Pham v R [2017] NSWCCA 75
The differential in aggregate sentences between the applicant and his co-offender was entirely justified by the differences in discounts for pleas and assistance, differences in culpability, and differences in the number and seriousness of offences. The sentence imposed on the applicant was not manifestly excessive and was within the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge. Therefore, there was no tenable basis for appeal and leave to appeal was refused.
- Parties
- Applicant: Dinh Khong Pham; Applicant: Dinh Khuong Pham; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 April 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal Refused
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence refused
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Disparity in Sentence, Manifest Excess, Aggregate Sentences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dinh Khong Pham
Applicant
Dinh Khuong Pham
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal Refused
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was unjustified disparity between sentences of co-offenders
- 2 Whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive
Ratio Decidendi
The differential in aggregate sentences between the applicant and his co-offender was entirely justified by the differences in discounts for pleas and assistance, differences in culpability, and differences in the number and seriousness of offences. The sentence imposed on the applicant was not manifestly excessive and was within the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge. Therefore, there was no tenable basis for appeal and leave to appeal was refused.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment