R v Vu - [2023] NSWDC 635

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Vu [2023] NSWDC 635
Hearing dates: 11, 13, and 14 September 2023
Date of orders: 14 September 2023
Decision date: 14 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See par [71] – [73].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – PLEAS OF GUILTY – SUPPLYING LARGE COMMERCIAL QUANTITY of methylamphetamine (over 218 kg) plus knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime ($1.14M) – Prior good character – Disadvantaged background – Contrition and remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – “Manager” of drug warehouse.

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Ayk v R [2013] NSWCCA 119
Deakin v R [2014] NSWCCA 121
Hung v R [2019] NSWCCA 303
R v Ferguson [2022] NSWCCA 147
R v Ngo [2022] NSWDC 271
R v Wong [2019] NSWDC 233

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Accused - Manh Cuong Vu
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown – Ms Gray, F.
Accused – Mr Boulton, P. SC.
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused – JBP Law

File Number(s): 2022/00141136
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Charges

HIS HONOUR: Manh Cuong Vu stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to two very serious charges. The first charge is that on 9 July 2021 in Canterbury in this State, he did supply an amount of prohibited drug, namely 218 kilograms, 716.55 grams of methylamphetamine being an amount which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for life and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. Parliament has fixed a standard non-parole period of 15 years which I would have to consider imposing if the offender had pleaded not guilty and was convicted of the charge and the matter was in the mid-range of objective seriousness. I must point out that the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is 500 grams so that the amount of amphetamine which was found to be in the possession of the offender was 437 times the prescribed large commercial quantity of the drug.
The offender asks me to take into account on a Form 1 three further offences known as sequence 3, sequence 4 and sequence 10. Sequence 3 is supplying 33.32 grams of 3,4‑methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine being an indictable quantity of that drug. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 15 years. Sequence 4 is supplying 36.06 grams of cocaine, the indictable quantity of that drug, and another offence carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years. Sequence 10 is supplying 767 grams of 1,4-Butanediol, an indictable quantity of that drug, again an offence carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years.
The second substantive offence which the offender asks me to sentence him is the crime that on 9 July 2021, at Canterbury in this state, he did deal with the proceeds of crime, namely $1,144,650.00 in Australian currency, knowing that it was the proceeds of crime.…

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 Vu

Details

AGLC: R v Vu [2023] NSWDC 635
Case: [2023] NSWDC 635
Decision Date: 14 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Vu, was charged with supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, exceeding 218 kg, and dealing with the proceeds of crime amounting to $1.14 million. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Vu pleaded guilty to both charges. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Vu, considering his plea of guilty, prior good character, disadvantaged background, contrition and remorse, and good prospects of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to consider Vu's role as a "manager" of a drug warehouse.

The court found that Vu's role in the drug supply chain was significant, but he was not the primary orchestrator of the operation. The court acknowledged Vu's disadvantaged background, his genuine contrition, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the substantial proceeds of crime involved and the potential harm caused by the supply of methylamphetamine. In assessing the sentence, the court balanced these factors against the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence.

After weighing all relevant factors, the court determined that Vu's sentence should reflect both the gravity of the offences and the mitigating circumstances. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. This sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the offences, provide deterrence, and offer Vu an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court also ordered that Vu pay a fine of $500,000 and forfeit $1.14 million in proceeds of crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

See par [71] – [73].

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 Vu [2023] NSWDC 635
Hearing dates:	11, 13, and 14 September 2023
Date of orders:	14 September 2023
Decision date:	14 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See par [71] – [73].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – PLEAS OF GUILTY – SUPPLYING LARGE COMMERCIAL QUANTITY of methylamphetamine (over 218 kg) plus knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime ($1.14M) – Prior good character – Disadvantaged background – Contrition and remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – “Manager” of drug warehouse.
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Ayk v R [2013] NSWCCA 119 Deakin v R [2014] NSWCCA 121 Hung v R [2019] NSWCCA 303 R v Ferguson [2022] NSWCCA 147 R v Ngo [2022] NSWDC 271 R v Wong [2019] NSWDC 233
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Crown – R (NSW) Accused - Manh Cuong Vu
Representation:	Counsel: Crown – Ms Gray, F. Accused – Mr Boulton, P. SC. Solicitors: Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Accused – JBP Law
File Number(s):	2022/00141136
Publication restriction:	Nil.