R v Sen Van TRAN [2015] NSWDC 324

R v Sen Van TRAN [2015] NSWDC 324

The offender failed to prove that the buprenorphine was possessed otherwise than for supply, and the jury's verdict rejected personal use. The offence involved 381.46g of drugs containing buprenorphine, nine and a half times the large commercial quantity, accumulated with planning and concealment, but there was no evidence of actual supply and the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs were obtained through illegitimate means. Criminality was above low-range but below mid-range. A sentence below the 15 year standard non-parole period was warranted because of that assessment and the absence of actual supply, with special circumstances justifying a 60 per cent ratio.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Jury Verdict of Guilty
Outcome
A head sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of imprisonment of five years and three months was imposed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'buprenorphine' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'deemed Supply' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'general Deterrence' 'drug Diversion Programme']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'buprenorphine' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'deemed Supply' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'general Deterrence' 'drug Diversion Programme']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Jury Verdict of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the offender's possession of buprenorphine constituted deemed supply under s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)." 'How to assess the objective criminality of supplying buprenorphine in a quantity not less than the large commercial quantity where there was no evidence of actual supply.' 'Whether and to what extent the Court should depart from the 15 year standard non-parole period.' 'Whether special circumstances justified a reduction in the statutory ratio between the head sentence and non-parole period.' 'How much pre-sentence custody should be taken into account.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender failed to prove that the buprenorphine was possessed otherwise than for supply, and the jury's verdict rejected personal use. The offence involved 381.46g of drugs containing buprenorphine, nine and a half times the large commercial quantity, accumulated with planning and concealment, but there was no evidence of actual supply and the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs were obtained through illegitimate means. Criminality was above low-range but below mid-range. A sentence below the 15 year standard non-parole period was warranted because of that assessment and the absence of actual supply, with special circumstances justifying a 60 per cent ratio.

Court Disposition

A head sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of imprisonment of five years and three months was imposed.

Orders

  • ['The offender is sentenced to a head sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of imprisonment of five years and three months backdated to commence on 24 March 2015 and expire on 23 June 2020, with the balance of term of three years and nine months to expire on 23 March 2024.' 'The Court recommended that on...