R v Huynh - [2003] NSWCCA 239

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v. HUYNH [2003] NSWCCA 239

FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 60162 of 2003

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 1 September 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 01/09/2003

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
HUYNH, Tai Van

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/0072

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield, DCJ.

COUNSEL:
Crown: P. Miller
App: S. Corish

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: D.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentence - appeal - objective circumstances - multiple offences - cumulation - sentence for one offence excessive - sentence reduced.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
It is appropriate for this court to intervene and to pass in lieu of the sentence passed by the learned trial judge a sentence of six and a half years to date from 15 October 2003 and to expire on 14 April 2010 with a non-parole period of four years to commence on 15 October 2003 and to expire on 14 October 2007. The sentence for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a two year fixed term should stand but commence upon 15 October 2002 and expire on 14 October 2004. This would mean that there would be an overall sentence of some seven and a half years imprisonment with a five year non-parole period. The sentence would commence on 15 October 2002 and expire on 14 October 2010, the non-parole period to commence the same date but would expire on 14 October 2007. The earliest date upon which the applicant might be eligible for parole would be 14 October 2007.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60162 of 2003
DUNFORD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
MONDAY 1 SEPTEMBER 2003

REGINA v. TAI VAN HUYNH

Judgment

GREG JAMES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Nield QC in the District Court of New South Wales at Parramatta following a trial at which the offender pleaded not guilty to two charges, the first being a charge of robbery in company, the second being a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Following the verdict of the jury which was a verdict of guilty on each charge, his Honour sentenced the offender for the offence of robbery in company, an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, to a term of imprisonment of eight years commencing 15 October 2003 and expiring 14 October 2011. In respect of that sentence his Honour imposed a non-parole period of five years expiring on 14 October 2008.
For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, his Honour sentenced the offender to imprisonment for a fixed term of two years to commence on 15 October 2002 and to expire on 14 October 2004. It can therefore be seen that one year of the sentences overlapped. The effective total sentence thus passed by his Honour was…

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 R v Huynh

Details

AGLC: R v Huynh [2003] NSWCCA 239
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 239
Decision Date: 1 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Huynh was heard in the appellate court where the defendant, Huynh, contested the severity of the sentence imposed on him for multiple criminal offences. Huynh was convicted on several counts, including charges related to drug trafficking and possession. The crux of the appeal lay in the perceived disproportionality of the cumulative sentence, which Huynh argued was excessive given the nature and circumstances of the individual offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the cumulative sentence imposed on Huynh for his multiple convictions was unjust and required adjustment. The court was tasked with examining whether the original sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the objective circumstances of each offence and whether the sentences for individual offences were properly accumulated. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the overall sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed.

In delivering the judgment, the appellate court acknowledged that the initial sentencing might have been influenced by the cumulative effect of multiple offences without sufficient consideration of the objective circumstances of each. The court found that the sentence for one of the offences was particularly excessive and disproportionate to the crime's nature. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the overall sentence to ensure it was fair and just, reflecting the correct balance between deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation. The appellate court's decision underscored the necessity for meticulous consideration of each offence's individual characteristics in the sentencing process.

Orders