R v Le & Le

[1996] QCA 399

COURT OF APPEAL

[1996] QCA 399

MOYNIHAN J
MACKENZIE J
CULLINANE J

CA No 345 of 1996
     344 of 1996

THE QUEEN

v.

HUNG NGOC LE AND

KY LEApplicants

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/10/96

JUDGMENT

CULLINANE J:  In this matter, the applicant Hung Le, and the applicant Ky Le, were sentenced to respectively terms of imprisonment of eight years and 13 years.  In the case of the applicant, Hung Le, a recommendation was made that he be eligible for parole after a period of two years.  In the case of the applicant, Ky Le, a recommendation was made that he be eligible for parole after four and a half years.  The applicant, Ky Le, who was born on 8 October 1950 is the father of the applicant Hung Le, who was born on 9 June 1977. 

The sentences to which I have referred were imposed in respect of counts of trafficking in heroin.  There were in all some 14 transactions involving dealings with an undercover agent.  Some of these were dealings which involved one of the applicants, some involved the other, and some involved both.

The indictment, in the case of the applicant Ky Le, referred to a period between 28 June 1995 and 6 September 1995, and in the case of the applicant Hung Le, between 3 July 1995 and 27 August 1995.  However, it is clear, and His Honour dealt with the applicants on the basis they were jointly involved in trafficking in heroin.

In all, the quantity of heroin involved was a little more than 18 grams.  The purity of the heroin ranged from 45 per cent to a little over 71 per cent.  His Honour, in dealing with the applicants distinguished between them and treated the applicant Ky Le as the more serious offender, as will be obvious from what has been said. 

His Honour did this because he took the view that the applicant, Ky Le, as the father of the other applicant was primarily responsible, and that whilst the applicant Hung Le was independently involved, and voluntarily involved, he was, he thought, perhaps under some degree of family and cultural pressure.  The earnings of both substantially went to the father who had a gambling habit.  Neither had any prior convictions.

Something was made of the quantity of heroin involved in this matter compared to other matters to which we have been referred, and it was suggested that this ought to make a significant difference. The quantity, of course, is significant, but the most significant feature of the offences is the unlawful trafficking in the dangerous drug of heroin over a not insignificant period.

I agree with what Mr Justice de Jersey said in the matter of Eid namely that one should not be distracted from the significance of the feature of the carrying on of the business of unlawful trafficking in heroin by focusing too heavily on the precise quantity involved, or the particular amount of money.  Those details are relevant and obviously important, but it is the trafficking in heroin which is the critical feature.

In my view, when one considers the circumstances of the case, and has regard to sentences imposed in trafficking in heroin cases to which we have been referred, it is not possible to conclude that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.  I would refuse leave to appeal.

MOYNIHAN J:  I agree.

MACKENZIE J:  I agree.

MOYNIHAN J:  The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are dismissed.

-----