Phongthaihong v The Queen

In the case of Phongthaihong v The Queen, the appellant was convicted for culpable driving causing death and negligently causing serious injury. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had engaged in a two-stage sentencing process when considering the standard sentence, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the appellant argued that the sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years and nine months, was manifestly excessive. The court was also tasked with examining whether the orders for cumulation appropriately considered the principle of totality, as articulated in Mill v The Queen and Brown v The Queen.

The court examined the sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Crimes Act 1958, focusing on the requirement for a coherent, principled approach to sentencing. It was established that the trial judge had indeed considered the standard sentence in a two-stage process, which is impermissible under sentencing law. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as it did not accord with the principle of totality and failed to provide sufficient weight to the orders for cumulation. The appeal was thus allowed on the basis that the sentence was disproportionately severe and did not appropriately reflect the principles of sentencing.

Consequently, the appellant’s sentence was reduced to 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. This resentence was deemed to better align with the principles of sentencing and the overarching requirement of proportionality. The court's decision underscored the importance of a unified sentencing approach and the need for sentences to be commensurate with the severity of the crimes committed.