R v Pham - [2025] NSWSC 180

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pham [2025] NSWSC 180
Hearing dates: 28 February 2025
Date of orders: 6 March 2025
Decision date: 06 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rigg J
Decision:
Mr Pham is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment commencing on 23 April 2023 and concluding on 22 April 2041, with a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 23 April 2023 and concluding on 22 April 2035.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Murder – Joint criminal enterprise to kill – offender not present at the scene of the murder – offender conveyed shooter and getaway driver to the car used by them – offender drove the shooter and getaway driver away from another location after the crime – offer and provision of money to offender – mild intellectual disability contributed to involvement in joint criminal enterprise

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Britton v R [2024] NSWCCA 138
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Le Nghia Pham (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Taylor (Crown)
M Avenell SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Nyman Gibson Miralis (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/130026
Publication restriction: Statutory prohibition on the publication of the name of the child present at the scene and any material that might identify them. See s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

jUDGMENT

The offender Le Nghia (Andy) Pham is to be sentenced for the murder of Taha Sabbagh, committed on 2 March 2023. He stood trial before a jury. The jury found him guilty of the offence on 5 December 2024.
The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years.

The circumstances of the offence

The deceased was shot outside the Elite Fight Force gym at Carlingford Road, Sefton at about 6:30 am on 2 March 2023, in the presence of a child. He was seated in the driver’s seat of his car and the child watched helplessly from the carpark, screaming. The shooter was masked. The number of shots, persistence of the shooter and the position of the last shot fired into the deceased clearly indicate an intention to kill. He was killed by the shots fired into him and emergency services were able to offer no assistance.
The deceased regularly drove to the gym for scheduled boxing lessons for the child. There is no known motivation for his murder. Police were able to discern no reason at all for Mr Sabbagh to be targeted. His brother gave evidence of his devoted and quiet family life, prosocial connections and stable employment.
The innocuous nature of Mr Sabbagh’s attendance at the gym, in the context of this investigation, led the police to believe and the Crown to suggest that there was a possibility…

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 Pham

Details

AGLC: R v Pham [2025] NSWSC 180
Case: [2025] NSWSC 180
Decision Date: 06 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Pham, was charged with murder as part of a joint criminal enterprise. Pham was not present at the scene of the murder, but had played a supporting role by conveying the shooter and the getaway driver to the car used by them. Pham also drove the shooter and the getaway driver away from another location after the crime. Pham was provided with money in return for his assistance, and it was argued that he had a mild intellectual disability which contributed to his involvement in the joint criminal enterprise. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was whether Pham’s role in the joint criminal enterprise amounted to murder.

The court was required to determine the appropriate legal characterisation of Pham’s role in the joint criminal enterprise. The prosecution argued that Pham’s actions amounted to murder, while the defence argued that Pham’s role was more akin to accessory after the fact. The court was also required to consider the impact of Pham’s mild intellectual disability on his involvement in the joint criminal enterprise, and whether this should be taken into account in determining his sentence.

The court found that Pham’s role in the joint criminal enterprise was significant, and that his actions amounted to murder. The court noted that Pham had provided essential support to the shooter and the getaway driver, and that without his assistance, the crime may not have been committed. The court also found that Pham’s mild intellectual disability did not mitigate his culpability for the crime. The court sentenced Pham to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the totality of his circumstances, including his disability and the offer and provision of money to him.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that Pham be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period to be determined by the sentencing judge. The court also ordered that Pham’s intellectual disability be taken into account in determining the length of his sentence.

Orders