R v Lee - [2015] ACTSC 415

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lee
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 415
Hearing Date(s):	11 November 2015
DecisionDate:	15 December 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [19]-[20]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drug offences – trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – co-offenders – no criminal history – plea of guilty – rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(5)
Cases Cited:	R v Quzag [2015] ACTSC 52
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Huy Huu Lee (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Drumgold (Crown) Mr S Gill (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 272 of 2014

BURNS J:

Background

Huy Huu Lee, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to one count contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), alleging that between 16 December 2012 and 16 December 2013 you carried on the business of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis. On 21 September 2015, you were arraigned on an indictment containing three counts, the second of which is the count which is before me for sentence today. You entered pleas of not guilty to each count and the matter proceeded as a trial by judge alone.

On 22 September this year, the second day of your trial, you entered a plea of guilty to the second count on the indictment and the Crown indicated that it would not proceed any further with respect to the remaining two counts. Your plea was expressed to be on the basis that you accepted that you had supplied one pound deals of cannabis to Francis Robertson on six occasions between February 2013 and April 2013 and a further deal of six pounds of cannabis to Francis Robertson on 15 December 2013. The quantity of cannabis supplied by you to Francis Robertson was 12 pounds or approximately 5.5 kilograms.

At the time of this offence a trafficable quantity of cannabis was 300 grams and a commercial quantity was 25 kilograms. Since April 2014, whilst the trafficable quantity remains at 300 grams, the commercial quantity has been raised to 30 kilograms. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.

Consideration

No criminal history was tendered by the Crown on the sentence hearing and I proceed on the basis that you have no criminal history. A Pre Sentence Report was tendered. I note that you are 45 years old and that you were born and raised in Vietnam. You apparently had to assist your family financially at an early age, which meant that you had to leave school at an early age, and you held numerous positions in vegetable gardens, rice fields, cooking and cleaning. You left Vietnam at the age of 17 by boat, arriving in Hong Kong where you were placed in a refugee camp for 18 months. You spent a further…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2015] ACTSC 415
Case: [2015] ACTSC 415
Decision Date: 15 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lee involved the defendant, Lee, who was charged with trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Lee pleaded guilty to the charge and, having no prior criminal history, his case centred on the sentencing phase. The prosecution sought a sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence while considering Lee's potential for rehabilitation.

The central legal issues before the court were determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for general deterrence with Lee's prospects for rehabilitation. Given the plea of guilty, the court had to consider the discount for a guilty plea and the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the quantity of drugs involved and Lee's role as a co-offender. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the principles of justice and the impact of the offence on the community.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of drug trafficking but also recognised Lee's lack of prior criminal history and his early guilty plea, which warranted a discount. The court further considered Lee's potential for rehabilitation and his expressed remorse. Ultimately, the court decided that while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that would allow for Lee's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court ordered a community-based sentence with specific conditions aimed at ensuring Lee's rehabilitation and preventing future offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19]-[20]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.