R v Tran; Ex parte

Case [2018] QCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tran; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 22

PARTIES:

R
v
TRAN, Peter
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 142 of 2017
SC No 235 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 June 2017 (Bond J)

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2018

JUDGES:

Philippides and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against sentence be allowed.

2.   The parole eligibility date of 1 June 2020 be set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the Attorney-General appeals against the respondent’s sentence – where the respondent was convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams, and one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams – where the drug trafficking activities were engaged in with a commercial motivation – where the respondent had no prior criminal history – where the respondent plead guilty to the offences charged – where the pleas of guilty were not early – where the respondent was given a double benefit for the guilty pleas in the sentence imposed

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184(2)

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; (2010) 272 ALR 465; [2010] HCA 45, applied
R v Dao, unreported, Martin J, SC No 622 of 2016, 23 March 2017, cited
R v Johnson[2014] QCA 79, cited
R v McGinniss[2015] QCA 34, cited
R v Nguyen[2016] QCA 57, cited
R v Rooney;R v Gehringer[2016] QCA 48, applied
R v Ryan[2014] QCA 78, cited
R v Safi[2015] QCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

C Heaton QC for the appellant
J Hunter QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Guest Lawyers for the respondent

  1. PHILIPPIDES JA:  For the reasons given by Boddice J, I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour.

  2. McMURDO JA:  I agree with Boddice J.

  3. BODDICE J:  On 11 November 2016, the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams, and one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams.

  4. On 1 June 2017, the respondent was sentenced to nine and a half years imprisonment on the trafficking count and convicted, but not further punished on each of the possession counts.  After declaring 59 days pre-sentence custody as time served, the respondent’s parole eligibility date was set at 1 June 2020.

  5. The Attorney General for the State of Queensland seeks leave to appeal that sentence.  The Attorney General submits the sentence is manifestly inadequate and contained a specific error, namely, an impermissible…

Continue reading R v Tran; Ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tran; Ex parte [2018] QCA 22
Case
[2018] QCA 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia against Tran, the appellant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed upon the respondent, who was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams, and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams. The drug trafficking activities were conducted with a commercial motivation, and the respondent had no prior criminal history. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges but did not offer an early plea. The primary judge in the case imposed a sentence that included a double benefit for the guilty pleas. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if the sentence imposed by the primary judge was appropriate. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, the principles of sentencing, and the benefit of the guilty plea. The court also had to determine whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate, taking into account the principles of proportionality and deterrence.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate. The court found that the primary judge had given the respondent an excessive benefit for the guilty pleas, and that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court considered the nature and extent of the drug trafficking activities, the commercial motivation behind the offences, and the respondent's lack of criminal history. The court found that the sentence imposed did not provide sufficient deterrence or retribution, and that it was necessary to interfere with the sentence to ensure that justice was served.

Accordingly, the appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the parole eligibility date of 1 June 2020 was set aside. The case was remitted to the primary judge for re-sentencing, with directions to ensure that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate, and reflected the seriousness of the offences committed by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against sentence be allowed.

2. The parole eligibility date of 1 June 2020 be set aside.

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.