Nguyen v The King

[2025] NZHC 1541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-217

[2025] NZHC 1541

BETWEEN

TUNG HOANG NGUYEN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

11 June 2025

Appearances:

C S Taylor for Appellant

R A van Boheemen for Respondent

Judgment:

12 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 12 June 2025 at 12 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors:           MC, Auckland

Counsel:            C S Taylor, Whangārei

NGUYEN v R [2025] NZHC 1541 [12 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 The appellant, Mr Nguyen, appeals against sentence on two charges of cultivating cannabis. The issue on any appeal against sentence is whether the end sentence is manifestly excessive.

[2]                 Judge Gibson sentenced Mr Nguyen on 10 April 2025.1 The Judge’s combined starting point on the two charges was two years’ imprisonment. There is no dispute as to that starting point.

[3]                 The Judge then reduced  the  starting  point  by  10  per  cent  for  each  of  Mr Nguyen’s prior good character and his guilty pleas.

[4]                 These reductions brought the Judge to 19 months’ imprisonment which the Judge then converted to a sentence of eight months’ home detention. It is worth pointing out that many Judges would have simply halved that 19 months and imposed a sentence of nine and a half months’ home detention.

[5]                 Mr Taylor, counsel for Mr Nguyen on appeal, submits that a greater reduction was required for Mr Nguyen’s guilty pleas. Moreover, Mr Taylor points out that the end result has been a sentence that is not on a par with Mr Nguyen’s co-offenders.

Discussion

[6]                 Mr Nguyen commenced discussions with the Crown regarding a resolution in February 2025, shortly after Mr Taylor was assigned as counsel in late-2024. Those discussions with the Crown resulted in the withdrawal of two charges and significant amendments to the summary of facts. Mr Nguyen’s guilty pleas followed agreement with the Crown, but were only entered shortly before trial.

[7]                 This was in contrast to Mr Nguyen’s co-offenders. One or more of those co-offenders reached a resolution with the Crown, and pleaded, at a much earlier stage in the proceedings, and received a reduction of 20 per cent for their pleas.

1      R v Nguyen [2025] NZDC 8787.

[8]                 Given that, I am not persuaded that any useful comparison can be drawn between the reduction allowed to those co-offenders, and that given to Mr Nguyen. Mr Nguyen commenced discussions with the Crown late in the piece, and that meant his pleas came late in the piece. The consequence of that is a lesser allowance for  Mr Nguyen’s guilty pleas. Given that, I am not persuaded any amendment to the sentence is required and I dismiss this appeal accordingly.

Peters J