Legal Research
Cases
R v Huynh

R v Huynh

Case [2007] NSWSC 409 24 April 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Huynh [2007] NSWSC 409

HEARING DATE(S): 23/06/06, 25/09/06, 3/11/06, 23/2/07, 13/04/07, 19/04/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: For offence of demanding money with menaces, offender sentenced to a fixed term of 6 years to commence on 23 August 2003 and to expire on 22 August 2009. For offence of murder, offender sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 years with a total term of 22 years. Each term of that sentence is to commence on 23 August 2005. The non-parole period will expire on 22 August 2021 and the total term on 22 August 2027. The total effective non-parole period is 18 years and the total effective term is 24 years. The offender is thus eligible for release on parole on 22 August 2021.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - offences of murder and demand money with menaces - death occurring during course of abduction of victim - assessment of offender's evidence given after conviction - whether or not standard non-parole period to be applied - application of principles of totality

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Andrews v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 505
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
Pearce v the Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Apps [2006] NSWCCA 290
R v Durocher-Yvon (2003) 58 NSWLR 581
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Imnetu [2006] NSWCCA 203
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Wallace [2007] NSWCCA 63
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Weldon & Carberry (2002) 136 A Crim R 55
R v Yildiz (2006) 160 A Crim R 218
RNM v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 375

PARTIES: Regina
Trung Son Huynh

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1247/2005

COUNSEL: J Kiely SC (Crown)
P Bodor QC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions)
Ford Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

TUESDAY 24 APRIL 2007

1247/2005 – REGINA v TRUNG SON HUYNH

Introduction

1 HIS HONOUR: Trung Son Huynh (the offender) stands for sentence in respect of two offences. First, he is to be sentenced following his conviction by a jury of having murdered Vay Linh Phun between 19 and 23 August 2003. Secondly, he is to be sentenced following his plea of guilty of having on 22 August 2003 demanded with menaces $70,000 from the deceased’s father (San Lai Phun) with intent to steal that property. The maximum penalties for the offences of murder and demanding money with menaces are life, and 10 years, imprisonment respectively.

Factual background

2 As the…

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 [2007] NSWSC 409
Case: [2007] NSWSC 409
Decision Date: 24 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants in this case, Huynh and a co-accused, were found guilty of the murder of a man during an abduction and a charge of demanding money with menaces. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the sentencing of the defendants. The primary issue before the court was whether the standard non-parole period should apply to the sentences imposed on the defendants, considering the unique circumstances of the crime and the evidence provided by the defendants after their conviction.

The court had to consider the principles of totality, which require that the totality of the sentences be proportionate to the totality of the offending. Given that the death occurred during the course of the abduction, the court needed to balance the severity of the murder charge with the demand money with menaces charge. The court also needed to assess the credibility and relevance of the defendants' evidence given post-conviction, to determine if this should impact the sentencing. The court was tasked with ensuring that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the defendants' potential for rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the murder, which was carried out in a particularly brutal and callous manner. The court found that the principles of totality and the need for general deterrence warranted a sentence that did not automatically apply the standard non-parole period. Instead, the court imposed sentences that reflected the totality of the offending, ensuring they were proportionate and served the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence. The court concluded that the standard non-parole period should not be applied in this instance due to the exceptional circumstances and the need to consider the broader impact of the crime on the community.

Orders