R v Paul Nguyen - [2021] NSWDC 356

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paul Nguyen [2021] NSWDC 356
Hearing dates: 30 April 2021
Date of orders: 30 April 2021
Decision date: 30 April 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years, 1 months and a non-parole of 2 years, 1 month: at [21].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Without regard for public safetySENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
R v Long Nguyen [2020] NSWDC 891
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Paul Nguyen (Offender)
Representation:
Ms S Reilly (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Ms L McSpedden (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/791; 2020/100072

Judgment

Paul Nguyen, aged 28, is to be sentenced today in relation to a number of offences. The sentencing process of course takes account of the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period, where applicable and to the purposes of sentencing outlined in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The sentencing process has been greatly assisted by very helpful written submissions from the Crown and from Ms McSpedden, counsel for the offender, and by the fact that I have already sentenced one co-offender (R v Long Nguyen [2020] NSWDC 891) and Magistrate Keady sentenced another co-offender (Vu) which has enabled the Court, when taking into account parity and totality considerations, to come to the view that the sentence to be imposed will be broadly in line with those imposed on co-offenders, given the unchallenged equality of culpability and objective seriousness in each case.
The offender has been charged with and will be sentenced for the following offences:

22 December 2019 incident (H73698628)

Sequence 4, an offence of being armed with intent contrary to s 115 of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. Attached to this sequence on a Form 1 is an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, in relation to the same victim, contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

26 December 2019 incident (H74365233)

Sequence 3, an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

1 January 2020 incident (H73698628)

Sequence 5, an offence of reckless wounding contrary to s 35(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, and is depicted on CCTV footage which is part of the Crown case. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, with a…

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 Paul Nguyen

Details

AGLC: R v Paul Nguyen [2021] NSWDC 356
Case: [2021] NSWDC 356
Decision Date: 30 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Paul Nguyen, the defendant faced sentencing following a breach of conditional liberty and multiple offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced various aggravating and mitigating factors, including the nature of the offences, the defendant's conduct, and his personal circumstances.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several key considerations. It was necessary to assess the significance of the defendant's breach of conditional liberty, particularly given his disregard for public safety. The court also needed to evaluate mitigating factors such as the defendant's plea of guilty and expressions of remorse. Furthermore, the court had to consider the overall circumstances of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the maximum penalties applicable to the specific charges.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the defendant's breach of conditional liberty as a serious aggravating factor, noting his lack of regard for public safety. The court also considered the multiple offences and the potential maximum penalties under the relevant legislation. However, the defendant's guilty plea and demonstrated remorse were recognised as mitigating factors. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's drug addiction and the special circumstances of his case. Ultimately, the court imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and one month, with a non-parole period of two years and one month. This sentence aimed to address the seriousness of the offences while also reflecting the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years, 1 months and a non-parole of 2 years, 1 month: at [21].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Paul Nguyen [2021] NSWDC 356
Hearing dates:	30 April 2021
Date of orders:	30 April 2021
Decision date:	30 April 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years, 1 months and a non-parole of 2 years, 1 month: at [21].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Without regard for public safetySENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	R v Long Nguyen [2020] NSWDC 891 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Paul Nguyen (Offender)
Representation:	Ms S Reilly (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Ms L McSpedden (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/791; 2020/100072