R v Le - [2001] QCA 290

[2001] QCA 290

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
PHILIPPIDES J

Appeal No 41 of 2001

THE QUEEN

PHUC HUU LE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/07/2001

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the Supreme Court on 31 January last on a number of counts involving the sale and possession of heroin, the most serious of which was trafficking.

He was also convicted on 10 counts of supply, one of possession, one of possession of a thing used in connection with supplying heroin and one of possessing property obtained in supply. He is 23 years of age and, like many offenders of this kind, he has no other serious criminal convictions except for one of possession of a drug and utensil during the period of commission of some of these offences.

He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The applicant was caught in the course of a large undercover police operation jointly conducted by the Queensland Police and the National Crime Authority. A number of other offenders were also caught in that operation.

The applicant pleaded guilty, not because of any apparent remorse, but because of, it seems plainly enough, recognition of the strength of the evidence against him. The applicant twice supplied heroin to an undercover police officer in September 1999 and then trafficked in the drug for a period of three months from March until June 2000. A total weight of over 10 grams of pure heroin was involved at a percentage of 41.53 per cent in white powder. He was able to obtain and supply heroin at short notice and he spoke of his selling to others than the undercover police operator.

The most substantial of the transactions was a proposed transaction which did not proceed pursuant to which the applicant had agreed to supply 336 grams of heroin initially for the sum of $60,000. It seems that the only reason why it was not supplied was that before delivery was to take place the applicant increased the price to $70,000 and the undercover police operator then refused to proceed.

As Mr Byrne QC has pointed out the applicant has demonstrated that he is a persistent offender not only by his sales, of which he spoke to others as well as the undercover police operator, but also because he continued to traffic notwithstanding an appearance in Court in April 2000 and the service of a notice to appear in relation to drug charges on 15 June.

The sentence of nine years imprisonment imposed by the learned sentencing Judge was imposed by reducing what would otherwise have been a sentence of 10 years to one of nine years to allow for the plea of guilty. No declaration was made, notwithstanding a request on behalf of the prosecution, that the offence was a serious violent offence.

The applicant is himself a drug addict, but it…

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 [2001] QCA 290
Case: [2001] QCA 290
Decision Date: 24/07/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Le involved Phuc Huu Le, a 23-year-old man who was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland on multiple counts related to the sale and possession of heroin, including trafficking. Le pleaded guilty to these charges, acknowledging the strength of the evidence against him. He was sentenced to nine years in prison for trafficking, which was reduced from ten years due to his guilty plea. Le appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The key legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on Le was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Le's involvement in drug trafficking, his age, and the precedents set by similar cases. The court assessed whether the sentence was disproportionate given the circumstances and compared it with sentences imposed in comparable cases to determine if it was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and found that Le's involvement in drug trafficking was significant, involving transactions with an undercover police officer and other individuals. The court noted that Le continued to traffic despite pending court appearances and drug charges. The court compared Le's case with several precedents where similar sentences were upheld. The court concluded that the sentence of nine years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and extent of Le's criminal activities. Therefore, the court refused Le's application for leave to appeal.

The final order was that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders