R v Dang

The respondents brought an appeal against the appellant, Dang, in relation to various drug and theft charges. The appeal was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the possibility of the appellant's house being subject to automatic forfeiture under the Confiscation Act 1997. This was particularly relevant because, while an application for exclusion of the house from forfeiture was pending at the time of sentencing, it was subsequently refused. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge's consideration of the possibility of forfeiture was adequate and whether the fresh evidence received should have prompted a reassessment of the forfeiture on sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the possibility of forfeiture in a general way only and did not delve into the specifics of the potential forfeiture. The court held that the sentencing judge should have considered the impact of the forfeiture more thoroughly, particularly in light of the fresh evidence that was received. The court relied on the decisions in R v McLeod and R v Cochrane to affirm that a court must consider the potential for forfeiture when sentencing a defendant, especially when there is a pending application for exclusion. The court concluded that the sentencing judge's consideration of forfeiture was insufficient and that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to reconsider the sentence with proper regard to the potential for forfeiture. The court did not specify the new sentence but directed that the sentencing judge take into account the full implications of the potential forfeiture. This decision reinforces the importance of considering all relevant factors, including potential forfeiture under the Confiscation Act 1997, in the sentencing process.