R v Tran - [2016] NZHC 680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-9391

[2016] NZHC 680

THE QUEEN

v

TUYET THI TRAN

Hearing: 13 April 2016

Appearances:

N R Webby for Crown

R P Chambers for Defendant

Sentence:

13 April 2016

SENTENCE OF DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v TRAN [2016] NZHC 680 [13 April 2016]

Background

[1] Ms Tran, you appear before me for sentence today after being found guilty by a jury on two charges of importing into New Zealand a Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, and two charges of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The maximum penalty in respect of each charge is life imprisonment.

The facts

[2] You are a Canadian national living in Toronto, having moved there from Vietnam some 26 years ago.

[3] On the morning of Sunday 12 September last year, you arrived at Auckland International Airport on a direct flight from Vancouver with two suitcases, one large one small, and a carry-on piece of luggage.

[4] You participated in a routine enquiry conducted by an officer of the New Zealand Customs Service (Customs Officer); which led to your luggage being subjected to a search.

[5] Upon examination of your luggage, the emptied suitcases were found to weigh approximately five kilograms more than their expected weight according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Located inside the lining of the larger suitcase were two packages containing a combined weight of 3.195 kilograms of methamphetamine. Located inside the lining of the smaller suitcase were two packages containing a combined weight of 1.810 kilograms of methamphetamine. In total, you imported into New Zealand just over five kilograms of methamphetamine. That amount has a street value of up to $5 million.

[6] When questioned, you told the Customs Officers that you had travelled to Auckland to see your boyfriend, Stephen Le, whom you had met earlier in the year on Facebook and had formed a long-distance relationship with. You said Mr Le was also Vietnamese, and was living here in Auckland.

[7] You told the Customs Officers that this was your second visit to New Zealand to see Mr Le. A few months prior, in July 2015, you had arrived at Auckland for the first time after accepting an offer from Mr Le to pay for your airfares so that you could meet him in person for the first time. You explained that at Mr Le’s request, you had met with a man who you did not know at a carpark in Toronto and the man had provided you with two suitcases to bring to New Zealand to give to Mr Le. You were also provided with air tickets and a SIM card with a unique New Zealand number for you to use upon arrival in Auckland. When you arrived, in accordance with arrangements, you went to a central city hotel here in Auckland, and remained waiting there for two or three days until a man, again unknown to you, came to collect the suitcases from you.

[8]…

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 R v Tran

Details

AGLC: R v Tran [2016] NZHC 680
Case: [2016] NZHC 680
Decision Date: 13 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tuyet Thi Tran was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after being found guilty of importing and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Tran, who was a Canadian national living in Toronto, and had imported over five kilograms of methamphetamine into New Zealand. The legal issues the court considered included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjustments to the starting point based on personal circumstances, and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. The court established a starting point of 15 years' imprisonment, considering the gravity of the offending, the need for consistency, and the least restrictive outcome. The court also allowed discounts for Tran's previous good character, her status as a foreign national, and her limited cooperation with authorities. However, no discount was given for remorse, as Tran maintained her innocence. The court ultimately sentenced Tran to 13 years and nine months' imprisonment on the importation charges, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and ten months, and a concurrent 11-year sentence for the possession charges. The effective sentence was 13 years, nine months' imprisonment with a minimum period of six years and ten months.

Orders