Vu v R [2023] NSWCCA 315
The sentencing judge materially erred by treating certain offences as subject to standard non-parole periods when legislation did not provide for them, requiring appellate resentencing. Other claimed errors (regarding proceeds of crime and good character) did not warrant further reduction.
- Parties
- Applicant: Duc Thang Vu; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 December 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, applicant resentenced
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Cultivation of Prohibited Plant, Supply of Cannabis, Conspiracy to Manufacture Drugs, Sentencing Principles, Standard Non Parole Periods, Material Error in Sentencing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Duc Thang Vu
Applicant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by considering standard non-parole periods for offences where they do not apply
- 2 Whether there was a material error in sentencing requiring resentencing
- 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred regarding proceeds of crime findings
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge materially erred by treating certain offences as subject to standard non-parole periods when legislation did not provide for them, requiring appellate resentencing. Other claimed errors (regarding proceeds of crime and good character) did not warrant further reduction.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, applicant resentenced
Orders
- Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court on 27 May 2022
- Allow the appeal and set aside the sentence
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