Regina v Chinh Vu Quoc Le - [2002] NSWCCA 26

CITATION: Regina v Chinh Vu Quoc LE [2002] NSWCCA 26

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60215/01

HEARING DATE(S): 11/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (Resp)
Chinh Vu Quoc Le (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 25; Kirby J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0871

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Blanch CJ/DC

COUNSEL : L Lamprati (Crown - Resp)
C T Loukas (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown - Resp)
D J Humphreys (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law & Procedure - Sentence - Appeal against severity - Youth - Deterrence must yield to rehabilitation to a degree

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED:
Regina v Smiroldo [2000] NSWCCA 120
Regina v Huang and Lin [2001] NSWCCA 76
Regina v Khaled [2001] NSWCCA 169
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112

DECISION: Appeal allowed.; Ref para 24 for orders

60215/01

Hidden J
Kirby J

Monday 11 February 2002

REGINA v Chinh Vu Quoc LE

Judgment

: Chinh Vu Quoc Le (the applicant) was charged with an offence under s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“the Act”). The indictment, omitting formal parts, was in these terms:

“That between 23 August 1999 and 22 September 1999 he did, on three or more separate occasions, supply a prohibited drug, namely, heroin for financial or material reward.”

2 Mr Le pleaded guilty. On 29 March 2001 he was sentenced by Blanch CJ DC to imprisonment for five years with a non parole period of three years. The sentence was backdated to 7 March 2000 to reflect time in custody. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of that sentence.

3 Mr Le was arrested at premises at Newtown. The premises had obviously been established for the sale of drugs. Access was by means of a side lane. Entry was through a gate which was locked and topped with barbed wire. Neighbours complained about the traffic of persons to and from the premises.

4 On 22 September 1999 the police acted on these complaints. They arrested a person, not the applicant, who was known to be associated with the premises. They also conducted surveillance, observing the passage of people to and from the premises during the course of the day. Ultimately the police entered the premises, forcing the side gate. The applicant, Mr Le, was inside the house. He was seated on the floor. He was surrounded by the familiar paraphernalia of drug dealing. He had electronic scales, which he acknowledged were his, a razor blade and the remnants of a block of heroin. He had himself already smoked heroin that day.

5 The police interviewed others within the premises. They were addicts who had used the premises as their source of supply in the month or so preceding. They had dealt with Mr Le and another individual, being the person arrested earlier that day.

6 His Honour recognised that it was necessary to form some…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Chinh Vu Quoc Le and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 26
Decision Date: 11 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the respondent being the Crown, and the appellant being Chinh Vu Quoc Le, a young offender. Le was convicted of aggravated break and enter and aggravated robbery, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal was against the severity of the sentence, with the argument that it was too harsh given his youth and potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was excessive in light of Le's age and the need to consider rehabilitation over mere deterrence. The court had to weigh the principles of deterrence and retribution against the need to rehabilitate young offenders, in accordance with statutory provisions and case law. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the character of the offender, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the relevant legislation.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the crimes committed by Le but emphasised the importance of rehabilitation for young offenders. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. In its place, a new sentence was imposed that balanced the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation, reflecting the statutory objectives and the particular circumstances of the case. The final orders reflected a sentence that was deemed appropriate after considering all relevant factors, including Le's age and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders