R v Vu

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, Mr Vu, by a sentencing judge. Mr Vu had pleaded guilty to eight counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, possession of a firearm without a licence, serious criminal trespass (non-residential), and theft. The sentencing judge imposed a head sentence of 28 years for the robbery and attempted robbery offences, with a 25 per cent reduction for early pleas and contrition, resulting in 21 years. For the trespass and theft offences, a 18-month sentence was imposed with a 33 per cent reduction for early pleas, resulting in 12 months. These sentences were ordered to be cumulative, leading to a total head sentence of 22 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years.

The central issues before the appellate court were whether the reductions applied for Mr Vu's early pleas of guilty, his cooperation with the police, and his contrition and remorse were inadequate. Specifically, the court considered whether separate reductions should have been applied for the guilty pleas and for the cooperation, contrition, and remorse, potentially leading to a greater overall reduction than 25 per cent. The court was also asked to determine if, in all the circumstances, the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The appellate court reasoned that while sympathy for Mr Vu and his family was understandable, it could not override the fundamental principles of sentencing. These principles included the need to reflect the number and seriousness of the offences, the imperative of individual and general deterrence, and the significant impact of the offending. The court noted that Mr Vu had promptly admitted his involvement and had cooperated fully with the police by revealing the location of the firearm and stolen items. However, the court concluded that the sentencing judge had adequately taken these factors into account when imposing the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the reductions applied for the guilty pleas and cooperation were appropriate in the circumstances of the serious offending.