Nguyen, Hung Manh v R [2020] NSWCCA 20

Nguyen, Hung Manh v R [2020] NSWCCA 20

There was no justifiable sense of grievance because the differences between the applicant's sentence and the co-offenders' sentences were clearly and explicably justified. The applicant had extensive and repeated involvement in the cultivation of all 157 cannabis plants, was observed attending the premises on nine...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of Nsw; Leave Granted and Appeal Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'co Offenders' 'cultivation of Commercial Quantity of Cannabis Plants' 'supply (deemed) of a Commercial Quantity of Cannabis' 'form 1 Offences' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Principle' 'co Offenders' 'cultivation of Commercial Quantity of Cannabis Plants' 'supply (deemed) of a Commercial Quantity of Cannabis' 'form 1 Offences' 'general Deterrence']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of Nsw; Leave Granted and Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a lack of parity between the sentence imposed on the applicant and the sentences imposed on his four co-offenders.' 'Whether any disparity gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance warranting appellate intervention.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no justifiable sense of grievance because the differences between the applicant's sentence and the co-offenders' sentences were clearly and explicably justified. The applicant had extensive and repeated involvement in the cultivation of all 157 cannabis plants, was observed attending the premises on nine occasions and performing cultivation tasks, and had a further serious Form 1 offence taken into account. By contrast, the co-offenders were sentenced only for discrete cultivation activity involving 23 plants over about two hours on one day. Those differences in role, extent of offending and objective seriousness justified the substantially different sentences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']