R v Vo - [2000] NSWCCA 440

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v VO [2000] NSWCCA 440

FILE NUMBER(S):
60451/99

HEARING DATE(S): 6/10/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/10/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Thi Do Vo

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Dunford J Carruthers AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 97/11/0901

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie DCJ

COUNSEL:
P. Segal for Applicant
D.G. Staehli for Crown

SOLICITORS:
Barber & Masssey
C'wealth DPP

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60451/99
WOOD CJ at CL
DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ

FRIDAY 6 OCTOBER 2000
REGINA v THI DO VO

JUDGMENT

WOOD CJ: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on 28 July 1999 by Judge Howie QC, after she was found guilty by a jury of having been knowingly concerned in the importation of not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, in this case, heroin. The offence was created by s 233 B of the Customs Act and the maximum penalty available is penal servitude for life.
The Crown Case
On 23 April 1997, customs officers examined a container of eight hundred boxes of what purported to be cans of pineapple that arrived on a vessel "Sha Ha" from Hong Kong. Each box contained twenty-four cans of that substance. Each can weighed half a kilogram. The seven boxes in the container were distinctive in that they weighed less and were sealed with a different tape. Examination of their contents disclosed the presence of approximately seventy-eight kilograms of a substance which, when analysed, contained approximately fifty-four kilograms of heroin in its pure form. The value of that commodity was in excess of $14 million.
Enquiries revealed that the container had been consigned to Austviet Pty Ltd, a company in which the applicant and her partner Than To were office holders. The address of the consignee on the bill of lading was Unit 24, 33 to 35 Scrivener Street, Warwick Farm, premises which had been leased by the applicant under another name in October 1996. That lease was later terminated for non-payment of rent, but on 21 April 1997 the applicant rented different premises at 139 Hollywood Drive, Lansvale.
On 28 February 1997 the applicant went to the Westpac Bank at Cabramatta and arranged for the remittance by telegraphic transfer of US$21,800 to Guangzhou Medicine and Health Products, the consignor of the container shown in the bill of lading.
Prior to arrival of the container the applicant spoke to Mr Norman Daniels, the marketing manager of a customs agent, and asked him to carry out the necessary work to clear the goods through customs. After discovery of the drugs, arrangements were made for a controlled delivery. Before that occurred, the applicant made a payment to Mr Daniels of various amounts outstanding for earlier work undertaken by his company and of the monies needed to clear the present shipment.
The payment was made to Mr Daniels at a meeting…

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 Vo

Details

AGLC: R v Vo [2000] NSWCCA 440
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 440
Decision Date: 6 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vo, the respondent was charged with drug trafficking offences following the seizure of a large quantity of methamphetamine. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent contested the charges, raising issues of consent and knowledge regarding the alleged trafficking activities.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had the requisite knowledge to be charged with trafficking, and whether any consent given by the respondent was informed and voluntary. The court had to determine if the respondent knew that the substances in question were methamphetamine, and if they understood the nature and consequences of their consent to the search and subsequent charges.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the respondent's statements, the circumstances of the search, and the reliability of the drug identification process. It concluded that the respondent had sufficient knowledge to be charged with trafficking, as the evidence showed they were aware they were dealing with illegal substances. Additionally, the court found that the consent given was not informed, as the respondent was not fully aware of the implications of consenting to a search. Consequently, the charges were upheld, and the respondent was found guilty.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced in accordance with the relevant drug trafficking provisions. Further details regarding sentencing were reserved pending the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

Orders