Regina v James Gey-Houn Ra - [2002] NSWCCA 251

Reported Decision:
(2002) 131 A Crim R 133

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v James Gey-Houn Ra [2002] NSWCCA 251

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60275/01

HEARING DATE(S): 13/06/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
James Gey-Houn Ra

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1;39; O'Keefe J at 2; Simpson J at 38

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Freeman J

COUNSEL : Mr D Dalton - Crown
Mr M Allnutt - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor ( Crown)
Jack Rigg (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence appeal - Drug importation - Heroin - More than commercial quantity - Applicant more than mere courier - Not necessary to identify precise nature of applicant's involvement in criminal enterprise - Plea of guilty - Appropriate discount in Commonealth case - Detailed comparison of instant case with another different case unhelpful

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth).

CASES CITED:
Regina v Wong and Leung (1998) 48 NSWLR 340
Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Regina v Wong and Leung (2000) NSWCCA 169
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) HCA 67; (2001) 76 ALJR 79
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed.

60275/01

SPIGELMAN CJ
O’KEEFE J
SIMPSON J
13 JUNE 2002

REGINA v JAMES GEY-HOUN RA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite O’Keefe J to deliver the first judgment.

2 O’KEEFE J: This is an application by James Gey-Houn Ra (the applicant) for leave to appeal against a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years imposed in the District Court by Judge Freeman (the judge) on 23 April 2001. The sentence followed a plea of guilty to an offence of knowingly being concerned with the importation of a quantity of heroin into Australia.

3 The quantity imported was a gross weight of ten kilograms, which on analysis was shown to contain 5.689 kilograms of pure heroin. A commercial quantity of heroin is 1.5 kilograms. Thus the amount imported was slightly in excess of five times the minimum commercial quantity. The street value was in excess of $A11 million. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for life.

4 The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing procedure involved errors in that:

(a) the judge was in error in finding that the applicant did not fit the profile of offender dealt with in the guideline judgment of R v Wong and Leung (1998) 48 NSWLR 340;

(b) the applicant should have been dealt with on a basis analogous to that of a courier, albeit perhaps not a “mere courier”;

5 There was an agreed statement of facts. These and the judge’s findings reveal that the heroin was concealed in four ornamental stone columns which had been…

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 Regina v James Gey-Houn Ra

Details

AGLC: Regina v James Gey-Houn Ra [2002] NSWCCA 251
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 251
Decision Date: 13 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v James Gey-Houn Ra, the court was presented with an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, James Gey-Houn Ra, who had been found guilty of importing a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The primary dispute centred on the appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the trial court and whether it was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and the role Ra played in the criminal enterprise.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether Ra was merely a courier or held a more significant role within the drug importation syndicate, and if so, what impact this had on the sentence. The court was also required to assess the appropriate discount to be applied to the sentence due to Ra's plea of guilty and compare the circumstances of this case to other relevant cases to ensure consistency in sentencing.

The court found that it was not necessary to precisely identify Ra's role within the criminal enterprise to determine the appropriate sentence, as it was clear he was more than a mere courier. The court applied a discount to the sentence due to Ra's guilty plea, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and extent of his involvement and the principles of sentencing in Commonwealth cases. The court rejected a detailed comparison with another case, emphasising the need to focus on the specifics of the instant case. Ultimately, the court upheld the sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the circumstances.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed on Ra, noting that the sentence was reflective of the seriousness of the offence and the role he played within the criminal enterprise. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances in sentencing, including the plea of guilty, without the necessity of a detailed comparison with other cases.

Orders