Viengkham, K. v The Queen Narayan, R. v The Queen [1986] FCA 27

Viengkham, K. v The Queen Narayan, R. v The Queen [1986] FCA 27

The appeals turned on whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing cumulative sentences and separate non-parole periods. The Court held that cumulative sentences were appropriate given a distinct course of conduct following the initial offences, but that only a single non-parole period should have been fixed for each appellant. The sentencing judge's findings on contrition and the severity of the sentences were not in error, but the fixing of separate non-parole periods and consideration of remissions were errors requiring correction.

Parties
Appellant: Kayasith Viengkham; Appellant: Rohit Narayan; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
Outcome
Viengkham's appeal dismissed save for adjustment of non-parole period; Narayan's appeal allowed with orders varied.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Concurrent and Cumulative Sentences, Contrition, Parole Eligibility, Remissions
Criminal Law Sentencing Concurrent and Cumulative Sentences Contrition Parole Eligibility Remissions

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kayasith Viengkham

Appellant

Rohit Narayan

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that accused did not show genuine contrition
  2. 2 Whether sentences excessive
  3. 3 Whether sentencing judge erred in imposing cumulative sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals turned on whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing cumulative sentences and separate non-parole periods. The Court held that cumulative sentences were appropriate given a distinct course of conduct following the initial offences, but that only a single non-parole period should have been fixed for each appellant. The sentencing judge's findings on contrition and the severity of the sentences were not in error, but the fixing of separate non-parole periods and consideration of remissions were errors requiring correction.

Court Disposition

Viengkham's appeal dismissed save for adjustment of non-parole period; Narayan's appeal allowed with orders varied.

Orders

  • For Viengkham: The Supreme Court orders be varied by setting aside the non-parole periods fixed and instead fixing eight years as the period within which Viengkham is ineligible for parole. Otherwise, appeal dismissed.
  • For Narayan: The appeal allowed. The Supreme Court orders be varied by (a) setting aside the order that the one-year sentence for indecent assault be served cumulatively, and ordering it to be served concurrently with other sentences; (b) setting aside the non-parole periods and instead fixing six years as the...