CO, Ngoc Van v R [2011] NSWCCA 148

CO, Ngoc Van v R [2011] NSWCCA 148

The sentencing judge did not err in treating general deterrence and punishment as important, in assessing the offence as at the lower end of the middle range of objective seriousness, or in finding limited remorse. The finding that the Applicant was fully involved in the cultivation and intended to harvest and sell the cannabis was open. Although the head sentence was high compared with many District Court sentences, recent Court of Criminal Appeal decisions showed that the sentence of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['cultivation of Cannabis Plants by Enhanced Indoor Means' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'manifest Excess' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['cultivation of Cannabis Plants by Enhanced Indoor Means' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'manifest Excess' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and severe or manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge commenced with an excessively high sentence.' "Whether insufficient allowance was made for the Applicant's favourable subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating general deterrence and punishment as of particular importance.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the offence as within the lower end of the middle range of objective seriousness.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the Applicant's remorse was limited."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in treating general deterrence and punishment as important, in assessing the offence as at the lower end of the middle range of objective seriousness, or in finding limited remorse. The finding that the Applicant was fully involved in the cultivation and intended to harvest and sell the cannabis was open. Although the head sentence was high compared with many District Court sentences, recent Court of Criminal Appeal decisions showed that the sentence of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']