R v TNV

Case [2014] NSWSC 1510 31 October 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v TNV [2014] NSWSC 1510
Hearing dates: 9-10 October 2014
Decision date: 31 October 2014
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
For the murder of Brian Bao Dung Huynh, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 13 years and 7 months, comprised of a non-parole period of 8 years and 10 months commencing on 11 July 2012 and expiring on 10 May 2021, with a balance of term of 4 years and 9 months expiring on 10 February 2026.
For the murder of Phuc Uy Nguyen, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 15 years and 3 months, comprised of a non-parole period of 9 years and 11 months commencing on 11 July 2016 and expiring on 10 June 2026, with a balance of term of 5 years and 4 months expiring on 10 October 2031.
You will be first eligible for release to parole on 10 June 2026.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - multiple offenders - guilty plea - youth of offender
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 6
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 54D(3)
Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; 201 A Crim R 379
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
IE v R [2008] NSWCCA 70; 183 A Crim R 150
JT v R [2011] NSWCCA 128
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 182 A Crim R 571
MJ v R [2010] NSWCCA 52
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Jin [2011] NSWSC 169
R v Nguyen and Luong [2011] NSWSC 562
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
TNV (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
N Adams (Crown)
G Brady (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Nyman Gibson Stewart (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/237851
Publication restriction: Non-publication order as to offender's name

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: TNV was arraigned before me on 16 June 2014 (the date listed for his trial) at which time he pleaded guilty to the murder of Phuc Uy Nguyen and the murder of Brian Bao Dung Huynh contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Both deceased died from stab wounds inflicted when they were attacked outside a bar in Bankstown on 1 February 2009. The offender participated in that attack with three co-offenders. He was aged 17 years old at the time of the murders (having turned 17 in January 2009) and 22 at the time of sentence.

The offender left Australia on 6 February 2009 and travelled to Vietnam where his father resides. He voluntarily returned to Australia on 28 March 2012. He was arrested on 11 July 2012.

On 12 July 2012, he participated in a lengthy recorded interview with police where he admitted being party to the attack in which…

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 TNV

Details

AGLC: R v TNV [2014] NSWSC 1510
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1510
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v TNV involved a dispute concerning the sentencing of a young offender who had pleaded guilty to murder. The court had to determine an appropriate penalty for the defendant, who was a minor at the time of the offence, and had entered a guilty plea. The case was of particular significance due to the severity of the crime and the age of the offender.

The court was tasked with considering several legal issues, including the appropriate weight to give to the defendant's guilty plea, the need to balance retribution and deterrence with the rehabilitation of the offender, and the relevance of the defendant's age in determining the sentence. The court also had to weigh the principles of proportionality and consistency with other cases involving similar offences. Additionally, the court needed to consider the aggravating factors of the case, including the brutal nature of the crime and the presence of multiple offenders.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ultimately decided that the defendant should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and the fact that he was a minor at the time of the offence, but also emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need for appropriate punishment. The court found that a sentence of this length would provide sufficient retribution and deterrence, while also allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact of the sentence on the victim's family and the broader community.

The court made no specific orders beyond the sentence. The decision highlights the importance of balancing various factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the need for appropriate punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders