Legal Research
Cases
Huynh v R

Huynh v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 216 22 September 2008

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Appeal Outcome: Special leave dismissed by the High Court (s486/2009) 12 March 2009 [2009] HCASL 53

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Huynh v R [2008] NSWCCA 216

HEARING DATE(S): 12 September 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 September 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Johnson J at 2; Price J at 73

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - supply prohibited drug - related summary offences of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime - special circumstances - sentences not manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
R v Ibrahim [2005] NSWCCA 43
R v Nightingale [2005] NSWCCA 147
R v Vera [2008] NSWCCA 33
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481
R v McDonald (NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 October 1998)
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v George (2004) 149 A Crim R 38
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v Thompson (2005) 156 A Crim R 467
R v Clayton (1997) 42 NSWLR 268

PARTIES: Huy Bao Huynh (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/16135

COUNSEL: Mr PD Lange (Applicant)
Ms LK Wells (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Simon Joyner (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0555

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: His Honour Judge Solomon

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 April 2008

2007/16135

Allsop P
Johnson J
Price J
22 September 2008

Huy Bao Huynh v Regina

Judgment

1 ALLSOP P: I agree with the orders proposed by Johnson J and with his Honour's reasons.

2 JOHNSON J: This is an application by Huy Bao Huynh for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Solomon in the District Court on 3 April 2008. The Applicant pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, contrary to ss.25 and 29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty for that crime is imprisonment for 15 years.

3 In addition, his Honour dealt with a number of related summary offences pursuant to s.166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986. These were nine counts of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s.193C Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is a fine of 50 penalty units or imprisonment for two years, or both.

4 With respect to the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years and six months to commence on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Huynh v R

Details

AGLC: Huynh v R [2008] NSWCCA 216
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date: 22 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Huynh v The Queen concerned the sentencing of a person found guilty of supplying a prohibited drug and related summary offences involving property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime. The appellant, Huynh, was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the Court of Appeal affirming the sentence. The appeal to the High Court sought to challenge the sentence on the grounds of manifest excessiveness.

The legal issues before the Court centred around the principles of sentencing for serious drug offences and the aggregation of sentences for related summary offences. The appellant argued that the cumulative sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly considering the special circumstances of his case. The Court had to determine whether the sentences imposed by the lower courts were appropriate and whether they adhered to the principles of proportionality and fairness.

The High Court, in its decision, considered the severity of the offences, the appellant's role, and the need for general deterrence. The Court held that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The Court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offences and the need to uphold the rule of law. The Court also noted that the sentences were within the range of what could be reasonably expected for such serious drug-related offences. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentences imposed by the lower courts.

No further orders were made by the Court. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders