Site Logo

DPP v Tran (Thi Thuy Tam) [2020] VCC 1631

sentence — trafficking commercial quantity of border controlled drug contrary to Commonwealth Criminal Code nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — offender collected tickets (one kilogram lots) of heroin three times delivered them to buyers collected payment for them and delivered cash for payment of heroin for Tran — offender was also involved in providing 1 ounce sample of heroin to potential buyer — quantity of drugs was substantial — wholesale value of 3 tickets of heroin was around $600,000 — quantity of drugs trafficked was 1.56 times commercial quantity — offender engaged in commercial activity which involved repeated acts of trafficking — offender played integral role in enterprise — as Tran’s trusted offender had an important position in hierarchy — Tran shared syndicate’s supply and pricing information with offender and trusted offender to collect and deliver substantial qualities of drugs and cash — offender knew Tran was operating large scale drug importation and trafficking business — offending involved cover meetings to collect the heroin coordinate sale and to deliver drugs and collect cash — offender has no explanation for involvement other than to say they were helping their friend — there are no extenuating circumstances — common sense explanation is offender did so for opportunity to share in substantial profits — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — early guilty plea has significant utilitarian value — positive response to time in custody is evidence of remorse — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — degree of remorse is qualified by false denials and evasive answers to police and efforts to play down offending and implausible contention they were paid only $50 each time for involvement — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — prior convictions for drug related offending are relevant — explanation given by offender is highly improbable — while weight attached to convictions is to be reduced because of passage of time offender’s attempt to again understate involvement is relevant to assessment of remorse and prospects of rehabilitation — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — taking into account creditable progress in custody towards reformation and desire to be good mother prospects of rehabilitation considered reasonable — parity — co-offender Zainal’s offending was more serious — Zainal able to point to genuine extenuating circumstances which explained desperate need for money — co-offender Goh’s offending was less serious — Goh’s progress to reformation in prison was exceptional — offender sentenced to 10 years’ and 6 months imprisonment with 7 year non-parole period — s 6AAA — but for plea of guilty offender would have been sentenced to 13 years’ 6 months imprisonment with 9 year and 6 month non-parole period    
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2024 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow