Trinh v The Queen

Case [2013] WASCA 258

TRINH -v- THE QUEEN [2013] WASCA 258



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2013] WASCA 258
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACR:112/20137 AUGUST 2013
Coram:MAZZA JA
HALL J		8/11/13
10Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 refused
Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:NGA THI TRINH
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Application for leave to appeal against sentence
Importing a marketable quantity of heroin
Manifest excess
Parity

Legislation:
Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.2(1)

Case References:
Govindaraju v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 255
Kuti v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 43
Lindsay v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 124
MGM v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 24
Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31
R v Nikolovska [2010] NSWCCA 169; (2010) 209 A Crim R 218
Thuong Nguyen v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 184
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Younan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 155

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : TRINH -v- THE QUEEN [2013] WASCA 258 CORAM : MAZZA JA
    HALL J
HEARD : 7 AUGUST 2013 DELIVERED : 8 NOVEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CACR 112 of 2013 BETWEEN : NGA THI TRINH
    Appellant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : STEVENSON DCJ

File No : IND 1499 of 2011


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Importing a marketable quantity of heroin - Manifest excess - Parity

Legislation:

Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.2(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 refused


Appeal dismissed

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Ms A Rogers
    Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Abigail Rogers Barristers & Solicitors
    Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Govindaraju v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 255
Kuti v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 43
Lindsay v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 124
MGM v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 24
Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31
R v Nikolovska [2010] NSWCCA 169; (2010) 209 A Crim R 218
Thuong Nguyen v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 184
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Younan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 155



1 MAZZA JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal notice was filed three days out of time. I would grant an extension of time.

2 The appellant and her co-accused, Van Tong Lam and Thi Nhanh Le, were convicted after a trial by jury of importing a marketable quantity of heroin contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). At the time of the offending, the maximum penalty for this offence was 25 years' imprisonment or a fine of $550,000 or both.




The facts

3

Continue reading Trinh v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
TRINH -v- THE QUEEN [2013] WASCA 258
Case
[2013] WASCA 258
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trinh v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of importing a marketable quantity of heroin into Australia. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it failed to achieve parity with similarly situated offenders.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it failed to achieve parity with other cases. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as it was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences and took into account the appellant's personal circumstances. Regarding parity, the court determined that the sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances and the gravity of the offence. The court held that the sentence did not fail to achieve parity with other cases involving similar offences.

Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds of manifest excess and parity. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 refused

Appeal dismissed

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.