R v Nguyen

[2018] ACTSC 146

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Nguyen

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 146

Hearing Dates:

15 March 2018; 21 May 2018

DecisionDate:

21 May 2018

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Sentenced to one year and 11 months’ imprisonment, to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order with 150 hours of community service to be performed within 12 months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – property offences – arson – damage to building by explosive – offence of substantial objective seriousness – extensive and costly damage to property – young offender – no significant criminal history – offender has shown regret and remorse – intensive correction order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 35, 36, 77, 78, 79

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 404

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Anthony Nguyen (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr J Walker (Crown)

Mr A Fraser (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Armstrong Legal (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 325 of 2017

1. On 8 November 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to a charge that, on 7 March 2017, he committed the offence of arson in that he caused damage to a building by explosive contrary to s 404(1) and s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

1. The maximum penalty for an offence against s 404 is 15 years’ imprisonment and a fine.

1. Several co-offenders were involved in the offence.  One juvenile co-offender is yet to be sentenced.  Other co-offenders have not been charged, or have not been committed to the Supreme Court for trial or sentence. 

1. The offender entered the guilty plea after the charges and facts had been agreed with the Crown. A brief of evidence had not been served. Pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act), the offender is entitled to a discount of a little less than 25 per cent.

Facts

1. In late 2015, Bupa Aranda, an aged care facility, was progressively vacated and operations were moved to a more modern facility.  One of the reasons that the premises was vacated was a concern about asbestos contamination.  A security firm was engaged to monitor the security of the abandoned premises. 

1. At about 4:30 pm on 7 March 2017, the offender and numerous others engaged in a conversation on Facebook Messenger through a group chat entitled “frashin bin it”.  The offender’s user profile name was “kim jong un”.  The primary co-offender’s name was “Slim shady”. 

1. During the conversation, the members of the group conversation discussed detonating an explosive device that night for the purpose of setting alight the Bupa facility.  The offender and the principal co-offender discussed the materials that would be required to construct an explosive device. 

1. At about 9.00 pm that night, a group comprising eight people assembled at the Coles Express service station in Gungahlin.  The offender and principal co-offender were present.  They entered the rear seat of a vehicle and began to dismantle sparklers and…