Legal Research
Cases
Vincent v The Queen

Vincent v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 99 21 April 2021

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Trafficking in drug of dependence

Manifest excess

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0020

YOSHAAN VINCENT	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 April 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 99
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Vincent (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Dyer, 20 September 2019)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Trafficking in commercial quantity of drug of dependence, trafficking in drug of dependence, failing to comply with court order, dealing with proceeds of crime and other offences – Manifest excess – TES of 7 years and 6 months, with NPP of 4 years and 6 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether sentence of 6 years and 6 months for commercial quantity trafficking manifestly excessive – Sentences not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Gullaci	Marcevski Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis QC with Mr L Fluxman	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
McLEISH JA:

The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to trafficking in a drug of dependence (cocaine); failing to comply with an order to provide information; trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine); knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime; and unrelated and related summary offences. Following a plea on 12 September 2019, he was sentenced on 20 September 2019 as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Trafficking in a drug of dependence (cocaine)[1] 15 years 1 year 3 months

2 Failing to comply with an order to provide information[2] 5 years 1 year 3 months

3 Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine)[3] 25 years 6 years and 6 months Base

4 Knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime[4] 15 years 2 years 6 months

Unrelated summary charge 5 Possess prohibited weapon without exemption[5] 240 penalty
units or 2 years 1 month Nil

Summary charges 6-7 Commit an indictable offence while on bail[6] 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil

Summary charges 8-12, 14-15 Contravene conditions of bail[7] 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil

Summary charge 13 Possess schedule 4 poison[8] 10 penalty units $500 fine —
[1]Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 71AC(1).
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 465AA(9).
[3]Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, s 71AA.
[4]Crimes Act 1958, s 194(2).
[5]Control of Weapons Act 1990, s 5AA.
[6]Bail Act 1977, s 30B.
[7]Bail Act 1977, s 30A(1).
[8]Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act, s 36B.

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years and 6 months

Non-Parole Period: 4 years and 6 months

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 545 days

6AAA Statement: 11 years, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on a single proposed ground of appeal as follows:

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 Vincent v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Yoshaan Vincent v The Queen [2021] VSCA 99
Case: [2021] VSCA 99
Decision Date: 21 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Vincent v The Queen involved the appellant who had been convicted on various drug-related charges, including trafficking in commercial quantities of a drug of dependence, trafficking in a drug of dependence, failing to comply with a court order, and dealing with the proceeds of crime, among others. The appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence (TES) of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period (NPP) of 4 years and 6 months. The central issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles governing the assessment of the excessiveness of a sentence. It noted the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences committed. The court examined the individual sentences for each charge, as well as the cumulative effect of the sentences. In particular, it focused on the sentence for trafficking in commercial quantities of a drug of dependence, which was 6 years and 6 months. The court concluded that the sentence for each offence, and the overall sentence, were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Ultimately, the High Court found that the sentences imposed by the lower court were not manifestly excessive. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentences as appropriate in the circumstances. The reasoning emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing, the importance of individualised justice, and the role of courts in maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders