R v Tran

Case [2013] NSWCCA 136 7 June 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Aaron Tran; R v Peter Tran; R v Hoang Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 136
Hearing dates: 10/05/2013
Decision date: 07 June 2013
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Adamson J at [54]
Decision:
1. Crown appeal against sentence for Aaron Geoffrey Tran is dismissed.
2. Crown appeal against sentence for Peter Nguyen Tran is dismissed.
3. Crown appeal against sentence for Hoang Duy Nguyen is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - offences relating to importation of commercial quantity of heroin - whether sentences manifestly inadequate
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: DPP (Vic) v Azizi (County Court of Victoria, Taft J, 16 September 2011, unreported)
DPP (Vic) v Christos (County Court of Victoria, Taft J, 16 September 2011, unreported)
DPP (Vic) v Quy Hung Truong (County Court of Victoria, Montgomery J, 2 April 2012, unreported)
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321; 115 A Crim R 558
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1; 205 A Crim R 1
Govindaraju v R [2011] NSWCCA 255
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462; 214 A Crim R 152
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520; 204 A Crim R 434
Kuti v R [2012] NSWCCA 43
Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136
Ng, Chin Swee v R [2010] NSWCCA 232
Pang v R [1999] NSWCCA 4; 105 A Crim R 474
R v Alasti-Faridani (District Court of NSW, McLoughlin DCJ, 10 February 2012, unreported)
R v Bezan [2004] NSWCCA 342, 147 A Crim R 430
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
R v Dede (District Court of NSW, Finnane DCJ, 17 February 2012, unreported)
R v Firmin (Supreme Court of Queensland, Lyons J, 16 May 2012, unreported)
R v Holland [2011] NSWCCA 65; 205 A Crim R 429
R v Karan (District Court of NSW, McLoughlin DCJ, 12 October 2012, unreported)
R v Karan [2013] NSWCCA 53
R v Klein [2001] NSWCCA 120; 121 A Crim R 90
R v Kreimerman (District Court of NSW, Wells DCJ, 13 December 2011, unreported)
R v Leroy [1984] 2 NSWLR 441
R v Mirzaee [2004] NSWCCA 315
R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R 106
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Otto [2005] NSWCCA 333; 157 A Crim R 525
R v Pinero Asencio (District Court of NSW, Finnane DCJ, 17 February 2012, unreported)
R v Riddell [2009] NSWCCA 96; 194 A Crim R 524
R v SC [2008] NSWCCA 29
R v Wong; R v Cheung (District Court of NSW, Williams DCJ, 20 April 2012,…

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 Tran

Details

AGLC: R v Aaron Tran; R v Peter Tran; R v Hoang Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 07 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tran, the respondent Tran appealed against his sentence for his involvement in the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin. The appeal was brought by the Crown, which argued that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to consider whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate, given the seriousness of the offences committed. The offences involved Tran in the importation of a significant quantity of heroin, which was a commercial quantity. The court had to weigh the gravity of the offences against the sentences imposed by the trial judge, which were concurrent sentences of imprisonment.

The court held that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate, given the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the nature and extent of Tran's involvement in the importation of the heroin. The court noted that the trial judge had considered Tran's limited role in the importation, but had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the importation involved a commercial quantity of heroin. The court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and ordered that Tran be re-sentenced.

The court ordered that Tran be re-sentenced, with the trial judge to consider the full extent of Tran's involvement in the importation of the heroin, as well as the gravity of the offences. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to act as a deterrent to others who might be involved in similar activities.

Orders