PHAM v R [2014] NSWCCA 115

PHAM v R [2014] NSWCCA 115

The sentencing judge did not rely impermissibly on cases infected by Muldrock error, nor did he give determinative significance to the standard non-parole period. The sentences imposed were heavy but not unreasonable or plainly unjust in the context of the applicant's role, quantity of drugs supplied, and subjective circumstances. Appellate intervention was not warranted.

Parties
Applicant: Huy Pham; Respondent Crown: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Decision on Leave and Merits
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Supply of Prohibited Drugs, Manifest Excess, Muldrock Error
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Supply of Prohibited Drugs Manifest Excess Muldrock Error

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Huy Pham

Applicant

Regina

Respondent Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Decision on Leave and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge relied upon cases infected by 'Muldrock error'
  2. 2 Whether the sentenced imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not rely impermissibly on cases infected by Muldrock error, nor did he give determinative significance to the standard non-parole period. The sentences imposed were heavy but not unreasonable or plainly unjust in the context of the applicant's role, quantity of drugs supplied, and subjective circumstances. Appellate intervention was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed