DPP v Truong

The matter before the court was an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed on Truong for 22 counts of obtaining property by deception. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offending or provide sufficient deterrence or denunciation. Truong, a former bank employee, had accessed customer accounts while on a certified balance order and had engaged in over 150 transactions. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, suspended as to half, was manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the gravity of the offending, noting that it involved serious breaches of trust and abuse of a position of authority. The court observed that the offending was not isolated but part of a pattern of dishonesty, with Truong having similar prior convictions. The court also acknowledged Truong's gambling addiction, which had contributed to the offending, and the potential for rehabilitation. However, the court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending, nor did it provide sufficient deterrence or denunciation. The court noted that the sentence did not account for the cumulative impact of the offending and the breach of trust involved.

The court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced Truong to 18 months’ imprisonment, with 12 months suspended after 6 months. The court emphasised the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the offending, provide deterrence and denunciation, and consider the prospects for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence should be proportionate to the offending and should account for the cumulative impact of the offending and the breach of trust involved. The court considered that the revised sentence was more appropriate and would provide adequate deterrence and denunciation. The court also noted that the revised sentence would provide an opportunity for Truong to address his gambling addiction and rehabilitation prospects. The court noted that the revised sentence would also provide adequate protection for the community and reflect the seriousness of the offending.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal, the re-sentencing of Truong to 18 months' imprisonment with 12 months suspended after 6 months, and the direction that Truong pay a fine of $5,000. The court also noted that the revised sentence would provide an opportunity for Truong to address his gambling addiction and rehabilitation prospects.