and to meet with a number of people in his motor vehicle, which meetings obviously involved drug sales.
At the time of his arrest on 27 August he was found to be in a possession of four ounces of the drug packaged in balloons. He was released on bail but when, following his rearrest on 28 August, his rented premises were searched, some $2335 in cash was found, along…

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 Le

Details

AGLC: R v Le [2005] NSWCCA 162
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 162
Decision Date: 12 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Le, the respondent, a resident of Queensland, appealed against the severity of a sentence imposed following his conviction for supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in the discount given for the respondent's plea of guilty. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the strength of the prosecution case, the utilitarian value of the plea, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the evidence presented at trial, including the nature and quantity of the drugs supplied, the role of the respondent in the supply chain, and the potential harm caused by the drugs. The court also considered the respondent's criminal history and the principles of sentencing for drug offences. The court found that the sentencing judge had properly assessed the strength of the prosecution case and the utilitarian value of the plea, and had not erred in the discount given for the plea of guilty. The court also concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that the respondent had a significant criminal history and had been involved in the supply of a large quantity of prohibited drugs, which had the potential to cause significant harm to the community. The court's decision provides guidance to sentencing judges on the appropriate approach to sentencing for drug offences and the factors to be considered when assessing the severity of a sentence.

Orders