Minh Phat Truong v The Queen

In the case of Minh Phat Truong v The Queen, the applicant appealed against his sentence for money laundering. The trial judge had sentenced Truong to a total effective sentence of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. The central issue in the appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the sentence given to a co-offender. Truong contended that there was a significant disparity between his sentence and that of his co-offender, which made his sentence manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principle of parity and the totality of the circumstances.

The court found that the trial judge had failed to give adequate consideration to the principle of parity when imposing the sentence. The court noted that while the trial judge had taken into account the disparity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-offender, they did not adequately explain why the disparity was justified. The court concluded that the sentence imposed on Truong was manifestly excessive, as it did not reflect the totality of the circumstances, including the lesser role of the applicant in the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Truong was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.

The court emphasised the importance of considering the principle of parity in sentencing, particularly in cases where co-offenders are involved. The court also highlighted the need for the trial judge to provide clear reasons for any significant disparity in sentences. The court’s decision underscores the need for sentencing judges to carefully consider the totality of the circumstances, including the role of each offender, when imposing sentences.

The final orders of the court included the reduction of Truong's sentence to a total effective term of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years. This resentencing reflects the court's view that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and did not adequately account for the principle of parity and the totality of the circumstances.