Police v Michael Shyh-Jye Nguyen [2011] NSWLC 5

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Police v Michael Shyh-Jye Nguyen [2011] NSWLC 5 Hearing dates: 18 January 2011 Decision date: 10 February 2011 Before: Henson DCJ, Chief Magistrate Decision: The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on each offence for 6 months and 18 days . There is no basis to depart from the standard relationship between the head sentence and the non-parole period. I fix a non-parole period of 4 months and 28 days. Catchwords: Criminal law - use and possess false document to influence exercise of a public duty Sentencing - offences analogous to public justice offences - need for general deterrence. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 254(b)(iii), 255(b) (iii), Part 7 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 5, 9, 21A, 22A Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998, s 22 Cases Cited: R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115 R v Thomson; R v Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 Markarian v R (2005) 79 ALJR 1048 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Slattery (1996) 90 A Crim R 519 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 R v Taylor [2000] NSWCCA 442 Category: Sentence Parties: Police Michael Shyh-Jye Nguyen File Number(s): 2010/264941

Judgment 1The offender appears before this court for sentence in relation to two offences. He has entered a plea of guilty to one count of using a false document to influence the exercise of a public duty and one count of possessing a false document to influence the exercise of a public duty. The respective charges are brought pursuant to Sections 254(b)(iii) and 255(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1900. 2The maximum penalty for each offence is 10 years imprisonment. Each matter falls within Table 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. When dealt with before the Local Court the maximum penalty that may be imposed for each offence is a sentence of 2 years imprisonment for each offence. Despite the jurisdictional limitation and in accordance with the well settled principles set out in R -v- Doan [2000] A Crim R the sentencing court is to have regard to the maximum legislative penalty not the jurisdictional limit. This is to ensure that the seriousness of the offending is measured against the express will of the parliament and by so doing promote the ideal of consistency in approach to sentencing within Courts at all levels.