Vo v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 146

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vo v R [2014] NSWCCA 146
Hearing dates: 08/07/2014
Decision date: 08 August 2014
Before: Emmett JA at [1];
Price J at [2];
Fullerton J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - supply large commercial quantity of heroin - whether sentencing judge allowed sufficient discount for guilty plea
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193B(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
Cases Cited: Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6; 209 CLR 339
Morton v R [2014] NSWCCA 8
R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
R v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142; 54 NSWLR 300; 130 A Crim R 238
R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56; 160 A Crim R 510
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383; 115 A Crim R 104
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Huu Thanh Vo (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation: B Brassil (Applicant)
P Ingram SC (Crown)
Greenfield Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2010/357431
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2013-05-09 00:00:00

Before:

Williams J

File Number(s):

2010/357431

Judgment

EMMETT JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court of New South Wales following pleas of guilty to two counts of supplying heroin and one count of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. The essence of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal is that the sentencing judge did not afford an adequate discount for his pleas of guilty. I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the proposed reasons of Fullerton J for granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal. I agree with the orders proposed by her Honour for the reasons proposed by her Honour.

PRICE J: I agree with Fullerton J.

FULLERTON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by Williams DCJ on 9 May 2013 following his pleas of guilty to two counts of supply of heroin contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and one count of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193B(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

The pleas of guilty were entered on 21 February 2013 following the applicant's arraignment in the District Court at some unspecified time prior to trial.

The offences and the sentences imposed

The first supply count (charged as Count 1 on the indictment) involved an actual supply of a large commercial quantity of heroin between June and October 2010. The statement of facts tendered on sentence identified a total of 1.9 kilograms as having been supplied on 71 separate instances between those two dates. A large commercial quantity of heroin is…

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 Vo v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vo v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 146
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 146
Decision Date: 08 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Vo, was convicted of supplying a large commercial quantity of heroin. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not adequately account for his early guilty plea. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately reduced the sentence to reflect the appellant's early guilty plea. The court was required to determine if the discount applied was sufficient and whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to a guilty plea. The court noted that a discount for a guilty plea is not automatic and must be proportionate to the advantage gained by the prosecution. The court examined the sentencing remarks and the discount applied, concluding that the judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for the extent of the discount. The court found that the discount applied was insufficient to reflect the full benefit of the early guilty plea. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence was excessive and ordered a re-sentencing by a different judge.

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of providing clear and comprehensive reasons when applying a discount for a guilty plea. The court's ruling highlights the need for a proportionate reduction that accurately reflects the benefit to the prosecution. The final orders of the court were to set aside the original sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the discount for the guilty plea is appropriately considered.

Orders