Huynh v The King
Case
•
[2024] NSWCCA 61
•06 May 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Huynh v The King [2024] NSWCCA 61
[2024] NSWCCA 61
06 May 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Huynh v The King involves an appeal against a sentence passed by a sentencing judge in New South Wales. The appellant, Huynh, argued that the sentencing judge made an arithmetical error in calculating the commencement date of the sentence, which resulted in an incorrect calculation of the pre-sentence custody credit. Huynh further contended that the sentencing judge failed to exercise their discretion properly under section 24 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) in determining the date from which the sentence should commence.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentencing judge made an arithmetical error in calculating the commencement date of the sentence and whether the sentencing judge exercised their discretion correctly in determining the date from which the sentence should commence, taking into account the appellant's pre-sentence custody. The court had to consider whether the sentencing judge overlooked the appellant's pre-sentence custody when determining the date from which the sentence should commence.
The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed made an arithmetical error in calculating the commencement date of the sentence. However, the court also held that the sentencing judge did not err in their exercise of discretion in determining the date from which the sentence should commence. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's pre-sentence custody when determining the date from which the sentence should commence, and that the appellant's argument that the sentencing judge failed to take into account all of their pre-sentence custody was not substantiated. The court found that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion correctly and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
The court did not make any further orders in relation to the appeal. The court held that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and that the original sentence passed by the sentencing judge remained in place.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentencing judge made an arithmetical error in calculating the commencement date of the sentence and whether the sentencing judge exercised their discretion correctly in determining the date from which the sentence should commence, taking into account the appellant's pre-sentence custody. The court had to consider whether the sentencing judge overlooked the appellant's pre-sentence custody when determining the date from which the sentence should commence.
The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed made an arithmetical error in calculating the commencement date of the sentence. However, the court also held that the sentencing judge did not err in their exercise of discretion in determining the date from which the sentence should commence. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's pre-sentence custody when determining the date from which the sentence should commence, and that the appellant's argument that the sentencing judge failed to take into account all of their pre-sentence custody was not substantiated. The court found that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion correctly and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
The court did not make any further orders in relation to the appeal. The court held that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and that the original sentence passed by the sentencing judge remained in place.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Sentencing
-
Discretion of Sentencing Judge
-
Pre-sentence Custody
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Huynh v The King [2024] NSWCCA 61
Most Recent Citation
PB v The King [2025] NSWCCA 14
Cases Citing This Decision
8
PD v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
[2025] NSWSC 16
R v Rae (No 2)
[2024] NSWSC 713
PB v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 14
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
5
R v Karageorge
[1999] NSWCCA 213
Erceg v District Court of New South Wales
[2003] NSWCA 379
Kentwell v The Queen
[2014] HCA 37