Application for leave to appeal is granted and the appeal allowed. The sentences imposed by Judge Hughes are quashed. On each count the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years to date from 9 May 2005. There is to be a non-parole period of 6 years to expire on 8 May 2011, the date upon which the applicant is eligible to be released to parole.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentence - failure by Judge to properly apply principle of totality in accumulating sentences with sentence imposed by another court - errors in exercise of discretion in favour of applicant - no lesser sentence warranted.
S. Kavanagh - Crown Andrews Solicitors - Applicant
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
05/21/3002
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hughes DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
09/12/2005
2006/2583
SULLY J HOWIE J PRICE J
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2007
Thien Tho NGUYEN v Regina
Judgment
1 SULLY J: I agree with Howie J.
2 HOWIE J: The applicant was convicted after trial by jury of two offences: an offence of aggravated sexual assault contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and an armed robbery contrary to s 97(1) of that Act. The maximum penalty for each of the offences was imprisonment for twenty years. The standard non-parole period provisions did not apply. On 9 December 2005 Judge Hughes sentenced the applicant on each count to a term of imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 9 May 2005 with a balance of term of 2 years.
3 At the time he was sentenced the applicant was serving a sentence imposed upon him by Judge Morgan on 26 April 2002. That sentence was seven years with a non-parole period of 4 years. That sentence commenced on 9 May 2001 and the non-parole period expired on 8 May 2005: see R v Nguyen[2002] NSWCCA 507. The sentence imposed by Judge Hughes was fully accumulative with that sentence, so that the overall sentence to be served by the applicant consists of a total term of 12 years with a non-parole period of ten years. The applicant is eligible to be released to parole on 8 May 2011.
4 The applicant relies upon the following grounds of appeal:
1. The sentencing Judge erred in…
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 Nguyen v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 14
Case
[2007] NSWCCA 14
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nguyen was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced by a court in Australia. The offender appealed the sentence imposed by the sentencing court, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of totality when accumulating the sentences imposed by another court. The appeal was heard by the higher court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principle of totality in imposing the sentence. The court examined whether the sentencing judge had properly accumulated the sentences imposed by the other court and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to properly apply the principle of totality and in exercising their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the sentencing judge had not adequately taken into account the sentences imposed by the other court and had instead imposed a cumulative sentence that was excessive. The court found that the errors in the exercise of discretion warranted a reduction in the sentence. However, the court determined that no lesser sentence was warranted, given the seriousness of the offences committed by the offender.
The court ordered that the sentence imposed by the sentencing court be reduced by a certain number of months, but affirmed the overall sentence imposed. The court noted that the reduction in sentence was necessary to correct the errors in the exercise of discretion by the sentencing judge, but that no further reduction was warranted given the circumstances of the case.