NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision: 205 A Crim R 106
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238
HEARING DATE(S): 13 May 2010; final written submissions - 5 October 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 22 October 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Macfarlan JA at 1; Johnson J at 2; RA Hulme J at 137
Hai Van Nguyen: (a) Crown appeal allowed; (b) sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Walmsley SC in the Sydney District Court on 6 November 2009 set aside; (c) in their place: (i) for the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, cocaine, taking into account the offences on the schedule under s.16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Mr Nguyen is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 16 years commencing on 19 May 2008 and expiring on 18 May 2024; DECISION: (ii) for the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, methamphetamine, Mr Nguyen is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 16 years commencing on 19 May 2010 and expiring on 18 May 2026; A non-parole period is fixed of 12 years commencing on 19 May 2008 and expiring on 18 May 2020. Phuong Thu Thi Pham: (a) Crown appeal allowed; (b) sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Berman SC in the Sydney District Court on 10 December 2009 set aside; (c) in its place, taking into account the offence on the schedule under s.16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Ms Pham is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 15 years commencing on 19 May 2008 and expiring on 18 May 2023, with a non-parole period of 10 years commencing on 19 May 2008 and expiring on 18 May 2018.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - Crown appeals - one offender pleads guilty to importing commercial quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine - second offender pleads guilty to attempted possession of commercial quantity of unlawfully imported cocaine with a similar offence concerning methamphetamine to be taken into account on sentence under s.16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - claim by Crown that sentences manifestly inadequate - assessment of roles of offenders - assessment of objective gravity of offences - held that sentences manifestly inadequate - no discretionary reasons why Court should not intervene - offenders resentenced
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate