Basten JA at [1]; Walton J at [2]; Button J at [114]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – finding of special circumstances – sentencing ratio – whether failure to give proper practical effect – discretion of sentencing judge – prospects of rehabilitation
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – whether House v King error – whether material error – incorrect reference to Form 1 offence – slip – whether sentence vitiated
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – aggregate sentence whether manifestly excessive – property and domestic violence offences – whether indicative sentences erroneous so as to infect sentence imposed – use of JIRS statistics – objective gravity – general deterrence
Counsel: A Parsons (Applicant) E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors: Ren Zhou Lawyers (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2019/309493; 2020/38540
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
24 July 2020
Before:
Abadee DCJ
File Number(s):
2019/309493; 2020/38540
Judgment
BASTEN JA: I agree with Walton J.
WALTON J: On 6 May 2020, Thanh Lam Nguyen (“the applicant”) pleaded guilty in the Local Court of New South Wales with respect to three offences:
aggravated entry with intent to steal, contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes…
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 The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Nguyen v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 118
Case
[2021] NSWCCA 118
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Nguyen v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of various serious criminal offences, including property and domestic violence offences. The appeal centred on the sentencing decisions made by the trial judge, focusing on whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the process of sentencing contained any errors that would require a re-sentencing. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether the failure of the sentencing judge to give proper practical effect to the sentencing ratio constituted a material error. The court also had to determine if the reference to a Form 1 offence, which was not accurate, amounted to a significant error that vitiated the sentence. Another issue was whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the objective gravity of the offences and the use of Joint Inter-agency Reoffending Statistics (JIRS). Finally, the court examined whether the trial judge had made any errors in applying the principles of general deterrence and the prospects for rehabilitation.
The High Court found that while there were some errors in the sentencing process, they did not amount to a material error that would necessitate a re-sentencing. The court determined that the reference to the Form 1 offence was a slip, but it did not infect the overall sentence. The aggregate sentence was assessed against the objective gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence, while not ideal, was not manifestly excessive. The prospects for rehabilitation were also considered, but the court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The errors identified did not reach the threshold of material error, and the aggregate sentence was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The court's decision underscored the importance of a careful and thorough approach to sentencing, while also recognising the discretion of the sentencing judge.