R v Pham

Case [2019] NSWDC 639


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pham [2019] NSWDC 639
Hearing dates: 01 August 2019
Date of orders: 01 August 2019
Decision date: 01 August 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

An aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, one month, with a non-parole period of two years, eight months: at [33].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No record of previous convictions — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty— Moral culpability — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Allen v R [2014] NSWCCA 193
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 268
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Lin [2018] NSWDC 286
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73
Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

  Mike Pham (Offender)
Representation:

Mr ER Freelander (Crown)

 

Mr B Galloway (Counsel for the offender)

  Mr R Zhai (Solicitor for the offender)
File Number(s): 2018/294945
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. The maximum penalty of life imprisonment applies for the offending which brings 33 year old Mike Pham, before the Court today, arising out of the very bald facts that on 26 September 2018, he was arrested while getting out of a taxi outside an apartment complex in Pyrmont. He was carrying a backpack containing, 996 grams of 78% pure methylamphetamine, 0.63 grams of pseudoephedrine and $1900 in $50 notes, as well as a small set of scales and a mobile phone. He pleads guilty to one count of supply a prohibited drug in excess of a large commercial quantity under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non‑parole period of 15 years. That maximum penalty and standard non-parole period was increased in recent years from 20 years and ten years, respectively, at a time when the threshold for the offence was reduced from 1 kilogram to 500 grams.

  2. A plea was entered in circumstances which, it is conceded, attracts a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea. He has been in custody since 26 September 2018 and any term of imprisonment should commence on that date.

  3. The money laundering count relating to the $1900 cash is to be dealt with on a Form 1 attached to the principal count. That will be dealt with in the way suggested by the Chief Justice in the guideline judgment on these matters.

  4. There is also a summary matter of possess pseudoephedrine, to be dealt with on a s 166 certificate. It is common ground that that can be dealt with by way of an indicative sentence, forming…

Continue reading R v Pham

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pham [2019] NSWDC 639
Case
[2019] NSWDC 639
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pham was charged with multiple offences of possessing dangerous drugs with intent to supply. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Pham was found guilty on all counts and the Crown sought a sentence of imprisonment. The defence sought a sentence that would allow for Pham's rehabilitation and stressed that Pham had no criminal record, was remorseful, and was unlikely to re-offend. The defence also emphasised Pham's drug addiction, which was a mitigating factor.
The court needed to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment and the non-parole period. The court also had to consider Pham's moral culpability, the maximum penalty for the offences, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and Pham's prospects of rehabilitation. The court considered Pham's lack of criminal history, his remorse, and his prospects of rehabilitation as mitigating factors. However, the court also noted the seriousness of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence.
The court held that Pham's lack of criminal history, his remorse, and his prospects of rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. However, the court also held that the seriousness of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence required a sentence of imprisonment. The court sentenced Pham to an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, one month, with a non-parole period of two years, eight months. The court also ordered Pham to participate in an intensive correction order.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, one month, with a non-parole period of two years, eight months: at [33].

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.