R v Nguyen

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 217 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
PHI HOANG NGUYEN

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., CHARLES and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 February 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 February 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 20

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Home invasions – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs M.M. Williams, S.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Ms F. Dalziel	Victoria Legal Aid

WARREN, C.J. (for the Court):

In this application the Court has had the benefit of the statement of the facts and circumstances delivered by the sentencing judge in his remarks on sentence and, further, the reasons for judgment of Callaway, J.A. in the appeal of the Director relating to the co-accused.[1] More recently, the Court has had the benefit of the reasons for judgment of Ormiston, J.A. delivered on 18 November 2005 on the initial application made under s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958. The Court does not consider it necessary, therefore, to revisit the facts and circumstances therein.
[1]DPP v. Karipis [2005] VSCA 119.

The Court has considered the matters urged both in written and oral submissions by Ms Dalziel for the applicant. However, the Court does not consider the matter is one appropriate for the granting of leave, for the reasons stated by Ormiston, J.A. on 18 November 2005, and which reasons the Court gratefully adopts.

Accordingly, the application will be refused and dismissal ordered accordingly.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Nguyen, was convicted for home invasions and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The matter was brought before the court on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was lodged and heard by the court. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether it should be quashed or varied.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, meaning so high as to shock the conscience or to be unjust in the circumstances. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court also examined whether the sentence was outside the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court recognised the seriousness of the home invasion offences but found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed. The court concluded that the sentence was not so high as to shock the conscience or to be unjust in the circumstances. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The appellant's conviction and sentence remain intact.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established