R v Le; Ex Parte A-g

[2000] QCA 392

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Le;  ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 392

PARTIES:

R
v
LE, Phuong Thi Hoang
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 103 of 2000
SC No 116 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2000

JUDGES:

Pincus, Davies and Thomas JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court;  Pincus and Thomas JJA concurring as to the order, Davies JA dissenting.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – respondent pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in heroin – respondent was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years – where offences occurred whilst the respondent was subject to a suspended sentence and in respect of some sales subject to bail – consideration of the extent of involvement of co-offender – where respondent voluntarily desisted from any further trafficking notwithstanding pressure from undercover police for further sales – consideration of mitigating factors – whether the head sentence was too low – whether a recommendation for parole made the sentence manifestly inadequate

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A, s 148, s 161B(3)

R v Garlagiu [1999] QCA 164; CA No 329 of 1998, 10 May 1999, considered

R v Giang CA No 313 of 1997, 24 September 1997, considered

R v Lynch [1999] QCA 274; CA No 36 of 1999, 23 July 1999, considered

R v Matasaru [2000] QCA 246; CA No 24 of 2000, 19 June 2000, considered

R v Nguyen CA No 501 of 1995, 22 February 1996, considered

R v Scaunasu and Voros CA No 5 of 1993, 26 February 1993, considered

R v Tilley;  ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 424; CA No 244 of 1999, 7 October 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

T A C Winn for appellant
A Boe (sol) for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant
Boe & Callaghan for respondent

1. PINCUS JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Davies JA and those of Thomas JA.  I am in respectful agreement with the former reasons insofar as they hold the head sentence to be low.

1. The difficult question, being one on which my mind has fluctuated, is whether the addition to a low head sentence of a recommendation for early consideration of parole makes the sentence so lenient as to require this Court to increase it. Influenced by the consideration which Thomas JA describes as "exceptional", namely, the respondent's having resisted pressure to further involve herself in the heroin trade, I have reached the same conclusion on the case as has Thomas JA.  That is,…