Appeal allowed; Substitution of sentence of penal servitude of twenty-four months and an additional term of eighteen months to commence from date of judgment.
- 18 -
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60561/98
SPIGELMAN CJ WOOD CJ at CL NEWMAN J HULME J SIMPSON J
Wednesday 12 May 1999
REGINA v Hoai Vinh TRAN
JUDGMENT
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I have read the judgment of Wood CJ at CL. I agree with his Honour’s reasons and the order he proposes.
**********
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60561/98
SPIGELMAN CJ WOOD CJ at CL NEWMAN J HULME J SIMPSON J
Wednesday 12 May 1999
Regina v Hoai Vinh TRAN
JUDGMENT
2 WOOD CJ at CL: The respondent pleaded guilty on 28 April 1998 to one count of armed robbery (s97(1) Crimes Act 1900). He asked that an offence of supply prohibited drug (s25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985) and a further offence of goods in custody (s527C Crimes Act 1900) be taken into account on a Form 1. 3 A conviction was recorded, but pursuant to s 558 of the Crimes Act his Honour Judge Sides QC deferred passing sentence upon condition that the respondent enter into a recognisance, self, in the sum of $500, to be of good behaviour for a period of three years and six months, and to appear for sentence if called upon for any breach occurring during that period. The recognisance was subject to conditions that the respondent accept the supervision and guidance of the New South Wales Probation & Parole Service; that he accept the reasonable direction of that Service in regard to assessment and treatment of his drug addiction and that he pay compensation in the sum of $810 to the victim of the robbery. From that sentence the Crown has appealed under s5D Criminal Appeal Act 1912. 4 The armed robbery occurred on 3 October 1997 when the respondent, and two co-offenders, entered a video shop in Greenfield Park. Each offender was wearing a balaclava. The respondent produced a replica hand gun, pointed it at the attendant, and demanded that he open the till, from which $660 was removed. A further $150 and a visa card, were taken from the attendant’s wallet. The respondent gave evidence during the sentencing proceedings, in which he admitted that the robbery had been planned by the three…
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 Tran
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 109
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Tran involved the sentencing of the respondent, Tran, for the crime of armed robbery. Tran pleaded guilty to the offence and the matter proceeded to sentencing in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The offence involved Tran participating in a robbery where a victim was threatened with a firearm, resulting in the victim being intimidated and robbed of their property. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence under section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the character of the offender.
The primary legal issues the court had to address included the assessment of the severity of the armed robbery, the role Tran played in the offence, and the appropriate weight to be given to Tran's background and mitigating factors. The court had to balance these considerations against the need to deter similar offences and uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The defence argued for a lesser sentence, highlighting Tran's cooperation with authorities and his lack of a prior criminal record. The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasised the seriousness of armed robbery and the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime.
The Supreme Court, in delivering its judgment, considered the severity of the armed robbery and the role Tran played in the offence. The court acknowledged Tran's cooperation with authorities but ultimately found that the nature of the offence warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, to provide deterrence, and to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court sentenced Tran to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length of the sentence provided in the judgment.
The final orders of the court included the sentencing of Tran to imprisonment for a term determined by the court, along with any additional orders deemed necessary under the law. The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing the individual circumstances of the offender with the broader societal need to address and deter serious criminal conduct.