R v Trinh - [2011] NSWDC 140

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Trinh [2011] NSWDC 140
Hearing dates: 4 March 2011
Decision date: 04 March 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - supply of prohibited drug greater than the traffickable quantity and not less than the commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 47(2), 48(1) and Pt 4 Div 1A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25 and Schedule 1
Cases Cited: Lorraway v R [2010] NSWCCA 46
Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Blair [2005] NSWCCA 78
R v Clark, New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 15 March 1990
R v Clark (1997) A Crim R 585
R v Colledge [2010] NSWCCA 302
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
Regina v Misiepo [2005] NSWCCA 405
The Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2004] NSWCCA 303; (2004) NSWLR 305
Vu v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 188
Texts Cited: -
Category: Sentence
Parties: Joseph Nguyen Trinh
Representation: Mr Kiru - Crown
Mr Turnbull SC
-

File Number(s): 2010/112625
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Joseph Nguyen Trinh has pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited drug, namely 698.9 grams of methylamphetamine. This is an amount greater than the traffickable quantity of and not less than the commercial quantity in accordance with Schedule 1 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and is an offence against s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act for which the maximum penalty is 20 years and/or 3,500 penalty units, with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

There is in addition a Form 1 charge, namely supply of a prohibited drug (8.6g of cocaine) (s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act ).

The offender was arrested on 5 May 2010 following execution of a search warrant at premises he was occupying.

The facts of the offence (which I have summarised from the material set out in Exhibit A, and from information given in the oral evidence of the offender in this court) are as follows. On 5 May 2010, police executed a search warrant at premises occupied by the accused and found the offender at the top of the stairs opposite a bedroom door which was closed and locked. They kicked in the door and found the co-offender sitting on the bed. Police observed small piles of pink-coloured pills, a pile of resealable plastic bags and 10 resealable plastic bags containing white powder.

The offender was arrested and cautioned and conveyed to the police station. Later that same day he was conveyed back to the premises the subject of the search warrant, and a search o the premises was conducted in his presence. Police seized 285 pink-coloured pills sorted into bunches, 10 resealable bags containing white powder and a further 3,277 pink-coloured…

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 Trinh

Details

AGLC: R v Trinh [2011] NSWDC 140
Case: [2011] NSWDC 140
Decision Date: 04 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Trinh, was convicted for the supply of a prohibited drug in quantities exceeding the traffickable amount but not less than the commercial amount. The case came before the court for sentencing, where the primary legal issue was the appropriate term of imprisonment and the non-parole period. The court had to balance various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the offender’s criminal history, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the quantity of the drug supplied indicated a significant level of criminal activity, warranting a substantial custodial sentence. However, it also considered the offender’s background and potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months was appropriate. This sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the offence while allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant statutes and case law. It emphasised the need to impose a sentence that adequately reflects the gravity of the offence while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender. The court highlighted the significant quantities of the drug involved, which pointed to a high level of criminal activity. It also took into account the offender’s previous criminal record, which included previous drug-related offences. Despite these factors, the court found that there were aspects of the offender's background that suggested a potential for rehabilitation. The sentence imposed was intended to achieve a balance between punishment and the opportunity for the offender to reform and reintegrate into the community. The court concluded that the sentence met the objectives of general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to protect the community from further criminal activity by the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Trinh [2011] NSWDC 140
Hearing dates:	4 March 2011
Decision date:	04 March 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - supply of prohibited drug greater than the traffickable quantity and not less than the commercial quantity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 47(2), 48(1) and Pt 4 Div 1A Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25 and Schedule 1
Cases Cited:	Lorraway v R [2010] NSWCCA 46 Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282 R v Blair [2005] NSWCCA 78 R v Clark, New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 15 March 1990 R v Clark (1997) A Crim R 585 R v Colledge [2010] NSWCCA 302 R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135 Regina v Misiepo [2005] NSWCCA 405 The Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2004] NSWCCA 303; (2004) NSWLR 305 Vu v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 188
Texts Cited:	-
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Joseph Nguyen Trinh
Representation:	Mr Kiru - Crown Mr Turnbull SC -
File Number(s):	2010/112625
Publication restriction:	None