Director of Public Prosecutions v Szabo and Nguyen
[2022] VCC 719
•24 May 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR-19-02192 and CR-19-02191
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ANDREW SZABO and KEVIN NGUYEN |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE CAHILL |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 20 January 2022, 20 April 2022 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 24 May 2022 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Szabo and Nguyen |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 719 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Aggravated home invasion
Catchwords: Guilty plea – high utilitarian value – mid range offending – parity –
totality
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 5(2H)
Cases Cited: DPP v Wol Wol [2019] VSCA 268; Nicholas Dean v The Queen [2020]
VSCA 100; DPP (Vic) v O’Brien (2019) 280 A Crim R 1; Sikoulabout v
The Queen [2018] VSCA 268; Hogarth v the Queen (2012) 37 VR 658;
Carter (2018) 272 A Crim R 170; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA
169; Postiglione v The Queen (1987) 145 ALR 408
Sentence: Total effective sentence is 6 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment with a
non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months for each offender
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr G Barr | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Szabo | Mr P Bloemen | May Lawyers |
For the Accused Nguyen Mr Barreiro Doogue + George Criminal
Lawyers
HIS HONOUR:
1Andrew Szabo and Kevin Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty to:
(a) one charge of aggravated home invasion;
(b) one charge of theft; and
(c) one charge of common assault.
2You, Andrew Szabo, have also pleaded guilty to the summary charge of stating a false name to a police officer in the investigation of a suspected breach of community corrections order.
3You, Kevin Nguyen, have also pleaded guilty to the summary charges of:
(a) committing an indictable offence, aggravated home invasion, while on bail;
(b) contravening a residential condition of your bail; and
(c) stating a false name to a police officer in the investigation of the offence of fail to appear on bail.
Circumstances of your offending
4The circumstances of your offending set out in the prosecution summary of facts[1]. They are agreed facts.
[1] Exhibit A: Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 13 January 2022.
5You, Kevin Nguyen, knew Truc Phung and his partner, Hien Tran who lived, with their children, at Deer Park.
6On 22 April 2019, around 5:00 AM, you, Szabo, and you, Nguyen, with an unknown co-offender, drove to Phung’s home in Szabo’s station wagon.
7You, Szabo, were armed with a small knife. You, Nguyen, were armed with a crowbar. You had your faces covered.
8Hien Tran was reading, while her husband and the children were asleep.
9You, Nguyen, used the crowbar to force open the security door and you, Szabo, smashed a glass panel and got the key from inside the door.
10The three of you entered the house (Charge 1 – Aggravated home invasion) (Summary Charge 6 – Commit indictable offence while on bail (Nguyen)).
11When you confronted Ms Tran she screamed and ran to the bathroom where she locked herself inside.
12Her husband and children awoke to her scream. Phung shut his bedroom door. you, Szabo kicked the door open. You, Nguyen, followed him into the bedroom.
13You, Szabo, pushed Phung back onto the bed and held his arm behind his back. It caused him bruising and soreness (Charge 3 – Common assault).
14You, Szabo, asked him where his wife was. When Phung said his children were also at home you apologised in relation to them. While brandishing the knife you directed him to the lounge room and demanded money.
15You, Nguyen, tried unsuccessfully to kick the bathroom door open. You, Szabo, kicked the door in but neither of you saw Tran who was hiding in the shower.
16With the third unidentified offender, you took cash, about $500, credit cards and a driver’s license from Tran’s purse and backpacks and a suitcase which contained clothing, footwear, perfumes, a smartwatch and headphones (Charge 2 – Theft)
17The three of you fled with the stolen property.
18Phung called 000 for assistance.
19When police arrived, Phung and Tran identified you, Nguyen, from the CCTV footage.[2]
[2] Exhibit E: CCTV Footage.
Arrest – Szabo
20On 22 May 2019, police stopped you, Szabo, in your station wagon. When asked for details you gave your brother’s name and address (Summary Charge 7 – State false name when required by police).
21Police arrested you. At your home, they found a backpack and two pairs of shoes which were stolen from Phung.
22After a police interview, when you gave largely “no comment” answers, you were charged and remanded in custody.
Arrest – Nguyen
23On 25 May 2019, police intercepted you in a motorcar at Delahey. When asked for details, you gave a false name. (Summary Charge 8 – State false name when required by police).
24Someone else in the car identified you and you were arrested. After your interview, when you denied your involvement in the home invasion and made largely “no comment” answers, you were charged and remanded in custody.
25On 13 May 2019, police had gone to a St Alban’s address to which you, Nguyen, had previously been bailed, to look for you. You were not residing there (Summary Charge 7 – Fail to comply with residential condition of bail).
26After filing hearings, a contested committal hearing occurred on 1 November 2019 and a trial date was fixed.
27On 30 August 2021 you, Szabo, resolved your proceedings.
28On 9 December 2021, you, Nguyen, resolved yours.
29Szabo, your plea hearing took place on 20 January 2022.
30Nguyen, your plea hearing took place on 18 May 2022.
Victim impact
31I have read the victim impact statement of Mr Phung and Ms Tran.
32As a result of your crimes, Ms Tran has suffered severe anxiety and depression for which she will was prescribed medication and referred to counselling. She wrote she is slowly getting better but she still feels unsafe, especially at dawn, in her home. Mr Phung wrote your crimes have stressed him and caused arguments between his wife and him. The children have suffered nightmares and have needed counselling. Additionally, the family has suffered financially. Repairs to the damage you caused totalled around $8,000 for which they are around $4,000 out of pocket. They also lost wages of around $3,600.[3]
[3] Exhibit B: Victim Impact Statement of Truc Phung and Hien Tran dated 15 October 2021.
Criminal record – Szabo
33You, Szabo, have admitted a criminal record.
34Previously, you have been sentenced to a prison term and CCOs.
35On 5 August 2010, at Bendigo Magistrate’s Court, you were placed on a community-based order for possession of methylamphetamine and cannabis.
36On 17 December 2013, at Bendigo Magistrate’s Court, you were sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, for trafficking and possessing cannabis and dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
37On 9 July 2016, in this Court, on appeal from the Magistrate’s Court, for burglary, for theft, drug possession and driving offences, which breached your suspended sentence, you were sentenced to a two-year community correction order.
38Subsequent to the index offending, on 22 October 2019, you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for contravention of the community correction order.[4]
[4] Exhibit D: Offenders Subsequent Convictions and Sentences dated 16 December 2021.
39And, on 9 June 2020, you were convicted of an offence of attempt to commit an indictable offence.
Criminal record – Nguyen
40You, Nguyen, have admitted an extensive history of offending, predominantly drug-related, commencing in August 2006.
41You also have been sentenced to prison terms and CCOs previously.
42On 27 January 2010, you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, partially suspended, for trafficking heroin and other offences.
43On 29 May 2013, you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, for possession of heroin and other offences.
44On 1 May 2014, for a breach of the suspended sentence order, you were required to serve 3 months.
45On 13 July 2016, for drug possession, dishonesty and firearms offences, you were sentenced to 425 days’ imprisonment.
46On 6 August 2018, you were placed on a 12-month community correction order for make threat to kill and dishonest retention of stolen goods.
47Subsequent to the index offending, on 16 August 2019, in this Court, on appeal from the Magistrate’s Court, for dishonestly retaining stolen goods, going equipped to steal, possessing a prohibited weapon and contravening a community correction order, you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. You were resentenced for the original offending to an additional prison term of 3 months.[5]
[5] Exhibit D: Offenders Subsequent Convictions and Sentences dated 16 December 2021.
Personal circumstances – Szabo
48Andrew Szabo, you were aged 40 when you offended and are now 44 years old.
49You were born in May 1978 in Australia after your parents had emigrated from the former Yugoslavia. You have three older brothers.
50You grew up in Footscray and went to local schools. You dropped out in Year 8 and went to work for your father in the family construction business.
51In 2006, your mother died from cancer.
52In 2008, you married.
53In 2009, your father remarried and took your wife and you, with his new family, to Inglewood where you worked at his roadhouse.
54You have two daughters who are now aged 19 and 21 years. One is studying childcare; the other nursing.
55In 2011, your wife died, also from cancer.
56You resorted to substance abuse to deal with your grief.
57When you offended, you were essentially homeless and using methylamphetamine, GHB, marijuana and Xanax. You met Mr Nguyen when you were buying drugs
58Your stepmother has known you for nearly 20 years. She wrote she has seen “the good and bad” in you. She described you as kind and reliable but with a bad habit of being around the wrong people. She saw you struggle when your wife died and watched you “go down a path full of wrong decisions which has led [you] to be in jail”.
59She believes, during your time in custody, you have changed for the better. According to her, you have accepted responsibility for your actions and, on your release, you want to take care of your daughters and your father who are finding your absence hard.[6]
[6] Exhibit 2: Reference of Ikmet Szabo dated 17 January 2022.
60Your older daughter saw you disassociate from family after their mother died. You weren’t capable of looking after your children and your father assumed their care. She described you as being “around but rarely present in [their] lives”. At the time of this offending, you were “in the worst state” she had seen you in.
61She also wrote, while you have been in jail, your “mindset has improved quite significantly”. According to her, you have accepted your faults and focused on your physical health and education. She has found, in zoom calls with you, you offer support and encouragement and listen, something she and her sister had not previously known from you.[7]
[7] Exhibit 4: Reference of Katarina Szabo dated 17 January 2022.
62In prison, you have abstained from drugs,[8] gotten healthy and undertaken the vocational programs made available to you. In a letter to the court,[9] you wrote the ATLAS programs helped you motivate to change.[10] As a reward for good behaviour in prison, you are in the privileged “Cottages” unit at Margoneet and hold the valued position of Orientation Prison Services Worker.[11] Recently, you were invited to apply for a trusted Peer Listeners Role.[12] In your letter to the Court, you expressed remorse for your actions, empathy for your victims and a desire to reunite with your family.
[8] Exhibit 6: Urine Screen Summary dated 17 January 2021.
[9] Exhibit 5: Letter of Andrew Szabo (undated).
[10] Exhibit 9: Certificate of ATLAS Remand Program dated 8 May 2021; Exhibit 10: ATLAS Remand Program Letter dated 17 January 2022.
[11] Exhibit 7: Prisoner Weekly Timetable dated 9 January 2022.
[12] Exhibit 8: Application for Peer Listener Program dated 18 August 2021.
Submissions – Szabo
63In comprehensive written and oral submissions,[13] your counsel, Mr Bloemen, did not advance a special reason to depart from the mandated sentence of a term of imprisonment for the offence of aggravated home invasion with a non-parole period of not less than three years.
[13] Exhibit 1: Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 13 January 2022.
64Nevertheless, he relied on the following factors in mitigation of penalty:
(a) The utilitarian benefit of your guilty plea, especially during the pandemic;
(b) Your remorse; and
(c) Your positive prospects of rehabilitation.
Prosecution submissions – Szabo
65Mr Cameron, who appeared for the prosecution, highlighted the importance of general deterrence and just punishment in sentencing for the offence of aggravated home invasion.
66He submitted your offending was objectively serious.
67He acknowledged you have significant family support to motivate your rehabilitation which you have advanced during your time in custody.
Personal circumstances – Nguyen
68Kevin Nguyen, your date of birth is in April 1980. You were 39 years old when you offended and are now 43.
69You were born at Rach Gia, a provincial city south-west of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and are in the middle of five children. You grew up in a rural area with your mother and her parents while your father worked overseas. After your father and older sisters emigrated to Australia you arrived here, with a brother, when you were 16 years old. Your mother, with your youngest sibling, arrived later.
70You had very limited schooling in Vietnam. In Australia, you had a year of school at Maribyrnong but struggled because you could not speak English. You then got work fruit picking across Australia. You have lived with your father and, at times, worked on his farms, until your early 20’s.
71In 2013, you married. Your wife and you have a 4-year-old son. Your wife has separated from you but remains supportive. She talks with you regularly and facilitates phone calls with your son. You also speak with your parents and a sister who lives interstate.
72In your late teens, you started using heroin to cope with feelings of isolation in a strange country. Your criminal history reflects a person who has battled drugs over two decades.
73On your account, you were smoking up to a gram of heroin daily when you offended.
74Laura Fleming, forensic psychologist, assessed you on 14 December 2021.[14]
[14] Exhibit 11: Psychological Report of Laura Fleming dated 5 January 2022.
75In her opinion, you meet the criteria for stimulant use disorder and opioid use disorder.
76Your Justice Health records indicate a history of intravenous drug use and two overdoses.[15] They also record a history of diagnoses of mental and behavioural disorders. In 2016, in a Forensicare report to the Magistrates Court, Dr Triglia,[16] a forensic psychiatrist, considered you were experiencing active psychotic symptoms, likely due to schizophrenia.
[15] Exhibit 12: Health Records of Kevin Nguyen dated 13/12/2021.
[16] Exhibit 13: Forensicare Report of Maria Triglia dated 11/07/2015.
77You told Ms Fleming you have unsuccessfully participated in detoxification programs and general counselling in the past. In her opinion, you may benefit from residential rehabilitation.
78Using the LS/CMI risk – needs offender assessment and making her own clinical judgement, Ms Fleming assessed you as a high risk of recidivism.
79She recommended a neuropsychological assessment to investigate the possibility you suffer some cognitive deficit which contributed to your offending.
80Jane Lofthouse, clinical neuropsychologist, assessed you on 16 March 2022.
81You gave her an inconsistent and contradictory history which she attributed to some deliberation on your part but also due to intellectual impairment.
82In relation to your offending, you told her the victims of your crimes had stolen money from your wife and threatened her. You also said heroin and amphetamine use had impaired your memory of the events.
83Ms Lofthouse helpfully summarised your Justice Health records which indicate, in prison, you are prescribed:
(a) Buprenorphine for your opioid dependency;
(b) Glycoyrronium and frusemide for heart disease;
(c) Amitriptyline for depression;
(d) Olanzapine, an antipsychotic medication;
(e) Symbicort for asthma; and
(f) Metformin for diabetes.
84Your psychological test scores indicate you have borderline/low average intellectual functioning which Ms Lofthouse attributes to an acquired brain injury (“ABI”). You reported traumatic events, dating back to 2008, and chronic drug use, since late adolescence, which are likely to have caused your ABI. In her opinion, it is “more than likely” your resulting psychological issues contributed to your offending.
85She considers your intellectual impairment, and limited language skills, will make prison harder for you than a prisoner in normal health. And, your psychological symptoms may deteriorate in prison and make imprisonment more difficult for you.
86She recommends ongoing psychiatric care for you and monitoring of any psychotropic medication.
Submissions – Nguyen
87In comprehensive written and oral submissions,[17] Mr Barreiro, who appeared on your behalf, properly acknowledged, because of the seriousness of your offending, a lengthy prison sentence is inevitable.
[17] Exhibit 15: Defence Outline of Plea Submissions on behalf of Kevin Nguyen dated 13/05/2022.
88In mitigation of penalty, Mr Barreiro relied on:
(a) Your guilty plea for its utilitarian value, particularly during the pandemic.
(b) Your intellectual and cognitive impairment to:
(i)reduce your moral culpability; and
(ii)moderate general deterrence and specific deterrence.
89Your psychological symptoms which will likely:
(a) Deteriorate in prison; and
(b) Make prison harder for you.
90He acknowledged, considering your “cognitive barriers and limited ability to improve or learn” and your “very poor” criminal history, you are a high risk of reoffending. And, he acknowledged, “the importance of protection of the community is heightened”.
91He submitted there should be some disparity in sentence between Szabo and you because your ABI, and consequent intellectual and psychological issues, must reduce your moral culpability and diminish the need for general and specific deterrence. In particular, he submitted, because of your ABI, you are not a suitable vehicle for general deterrence.
Prosecution submissions
92Mr Barr, who appeared for the prosecution, in helpful submissions, did not challenge the opinions of Ms Fleming or Ms Lofthouse.
93He submitted the maximum penalty and mandatory sentencing regime demonstrate the seriousness of the offence of aggravated home invasion.
94He submitted your offending was objectively serious because it involved:
(a) preplanning;
(b) forced entry;
(c) in the presence of young children; and caused
(d) significant harm to your victims.[18]
[18] Exhibit B: Victim Impact Statement of Truc Phung and Hien Tran dated 15 October 2021.
95He submitted that your roles were comparable considering:
(a) you, Szabo, physically subdued Mr Phung
(b) you wielded the knife to intimidate him
(c) You, Nguyen, were standing next to him in a position to assist him, if necessary;
(d) You, Nguyen, knew Ms Tran and your motive was payback.[19]
[19] Exhibit 11: Psychological Report of Laura Fleming dated 5 January 2022.
Consideration
96The maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment demonstrates the offence of aggravated home invasion is objectively very serious.
Objective criminality
97Mr Phung and Ms Tran were entitled to feel safe in their home.
98The two of you, both armed with weapons, with a co-offender, invaded their home while they, with their children, were sleeping.
99No doubt they were terrified when you confronted and threatened them.
100Your moral culpability is high.
101In the dead of night, you, Nguyen, using a crowbar, smashed your way into the house. Inside, you, Szabo, assaulted Mr Phung. You, Nguyen, were complicit in the assault. You, Szabo, threatened Mr Phung with the knife and demanded money and the two of you, with the third offender, stole cash, about $500, bank cards and a drivers licence and two backpacks and a large suitcase, containing clothing and other items, from them.
102When you broke into their home, you were at least reckless as to whether there was anyone home.
103You had targeted Mr Phung and Ms Tran to steal from them. You, Nguyen, told Ms Fleming they had stolen money from your wife and threatened to assault her. You, Szabo, were effectively homeless. Both of you were using illicit drugs.
104You had your faces covered to avoid being identified and each of you was armed.
105There was an element of premeditation and planning to your offending in the course of which you used violence to break in the house and to subdue Phung.
106I assess yours as a mid-range example of the crime.
107In Hogarth v the Queen,[20] the Court of Appeal said home invasion “is a particularly nasty form of criminal conduct”:
Typically, a home invasion involves multiple offenders entering a person’s home, carrying weapons, intending to rob or injure the victims in revenge for some actual or perceived wrong. The entry of the offenders – acting in anger and often fuelled by alcohol – is itself a terrifying experience for the householder(s), irrespective of what may occur after entry.
[20] (2012) 37 VR 658 at [1].
108Deterrence, both general and specific, and denunciation are important sentencing considerations.
109In DPP (Vic) v O’Brien,[21] the Court of Appeal said, in relation to home invasion, “Those considering such antisocial conduct must know that stern punishment will follow their apprehension”.
[21] (2019) 288 A Crim R 1 at [37].
110The law requires I impose a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years unless a special reason exists.[22] Appropriately in the circumstances, neither of your counsel advanced a special reason.
[22] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5(2G) and 10(AC).
111There are mitigating circumstances which must moderate the sentence I impose.
112For each of you, your guilty plea has high utilitarian value because it has spared your victims the stress of a trial[23] and because it alleviates the pandemic related strain on the administration of criminal justice.[24]
[23] Carter (2018) 272 A Crim R 170, [75].
[24] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
113I accept you, Szabo, are genuinely remorseful.
114I also accept, with family support and a desire to have a meaningful relationship with your son, you are motivated to not reoffend.
115You have made impressive steps in custody to advance your reformation.
116In my view, you have very good prospects of rehabilitation.
117Nguyen, I accept your guilty plea is evidence of some remorse which is qualified by your apparent lack of empathy to your victims. At the same time I accept your lack of understanding is attributable more to your intellectual dysfunction rather than a lack of contrition.
118I accept the opinions of Ms Fleming and Ms Lofthouse, which were unchallenged.
119You have an ABI which significantly impairs your intellectual functioning. You also have significant psychological symptoms of depression, stress and anxiety.
120I accept your mental impairment operates to reduce your moral culpability, to a modest degree, because it is more than likely it contributed to your offending.
121I also accept it moderates, slightly, the need for general deterrence, because, considering your poor cognition and memory, you are not a suitable vehicle, and also specific deterrence, because your capacity for insight and learning is limited.
122As your counsel correctly acknowledged the relevance of your mental impairment in sentencing “cuts both ways”. Your limited ability to improve or learn inhibits your reformation. Accordingly protection of the community is a relevant sentencing consideration in your case.
123I accept your psychological conditions will likely deteriorate in jail and make incarceration more difficult for you than persons who do not suffer the same conditions.
124You were both arrested and remanded in custody in May 2019. You have both subsequently served prison terms for other offending. While those terms do not qualify for presentence detention I have made some allowance for them in determining your appropriate sentence.
125Because you are to be sentence for a number of offences, some of which overlap, I have had regard to the principle of totality to ensure your total effective sentence is “a just and appropriate measure” of your total criminality.[25]
[25] See Postiglione v The Queen (1987) 145 ALR 408, 416-417, 442-43.
126As to the question of parity, I have considered the similarities and differences between the circumstances of your offending and your personal circumstances. In my view, your respective roles in the offending were comparable. Your personal circumstances are not dissimilar but for one notable distinction. You, Nguyen, have a mental impairment which moderates your sentence. However, because of your psychological problems, your risk of reoffending is high. On the other hand, you, Szabo, have no psychological issues but your rehabilitation prospects are very good. In my view there is no significant basis to differentiate between the sentences I impose on each of you.
127Andrew Szabo, because of your impressive progress to reform I consider appropriate to impose a shorter than usual non-parole period to allow you the opportunity to continue your progress to rehabilitation under parole supervision.
128Kevin Nguyen, because of my view there should be parity in sentencing between the two of you, I will take the same approach with you.
Conclusion
129By the sentence I impose, I must denounce your conduct, punish you, and deter you and others, from committing crimes of the same or similar kind. I must also look to your rehabilitation.
130Considering the circumstances of your offending, your personal circumstances and antecedents, and endeavouring to produce a sentence which reflects and promotes the purposes of sentencing in a manner appropriate to you:
I sentence you, Andrew Szabo, as follows:
(i)On Charge 1: aggravated home invasion – you are sentenced to 5 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment. This is your base sentence.
(ii)On Charge 2: theft – you are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment
(iii)On Charge 3: common law assault – you are sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
131I direct 4 months of the sentence have imposed on Charge 2 and 2 months of the sentence have imposed on Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively on your base sentence and each other.
132Your total effective sentence is 6 years and 3 months and I fix a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
133I declare you have already served 1015 days of your sentence by presentence detention.
134On the summary charge of stating a false name, you are convicted and fined $500.
135While there is some artificiality and intellectual difficulty in stating the benefit you have received because of your guilty plea, doing the best I can, I declare, but for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you, Szabo, to a total effective sentence of 8 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment and imposed a minimum non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months.
136I sentence you, Kevin Nguyen, as follows:
(i)On Charge 1: aggravated home invasion – you are sentenced to 5 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment. This is your base sentence.
(ii)On Charge 2: theft – you are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
(iii)On Charge 3: common law assault – you are sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
(iv)On Summary Charge 6: commit an indictable offence on bail – you are sentenced to one month’s imprisonment.
(v)On Summary Charge 7: fail to comply with residential condition of bail – you are convicted and fined $500.
(vi)On Summary Charge 8: state false name when required by police – you are convicted and fined $500.
137I direct 4 months of the sentence have imposed on Charge 2 and 2 months of the sentence have imposed on Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively on your base sentence and each other.
138Your total effective sentence is 6 years and 3 months. I fix a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
139I declare you have already served 916 days of your sentence by way of presentence detention.
140But for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you, Nguyen, to a total effective sentence of 8 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment and imposed a minimum non-parole period of 5 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment.
- - -
0
6
0