R v Duong (No. 2)

Case [2024] NSWDC 472


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Duong (No. 2) [2024] NSWDC 472
Hearing dates: 30 August 2024
Date of orders: 11 October 2024
Decision date: 11 October 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [66]

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bamblett v R [2013] NSWCCA 161

Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1;(2007) 168 A Crim R 41

DB v R [2024] NSWCCA 18

EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21

GP v R [2021] NSWCCA 180

Greenaway v R [2021] NSWCCA 253

Massaquoi v R [2024] NSWCCA 125

Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87

MK v R [2024] NSWCCA 127

R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381;(2006) 167 A Crim R 159

R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172;(2008) 187 A Crim R 152

R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1

RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149

Tindall v R [2019] NSWCCA 136

Towse v R [2022] NSWCCA 252

Young (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 111;(2022) 298 A Crim R 468

Category:Sentence
Parties: Tri Duong (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Clark (the Crown)

Solicitors:
Mr A Tiedt (the offender)
Ms A Degnan (the Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/333653
Publication restriction: s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication of the name of the victim, or of any material that identifies the victim or is likely to lead to the identification of the victim

JUDGMENT

  1. On 11 June 2024 the offender was arraigned on an Indictment containing twelve principal counts and three alternative counts to Count 12.

  2. Following the trial by jury on 28 June 2024 the jury returned verdicts of guilty in respect of the twelve principal counts on the Indictment. The offences were:-

  1. Between 31 July 1995 and 1 January 1996, at Miller in the State of New South Wales, assaulted JG and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on JG, a person then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years.

This was an offence pursuant to s61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“the CA”) and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

  1. Between 31 July 1995 and 1 January 1996, at Miller in the State of New South Wales, assaulted JG and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on JG, a person then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years.

This was an offence pursuant to s61M(2) of the CA and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

  1. Between 31 July 1995 and 1 January 1996, at Miller in the State of New South Wales, assaulted JG and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on JG, a person then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years.

This…

Continue reading R v Duong (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Duong (No. 2) [2024] NSWDC 472
Case
[2024] NSWDC 472
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Duong (No. 2) involved a defendant, Duong, who faced prosecution for various criminal offences. The dispute centred around the defendant's involvement in a series of illegal activities, including drug trafficking and firearms offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court required determination of the defendant's culpability for the alleged crimes and the appropriate sentencing. The court needed to assess the evidence presented and determine whether the prosecution had successfully established the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate penalties in light of the defendant's criminal history and the severity of the offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic analysis. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the defendant's involvement in the criminal activities. Given the gravity of the offences and the defendant's previous convictions, the court imposed a sentence of full-time imprisonment. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to protect the community and deter similar criminal conduct. The final orders of the court mandated the defendant's imprisonment, with specific details provided in paragraph [66] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [66]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.