Regina v Luong - [2002] NSWCCA 238

CITATION: Regina v Luong [2002] NSWCCA 238

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60813/01

HEARING DATE(S): 17 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Thuan On Luong

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 23; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/3239

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) H Dhanji
(C) G I O Rowling

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - applicant volunteers unknown information as to his criminality and sentence being served on protection - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Nil

CASES CITED:
Nil

DECISION: See para 22

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

GREG JAMES J

SMART AJ

Monday 17 June 2002

REGINA v THUANH ON LUONG

JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ: Thuanh On Luong seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of a sentence of imprisonment of five years six months, with a non-parole period of three years for the offence of between 15 February 2001 and 15 March 2001 supplying a prohibited drug on three or more separate occasions for financial reward.

2. The offence of goods in custody ($195) was taken into account. That was the sum the applicant had when arrested. He conceded $150 was the proceeds of three sales. I also take this into account.

3. About 12.50 pm on 15 March 2001 the applicant spoke with a number of persons in Adolphus Street, Canley Heights. A short time later, he was a passenger in a blue Ford Telstar driven by Truong Quoc Nguyen. After a brief period, police signalled for the vehicle to stop, which it did. The applicant dropped four balloon packages onto the ground. These were retrieved by the police. A mobile phone was taken from the centre console of the vehicle.

4. In his recorded interview, which commenced about 2.38 pm, the applicant told the police that he first started dealing in cocaine about two months previously. He was recruited by a man called Brad at Cabramatta Railway Station, who offered him the opportunity to start up a little money making business. This was attractive to the applicant, who was unemployed. Brad required the applicant to sell drugs which Brad supplied to him.

5. The applicant preferred to sell cocaine rather than heroin. After the applicant agreed to act as a sales agent for Brad, the applicant acquired a mobile phone and arranged for someone to purchase a prepaid number for it, and a prepaid SIM card. The applicant declined to disclose the name of the person or persons who made the purchases for him.

6. The applicant told the police that his mobile telephone number was passed around. His customers telephoned him, a meeting was arranged with little caps being sold for $50 each. The applicant said that he did not know how many sales would be made on any one day. He estimated “Maybe about 80 or something”, and that he would therefore receive about $4,000 per day.…

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 Luong

Details

AGLC: Regina v Luong [2002] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 17 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Luong, the defendant was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria following his plea of guilty to charges of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug. The court was called upon to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was already serving a sentence for a different crime. The key issue before the court was whether the defendant's voluntary disclosure of additional criminal activity, which he had not been charged with, should be taken into account in determining his sentence for the current offence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case. It was noted that the defendant had voluntarily disclosed information about his criminal activities, which had not been brought to the attention of the authorities previously. The court found that this disclosure was a significant mitigating factor and was a demonstration of the defendant's willingness to cooperate with the authorities and to acknowledge his criminal conduct. The court further found that there was no question of principle that would prevent it from taking this information into account in determining the sentence for the current offence. The court also noted that the defendant was already serving a sentence for another crime, which provided some context for the sentence that should be imposed.

The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was a term of imprisonment, taking into account the mitigating factors and the need to deter and protect the community from further criminal activity by the defendant. The court ordered that the sentence for the current offence be served concurrently with the defendant's existing sentence, recognising that the defendant was already serving a term of imprisonment for another crime. This outcome reflects the court's consideration of the defendant's voluntary disclosure of additional criminal activity, the need to provide an appropriate sentence for the current offence, and the need to ensure that the defendant is held accountable for his criminal conduct.

Orders