REGINA v DUONG [1999] NSWCCA 353

REGINA v DUONG [1999] NSWCCA 353

The sentence was manifestly inadequate and indicative of sentencing error because the judge imposed a sentence effectively concurrent with the existing drug sentence, thereby leaving the respondent unpunished for a serious bribery offence; treated the failure of the bribery attempt to reach fruition as mitigating when it was not; and imposed a head sentence inadequate for an attempt to corrupt police that, if successful, would have allowed a large quantity of heroin to reach the streets. A substantial cumulative sentence was required, subject to totality and double jeopardy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Crown appeal upheld; sentence quashed and substituted.
Legal Topics
['inadequacy of Sentence' 'offer Bribe' 'police Corruption' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'totality' 'crown Appeals']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['inadequacy of Sentence' 'offer Bribe' 'police Corruption' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'totality' 'crown Appeals']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for offering a bribe to police was so inadequate as to demonstrate error or departure from sentencing principle.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence effectively concurrent with the sentence for the drug offence, leaving the respondent unpunished for the bribery offence.' 'Whether the fact that the bribery attempt did not come to fruition mitigated the seriousness of the offence.' 'What sentence should be substituted having regard to double jeopardy and totality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly inadequate and indicative of sentencing error because the judge imposed a sentence effectively concurrent with the existing drug sentence, thereby leaving the respondent unpunished for a serious bribery offence; treated the failure of the bribery attempt to reach fruition as mitigating when it was not; and imposed a head sentence inadequate for an attempt to corrupt police that, if successful, would have allowed a large quantity of heroin to reach the streets. A substantial cumulative sentence was required, subject to totality and double jeopardy.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal upheld; sentence quashed and substituted.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'The sentence of Williams DCJ is quashed and in lieu thereof a head sentence of five years constituted of a minimum term of three years dating from 20 September 2001 and expiring on 19 September 2004 when the respondent will be eligible for parole, and an additional term of two years commencing on...