R v William - [2001] VSCA 130

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 34 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
MINH TIEN WILLIAM

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	BENDIGO
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 August 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 130

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Trafficking in heroin - Several co-offenders - Appellant's sentence disparate from that of co-offender - Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. and Ms K.E. Judd	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr M.J. Croucher	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

WINNEKE, P.:

I will ask Buchanan, J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

Before September 1999, an undercover policeman known as Vinny Lewis purchased quantities of heroin from Tony Lam. On 9 September 1999, Tony Lam told Lewis that he was going to Vietnam and that the appellant would take his place as his heroin supplier. Between 15 September and 8 November, the appellant sold heroin to Lewis on five occasions. On the first occasion the appellant sold Lewis 14 grams of heroin of 40% purity at a price of $3,000. On the second occasion he sold a like quantity of the same purity at the same price. On the third occasion he sold Lewis 28 grams of a purity of 40% at a price of $6,000. On the fourth occasion he sold 28 grams of a purity of 60% at a price of $6,000. On the last occasion 248 grams of heroin of a purity of 20% was sold at a price of $45,000. The appellant was arrested before that money was paid.

The appellant obtained the heroin sold to Lewis from Lan Thi Tran. The heroin the subject matter of the first three sales was supplied directly to the appellant by Tran. On the other occasions the appellant was introduced by Tran to the persons who supplied the appellant with the heroin. In respect of the fourth sale, the supplier was Trong Sinh Truong. On the fifth occasion, Tran made arrangements with Nga Thi Thanh Huynh and Kim Van La.

The appellant was interviewed by the police and readily admitted his guilt. He said that he was taking the place of Tony Lam while the latter was on holiday in Vietnam. Orders were placed with him by telephone and he passed the orders on to Tran. The police searched his house but apparently found no heroin. The reward obtained by both the appellant and Tran from these transactions was a commission, in the case of the appellant the commission amounting to $200 or $250 in a day.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in heroin between 15 September and 8 November 1999 and was sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment. A minimum term of three years' imprisonment was fixed.

The appellant was granted leave to appeal against his sentence. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence infringes the principle of parity…

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 William

Details

AGLC: R v William [2001] VSCA 130
Case: [2001] VSCA 130
Decision Date: 15 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v William, the appellant was convicted for his involvement in trafficking heroin and appealed his sentence on the grounds that it was disparate from that of his co-offenders. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the disparity in sentencing between himself and his co-offenders, despite their roles being similar, was unjust and warranted a review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence was disproportionate in comparison to his co-offenders. This required the court to consider the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly the need for parity and fairness among co-offenders. The court also had to determine whether the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence, including the appellant's role and culpability in the offence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not adequately justified the significant disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offenders. The court held that while individual circumstances could justify variations in sentencing, the trial judge had not sufficiently explained why such a substantial difference was warranted in this case. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for transparency and justification when imposing sentences that vary significantly from those of co-offenders. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence.

The High Court did not specify the precise sentence to be imposed but directed that the trial court must provide a clear and justifiable explanation for any significant disparity in sentencing among co-offenders.

Orders