Regina v Ly & Nguyen

In Regina v Ly & Nguyen, the applicants, Ly and Nguyen, appealed against their sentences for supplying a prohibited drug, heroin. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in New South Wales. Ly and Nguyen were co-offenders, and they argued that the sentencing judge had not properly applied the principles of parity between co-offenders. They also contended that the judge had erred by finding that the notional sentence to be imposed on a co-offender before a discount was allowed on account of a plea of guilty was the appropriate sentence to be imposed for them.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principles of parity between co-offenders and whether the sentencing judge erred by finding that the notional sentence to be imposed on a co-offender before a discount was allowed on account of a plea of guilty was the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the applicants. The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing and the circumstances of each offender, including the nature and extent of their involvement in the offence, their criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had not properly applied the principles of parity between co-offenders. The court noted that the co-offender had a criminal history, a drug addiction, and had been sentenced for unrelated offences, whereas the applicants had no criminal history or drug addiction. The court held that the sentencing judge had erred by finding that the notional sentence to be imposed on the co-offender before a discount was allowed on account of a plea of guilty was the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the applicants. The court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals be allowed, the convictions be upheld, and the sentences be quashed and the matters be remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of properly applying the principles of parity between co-offenders in sentencing and the need for sentencing judges to consider the individual circumstances of each offender.