R v Hoang [2001] NSWCCA 485

R v Hoang [2001] NSWCCA 485

Given the 54.8g quantity of heroin, the sentencing judge was entitled to be satisfied that the applicant was involved in dealing with the heroin for profit and could not claim mitigation as an addict; even if he was merely a courier, he would still have been involved in a transaction for profit. The judge's use of the word "dealer" did not amount to the error alleged, and no manifest excess argument was advanced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Heroin' 'deemed Supply' 'characterisation of Offender as Dealer' 'possession for Supply' 'sentence Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Heroin' 'deemed Supply' 'characterisation of Offender as Dealer' 'possession for Supply' 'sentence Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by characterising the applicant as a dealer acting for greed when the jury's verdict established possession of heroin for supply under the deeming provision." 'Whether the sentence should be disturbed on the basis of that alleged characterisation error.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the 54.8g quantity of heroin, the sentencing judge was entitled to be satisfied that the applicant was involved in dealing with the heroin for profit and could not claim mitigation as an addict; even if he was merely a courier, he would still have been involved in a transaction for profit. The judge's use of the word "dealer" did not amount to the error alleged, and no manifest excess argument was advanced.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']