R v Truong

Case [2015] ACTSC 244


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Van Hieu Truong

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 244

Hearing Date(s):

20 August 2015

DecisionDate:

25 August 2015

Before:

Robinson AJ

Decision:

See [30] –[32]

Category:

Sentence

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – drug offences – trafficking in heroin.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss603(7)

Criminal Code Regulations 2005 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Makarian v R [2005] HCA 25

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Van Hieu Truong (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms K Mackenzie (Crown)

Mr J Robertson (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Lynch Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 47 of 2015

ROBINSON AJ:

The Offences:

  1. On 4 August 2014, Van Hieu Truong, the offender, was arrested for trafficking in methylamphetamine and also trafficking in heroin.

  1. The offender had been under surveillance by police as a result of intercepted communications. On 4 August 2014 the offender was observed selling heroin to a woman who had earlier telephoned him to arrange the purchase. She was a regular customer of his. That telephone call was the subject of surveillance and following this transaction the offender was arrested.

  1. On the offender’s arrest, police conducted a search of the car he had been driving and discovered a clip-seal bag containing a crystalline substance.

  1. Police then executed a search warrant at the offender’s premises. During this search they found the following items:

(a)10 mobile phones in a bedside drawer

(b)Three sets of scales;

(c)Several empty clip-seal bags;

(d)Six clip-seal bags containing a crystalline substance;

(e)Two clip-seal bags containing a crystalline substance;

(f)A clip-seal bag with a smiley face motif containing a white powdery substance;

(g)A large ‘Glad’ clip-seal bag containing a white crystalline substance;

(h)A large number of mobile phone SIM cards;

  1. An analysis of substances found during the search of the offender’s premises concluded that they contained 11.465 grams of methylamphetamine and 6.065 grams of heroin.

  1. An analysis of the substance found in the car revealed 0.501 grams of methylamphetamine.

  1. An analysis of the substance sold to the purchaser showed that it was 0.339 grams of heroin.

  1. The offender stands for sentence in relation to two offences, namely:

(a)Trafficking in methylamphetamine, on 4 August 2014 in contravention of s603(7) of the Criminal Code. This offence encompasses the methylamphetamine discovered in the car driven by the offender, and the premises of the offender, a total quantity of 11.966 grams.

(b)Trafficking in heroin on 4 August 2014 in contravention of s603(7) of the Criminal Code. This offence encompasses the heroin sold to the purchaser, and the heroin found in the premises of the offender, a total quantity of 6.404 grams of heroin.

Subjective Matters

  1. The offender appears to have had a troubled upbringing. He was born in Vietnam in 1971. At the conclusion of the Vietnam War in 1975 the offender’s father was executed and his mother was stripped of many of her assets. During the 1980s the offender spent a period of time in a refugee camp, before migrating to…

Continue reading R v Truong

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Truong [2015] ACTSC 244
Case
[2015] ACTSC 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Truong was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent, Truong, was convicted of trafficking in heroin. Truong was found in possession of a significant quantity of heroin, leading to the conviction and subsequent sentencing appeal. The primary focus of the appeal was the severity of the sentence imposed, which Truong argued was excessive given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues central to the appeal revolved around the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, the proportionality of the sentence, and the appropriate weight to be given to mitigating factors presented by Truong. The defence argued that the sentence should be reduced due to Truong's personal circumstances, including his limited role in the trafficking operation and his otherwise clean criminal record.

The court considered the statutory framework governing drug trafficking offences and the principles of sentencing articulated in previous cases. The court acknowledged Truong's limited role in the trafficking operation and his otherwise clean criminal record but emphasised the gravity of the offence and the public interest in deterring drug trafficking. Ultimately, the court determined that while Truong's personal circumstances were relevant, they did not sufficiently justify a substantial reduction in the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court's final orders affirmed the original sentence imposed on Truong, maintaining the balance between deterrence and the principles of proportionality and justice in sentencing for drug trafficking offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30] –[32]

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.