District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v TA [2011] NSWDC 209 Hearing dates: 4 November 2011 Decision date: 04 November 2011 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years and a head sentence of 9 years.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Importation of heroin - Common problem of gambling Cases Cited: Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Van Hieu TaRepresentation: Ms N Carroll - The Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
George Sten and Co - The Offender
File Number(s): 2010/328007
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: Of recent times politicians have begun paying attention to the issues surrounding gambling and, more particularly, problem gambling. There is a widespread view as to the harmlessness of gambling in most cases. If those politicians spent a week in these courts I doubt that they would be able to maintain that view. Increasingly these courts see offending directly related to the problems caused by gambling. One particular scenario is becoming commonplace, a good example of it is before me today.
Van Hieu Ta was a gambler. He would go to the Casino and spend his money playing blackjack and the poker-machines. Of course he would lose. At the same time that he was doing this he was short of money. His business, renovating houses, was going downhill and he did not have as much work as he used to. He incurred some debts. People approached him, suggesting that they could lend money to him. He accepted their offer, but then of course he had to repay it and he learned about the high level of interest that these people, who I will accurately describe as loan sharks, required. How was he to pay back the loan? They had a way that he could do that. He could go to Vietnam and bring something back to Australia for them.
It was in those circumstances that the offender turned up at Sydney Airport on 4 October 2010 having flown in from Vietnam. Customs officers searched his bag, realised it was heavier than it should have been when empty and later identified that the offender was carrying in that bag a quite significant quantity of heroin, just over a kilo in gross weight and 768.3 grams of pure heroin. He was arrested and has been in custody since then.
That scenario that I have just described, loan sharks lending money to gamblers and then when the money cannot be repaid suggesting the importation of something into Australia, is, as I said, now commonplace. There needs to be a substantial component of general deterrence to the sentence that I impose upon this offender and so I trust will prove to be the case.
The offender is fifty-one years of age. He has no prior convictions. He was born in Vietnam and educated there. He did some military service and was significantly injured during the course of it.…
Continue reading R v Ta
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Ta [2011] NSWDC 209
- Case
- [2011] NSWDC 209
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the offence, which involved the importation of a significant quantity of heroin, highlighting the serious harm that such activities can cause to individuals and the community. The court also took into account Ta's criminal history, which included previous convictions for drug-related offences and other crimes. Despite this, the court recognised that Ta had shown some remorse and had cooperated with authorities, which were mitigating factors in the sentencing process. The court then applied the relevant sentencing principles, balancing the need for deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, ultimately deciding on a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.
The court sentenced Ta to imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years and a head sentence of 9 years. This decision aimed to adequately address the offence's gravity while also considering the mitigating factors presented. The court's rationale was grounded in the need to ensure justice was served, taking into account both the protection of society and the potential for the offender's rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years and a head sentence of 9 years.
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.