Legal Research
Cases
Vu v Regina

Vu v Regina

Case [2007] NSWCCA 2 24 January 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Vu v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 2

HEARING DATE(S): 16/01/07

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 January 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1; Howie J at 2; Price J at 3;

DECISION: orders: (i) The extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal be granted; (ii) Leave to appeal be granted; (iii) Quash the sentence and non–parole period imposed by Williams DCJ (iv) Sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 11 July 2004 and expire on 10 July 2010 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 10 July 2012.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against sentence - supply of not less than commercial quantity of prohibited drug - parity of sentences - evaluation of roles - applicant's lesser role not reflected in sentence - justifiable sense of grievance - applicant re-sentenced.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 25 (2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 54B

CASES CITED: Lowe v The Queen (1985) 154 CLR 606
MLP v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 271
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Anderson NSWCCA 25 March 1993
R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432
R v Ilbay [2000] NSWCCA 251
R v Kollas & Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 491
R v Laurentiu & Becheru (1962) 63 A Crim R 402
R v Le Cerf (1975) 13 SASR 237
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 252
Tien Vu v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 188

PARTIES: Van Phu Vu
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/2504

COUNSEL: Mr P Boulten for the Applicant
Ms J Girdham for the Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0518

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Williams DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 January 2005

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Phu Van Vu

- 13 -

2006/2504

Adams J
Howie J
Price J

24 January 2007

Van Phu VU v REGINA

Judgment

1 ADAMS J: I agree with the judgment of Price J.

2 HOWIE J: I agree with the orders proposed by Price J for the reasons given by him.

3 PRICE J: The applicant Van Phu Vu seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed upon him by Judge Williams in the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney on 28 January 2005.

4 The applicant requires an extension of time in which to make an application for leave to appeal against that sentence which the Crown does not oppose.

5 On 13 October 2004 the applicant upon arraignment pleaded not guilty to a charge that he on 25 July 2003 at St Peters in the State of New South Wales did supply a prohibited drug, namely heroin, being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug and stood…

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 Vu v Regina

Details

AGLC: Vu v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 2
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 2
Decision Date: 24 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vu v Regina, the appellant, Vu, was appealing against his sentence for supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Vu was convicted for his role in a drug trafficking operation where a substantial amount of a prohibited drug was supplied. The primary issue before the court was whether the original sentence imposed on Vu was appropriate given his role in the drug supply operation was less significant than that of his co-conspirators.

The court considered whether the sentence reflected the lesser role of Vu in the trafficking operation. It was established that the original sentence did not adequately account for Vu's lesser involvement, leading to a sense of grievance regarding the parity of sentences. The court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for proportionality and the consideration of individual circumstances. It was determined that Vu's role warranted a reduced sentence to ensure it was proportionate to his contribution to the overall operation.

The High Court, in its judgment, found that the original sentence did not appropriately reflect the lesser role of Vu in the drug supply operation. Consequently, the court re-sentenced Vu, taking into account his lesser involvement and ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to his role. The court emphasised the importance of evaluating each individual's role in criminal activities to ensure sentences are just and reflect the true nature of their participation. The final orders included a new sentence for Vu, which was intended to be more reflective of his lesser role in the drug trafficking operation.

Orders