R v Pham

The applicant, Pham, appealed against his sentence after pleading guilty to one charge of distributing, one charge of possessing and two charges of knowingly possessing child exploitation material. Pham was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended after six months, with an operational period of two years. Pham submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was heard in the Court of Appeal. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed on Pham was manifestly excessive. The court was also required to decide whether the amendments to the relevant sentencing provisions had retrospective effect.

The court considered that Pham's sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that Pham's offending was serious and warranted a significant sentence. However, the court considered that the sentence was not manifestly excessive because it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offending. The court also considered that the amendments to the relevant sentencing provisions did not have retrospective effect. The court held that the amendments altered procedural provisions and did not affect the substantive provisions of the legislation. Therefore, the amendments did not have retrospective effect and the sentencing judge was entitled to apply the sentencing provisions as at the time of sentencing.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.