Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manifest excess – Parity – Fraud in accessing bank accounts – Applicant facilitated fraudulent transfer of funds – Applicant’s mental illness – Extent to which relied upon on the plea – Fresh evidence of hardship to offender’s family – Effect of ill health of family member on the applicant – Where hardship to family increasing burden of imprisonment – Residual discretion to exercise mercy – Sentencing discretion reopened – Non-parole period reduced.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr O.P Holdenson, Q.C. with Mr B.L. Sonnett
Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant
Mr M.J. Croucher
Ann Valos Criminal Law
MAXWELL, P.:
I have read in draft the reasons for judgment of Redlich, J.A. Those reasons deal comprehensively with the matters which led me to join in the orders made on 23 August 2006. There is nothing I would wish to add.
NEAVE, J.A.:
I also joined in the orders made on 23 August 2006 for the reasons given by Redlich, J.A.
REDLICH, J.A.:
The facts
On 21 April 2005 the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one count of conspiracy to defraud, and was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 months. The maximum penalty for conspiracy to defraud was 15 years imprisonment pursuant to s.320 Crimes Act 1958.
The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, leave having been refused by Chernov, J.A. on 16 September 2005. But for new evidence placed before this Court, I too would have refused leave to appeal.
The applicant was sentenced together with three co-offenders, Kieu Luong (“Luong”), Quang Vo (“Vo”) and Nguyet Tang (“Tang”). The applicant admitted two prior convictions from court appearances in 1995 and 1997 for the offences of trafficking a drug of dependence and theft, respectively.[1] Luong pleaded guilty to four counts of money laundering and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. Vo and Tang each pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering and were sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. All of the sentences
imposed on the applicant’s co-offenders were wholly suspended. Another co-offender, Erman Santosa, had been presented on one count of money laundering and had been sentenced by the same judge on 7 December 2004 to 4 months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of twelve months. Of the co-conspirators named on the presentment, only one, Huy Huu Nguyen was presented on a count of conspiracy to defraud and numerous other unrelated offences. He was sentenced by a different judge on 1 December 2004 to 5 years’ imprisonment with a minimum of 3 years before being eligible…
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 Nguyen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Nguyen [2006] VSCA 184
Case
[2006] VSCA 184
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Nguyen, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud in relation to accessing bank accounts and facilitating the transfer of funds. The appeal was against the sentence imposed, with the primary contention being that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Nguyen's case for a reduced sentence was based on several grounds, including his mental illness, the impact of the sentence on his family, and the effect of his ill health on his ability to comply with the sentence. The Court of Appeal considered these factors and the principles of parity, which require sentences to be proportionate and consistent with similar cases.
The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the court had the authority to reopen the sentencing discretion under specific circumstances. The court had to assess the extent to which Nguyen's mental illness and family circumstances could be considered in the sentencing process. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the effect of the sentence on Nguyen's family, particularly the hardship imposed by his imprisonment, and whether this warranted a reduction in the non-parole period.
The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the principles of parity and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that Nguyen's mental illness and the significant impact of his imprisonment on his family were relevant factors that warranted a reduction in the non-parole period. The court exercised its residual discretion to exercise mercy, reopening the sentencing discretion to ensure that the sentence was fair and just. The non-parole period was reduced, reflecting the court's consideration of the mitigating factors presented.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the non-parole period was reduced. The specific details of the new non-parole period were not provided in the summary.