R v Ta

In this case, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to possessing various dangerous drugs in significant quantities, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the court. The applicant was convicted of possessing cocaine, cannabis, methylamphetamine, and a related object for use in connection with drug possession. The court sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms of imprisonment for each offence, with a total of 26 years, and set a parole eligibility date of four years from the date of sentencing. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and sought leave to appeal. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive to warrant the re-exercise of the sentencing discretion. In determining the issue, the court considered the authorities of R v Oliver, R v Van Huynh, and R v Truong, which indicated that the sentence was within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court also considered the circumstances of the applicant's offending, including the large quantities of drugs possessed and the commercial nature of the offending. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion properly. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.