Pham v R [2017] NSWCCA 75

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Pham v R [2017] NSWCCA 75 Hearing dates: 18 April 2017 Date of orders: 18 April 2017 Decision date: 24 April 2017 Before: Basten JA at [1]; McCallum J at [21]; Fagan J at [22] Decision: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence. Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence – alleged disparity compared to sentence for co-offender – comparison of sentences without reference to disparate discounts unsound – bases for disparities explained Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dinh Khong Pham (Applicant 2013/250252) Dinh Khuong Pham (Applicant 2013/354497) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Barrie (Applicant) Ms H Roberts (Respondent)

Solicitors: George Sten & Co (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2013/250252; 2013/354497 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 5 August 2016 Before: Norton SC DCJ File Number(s): 2013/250252; 2013/354497

Judgment 1. BASTEN JA: On 5 August 2016 the applicant, Dinh Khong Pham, was sentenced by Judge Norton SC in respect of four counts of break and enter and steal, with a further 10 counts being taken into account on a Form 1. The applicant was also sentenced for a robbery involving the snatching of a handbag containing personal valuables, in the course of which the victim suffered actual bodily harm. The Form 1 with respect to that offence included a further offence of being carried in a stolen vehicle. The sentencing judge imposed a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months, with an additional term of 3 years and 6 months. 2. Pursuant to an amended notice of appeal filed on 9 February 2017, the applicant alleged that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentence did not "reflect parity with the sentence imposed upon the co-offender Daniel Gordon." 3. It was clear from written submissions filed on 25 January 2017 that the focus of the application was upon the alleged disparity between the applicant's sentence and that imposed on Mr Gordon. Although ground 1 was not abandoned, the emphasis on disparity was maintained at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons which follow, the proposed grounds were untenable and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Court refused leave to appeal.