| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA733/2020 [2021] NZCA 532 |
| BETWEEN | ANH TUAN DOAN |
| AND | THE QUEEN |
| Hearing: | 5 October 2021 |
Court: | Brown, Venning and Cull JJ |
Counsel: | H G de Groot for Appellant |
Judgment: | 14 October 2021 at 10.30 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for leave to appeal out of time is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Brown J)
Introduction
Mr Doan pleaded guilty to two charges of importing methamphetamine[1] and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply.[2] On 29 October 2019 he was sentenced by Walker J to 15 years and four months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of just over 40 per cent.[3]
[1]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(a).
[2]Section 6(1)(f), (1)(c) and (2)(a).
The Judge adopted a starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment in respect of the importation charges and applied an uplift of 18 months for the charge of possession for supply. A discount of 18 months’ imprisonment was allowed for personal mitigating factors, with a further discount of 10 per cent for the guilty plea which did not come at the first opportunity. Because the Judge did not consider that parole after a little more than five years’ imprisonment adequately would satisfy the deterrence objective of sentencing or hold Mr Doan accountable for his conduct, an MPI of six years and six months was imposed.
Mr Doan appeals his sentence, contending that:
(a)the starting point of 17 years on the importation charges was excessive;
(b)the 18-month discount for personal factors was inadequate and an adjustment of 15 per cent was warranted; and
(c)no MPI was necessary as Mr Doan had no criminal history, posed a low risk of reoffending and had good prospects for rehabilitation.
Leave
The appeal was filed on 15 December 2020, some 11 months out of time. The reason for the delay is said to be attributable to language difficulties, Mr Doan’s lack of understanding of his appeal rights and the loss of contact with his trial counsel who was appointed a District Court Judge on 21 January 2020. Although the delay is significant, it is adequately explained. As there is no prejudice for the Crown, leave to appeal is granted.
Background
The circumstances giving rise to the charges were detailed in an agreed statement of facts.
In 2017 the National Organised Crime Group commenced an investigation, code-named Operation Echo, into the importation and supply of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine in Auckland by Mr Doan and others. That investigation revealed that Mr Doan had imported methamphetamine concealed in machinery and food products into New Zealand.
Importation of methamphetamine: the 11 June 2017 consignment
On 11 June 2017 a consignment purporting to be “used hydraulic cylinders” arrived into New Zealand from Canada via a customs brokerage company. The consignee/addressee on…
Continue reading Doan v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Doan v The Queen [2021] NZCA 532
- Case
- [2021] NZCA 532
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal raised three issues. Firstly, the starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment in respect of the importation charges was challenged. The court agreed with the trial judge that the selection of a 17 year starting point was plainly justified. Secondly, the 18-month discount for personal factors was challenged. The court found that an 18 months adjustment adequately reflected the relevant considerations which were correctly identified by the Judge. Lastly, the imposition of an MPI of six years and six months was challenged. The court found that an MPI was justified in this case for two reasons. First, like Mr Zhang, Mr Doan was involved in commercial scale drug dealing with potentially devastating social consequences. Secondly, unlike Mr Zhang, Mr Doan did not provide assistance to the authorities or show genuine remorse for his offending. An MPI was warranted in his case. No issue could be taken with its level which at 42 per cent was comparatively modest.
For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal out of time was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.