REGINA v GIANG [2001] NSWCCA 276

REGINA v GIANG [2001] NSWCCA 276

Although the applicant had strong subjective circumstances and good prospects of rehabilitation, the offence was serious, did not fall at the lowest end of criminality, and required significant weight to general deterrence. It was open to the sentencing judge to reject the applicant's claim that he had abandoned the plan before learning police were aware of it, and the sentence of fifteen months imprisonment with an eight month non-parole period was within the sentencing discretion. No appellable error was demonstrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['doing an Act Intending to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'manifest Excess' 'full Time Custody' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation' 'periodic Detention' 'home Detention']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['doing an Act Intending to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'manifest Excess' 'full Time Custody' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation' 'periodic Detention' 'home Detention']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of fifteen months imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight months for an offence contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the applicant's early guilty plea, youth, academic and work history, contrition, prospects of rehabilitation, limited prior record and first time in custody." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing full-time custody rather than a non-custodial sentence, home detention or periodic detention.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant had strong subjective circumstances and good prospects of rehabilitation, the offence was serious, did not fall at the lowest end of criminality, and required significant weight to general deterrence. It was open to the sentencing judge to reject the applicant's claim that he had abandoned the plan before learning police were aware of it, and the sentence of fifteen months imprisonment with an eight month non-parole period was within the sentencing discretion. No appellable error was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']