Viengkham, K. v The Queen Narayan, R. v The Queen [1986] FCA 27

CATCHWORDS Criminal Law - Appeals from sentences - Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that accused did not show genuine contrition - Whether sentences excessive - Whether sentencing judge erred in imposing cumulative sentences - Whether a single non-parole period should be fixed where a number of sentences imposed - Whether judge may have regard to remissions and

reductions under New South Wales legislation.

Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.) in its application to the Australian Capital Territory, ss.33, 63, 76, 90A, 97

Parole Ordinance 1976 (A.C.T.), s.7

KAYASITH VIENGKHAM v. THE QUEEN (ACT G341 of 1984) ROHIT NARAYAN v. THE QUEEN (ACT G342 of 1984)

Neaves, Beaumont and Wilcox JJ 13 February 1986

Canberra

Counsel for Viengkham: Mr B. J. Salmon and Ms M Perrett Solicitors for Viengkham: MacPhillamy Cummins and Gibson

Counsel for Narayan: Mr A. Gillies Solicitors for Narayan: Legal Aid Office (A.C.T.)

Counsel for respondent: Mr K. J. Hempenstall Solicitor for respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Date of hearing: 30 October 1985

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISTON

) ) ) ) No. ACT G 341 of 1984 ) ) )

ON_APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME:

COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN : KAYASITH VIENGKHAM Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN Respondent

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Neaves, Beaumont and Wilcox JJ.

DATE OF ORDER

WHERE MADE

13 February 1986

Canberra

MINUTE OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.

The orders made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 13 November 1984 be varied by setting aside the non-parole periods fixed therein and in lieu thereof fixing the period of eight years as the period within which Kayasith Viengkham is to be ineligible for parole,

Otherwise the appeal be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.