R v Letran

[2016] QDC 238

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Letran [2016] QDC 238

PARTIES:

R

(the Crown)

and

ANNA TU-UYEN LETRAN

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1282 of 2016

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Judge-alone trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2016 - Delivered Ex Tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2016

JUDGE:

RS Jones

ORDER:

The trial proceed by way of Judge-alone trial.

COUNSEL:

M Spenser for the Crown

B Power for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the defendant

1. HIS HONOUR:   I am concerned with an application for a judge-only trial. The conduct of this trial will be highly unusual.  Apart from one Crown witness, who will be called to deal with, largely, formal matters, as best as I understand it, the trial will otherwise be conducted by way of admissions and agreed facts.  There is to be some video evidence, but that evidence will be relied on simply to give context to a number of communications made between the defendant and one Sheena Padua.

1. The charges against the defendant are count 1, that on or about the 23rd day of October 2014, at Durack or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, the defendant unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug cocaine to another person.  Count 2 is that on the 4th day of April 2015, at Fortitude Valley or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, the defendant unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug cocaine to another person.  Particulars provided by the Crown identify the particulars of each of the charges in the following terms:

Anna Tu-Uyen Letran sent a series of text messages to Sheena Padua enquiring about whether Sheena Padua could supply cocaine.  The purpose of the enquiry was, ultimately, the supply of cocaine to Anna Tu-Uyen Letran’s friend.

1. The Crown’s case, of course, then depends on the extended definition of “supply”, to which I will come in a moment.  Returning to some of the circumstances of the text messages, it is not in dispute that the defendant communicated with the said Padua on the dates alleged; nor is it in dispute that the conversations were concerned with the sale and/or purchase of drugs.  Some examples of these messages are as follows:  on 23 October 2014, the defendant sent the following message to Padua:

Sheena, do you have four 8-balls?  My friend wants to buy for around 600.

1. Padua replies:

Rack or molly?

1. It is the case that “rack” is a reference to cocaine and “molly” a reference to ecstasy and perhaps one other substance.  The defendant replies “Rack,” that is, cocaine.  Padua responds:

I can’t even get rack for that cheap myself, haha, cause my stuff isn’t touched or chopped up.

1. Letran responds:

LOL      

meaning “lots of laughs”   ---   

--- how much would you sell it for?  I will tell her.

1. And there is a reference to:

She needs it for the weekend.

1. Thereafter, the communication continues, including references to Padua having to speak to her…