R v TA [2011] NSWDC 209

R v TA [2011] NSWDC 209

Given the objective gravity and substantial quantity of heroin imported to pay off a gambling debt, a sentence comprised of a non-parole period of five years and a head sentence of nine years is appropriate to satisfy the requirements of general deterrence and reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Parties
Prosecutor: The Crown; Offender: Van Hieu Ta
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Importation of Heroin, Sentencing, Problem Gambling
Criminal Law Importation of Heroin Sentencing Problem Gambling

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecutor

Van Hieu Ta

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for importation of heroin motivated by gambling-related debt
  2. 2 Consideration of general deterrence in drug importation cases
  3. 3 Balance between head sentence and non-parole period

Ratio Decidendi

Given the objective gravity and substantial quantity of heroin imported to pay off a gambling debt, a sentence comprised of a non-parole period of five years and a head sentence of nine years is appropriate to satisfy the requirements of general deterrence and reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Sentenced to imprisonment for nine years with a non-parole period of five years commencing 4 October 2010.
  • Non-parole period expires 3 October 2015; earliest release to parole on that date.