The Queen v Suen, W. [1987] FCA 279

The Queen v Suen, W. [1987] FCA 279

Evidence regarding Malavetas's possession of heroin from same batch was admissible to show the purpose for which Suen had heroin in possession; trial judge's directions properly limited its relevance; the verdict was not unsafe nor was trial rendered unsatisfactory by failure to call Malavetas. The sentence imposed was inadequate, failing to reflect the seriousness of the offence, particularly the quantity and purity of heroin, warranting substitution of a higher sentence.

Parties
Appellant Cross Respondent: The Queen; Respondent Cross Appellant: William Suen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of ACT to Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Crown's appeal against sentence allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, increased sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Supply, Sentencing Adequacy, Evidence Admissibility, Trafficking in Heroin
Criminal Law Possession for Purpose of Supply Sentencing Adequacy Evidence Admissibility Trafficking in Heroin

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant Cross Respondent

William Suen

Respondent Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of ACT to Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence relating to possession of heroin by another (Malavetas) from same batch admissible to show respondent's purpose;
  2. 2 Whether verdict unsafe due to prosecution's failure to call Malavetas;
  3. 3 Whether sentence imposed was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence regarding Malavetas's possession of heroin from same batch was admissible to show the purpose for which Suen had heroin in possession; trial judge's directions properly limited its relevance; the verdict was not unsafe nor was trial rendered unsatisfactory by failure to call Malavetas. The sentence imposed was inadequate, failing to reflect the seriousness of the offence, particularly the quantity and purity of heroin, warranting substitution of a higher sentence.

Court Disposition

Crown's appeal against sentence allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, increased sentence imposed.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • Substitute sentence of 13 years imprisonment from 9 April 1986.