Regina v Pham [2006] NSWCCA 288

Regina v Pham [2006] NSWCCA 288

The sentence for count 1 was lenient but within range and was not disturbed on a Crown appeal. The sentence for count 2 was manifestly inadequate because the offence was a serious, sophisticated commercial cannabis cultivation enterprise committed while the respondent was on bail, the sentencing judge gave the co-offender Bui's sentence greater significance than justified, and assistance provided before the later offence should not have reduced the sentence for that later offence. A sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period was appropriate after allowing 25 percent for the early plea and finding special circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Respondent Resentenced on Count 2
Outcome
Appeal allowed; count 1 sentence confirmed; count 2 sentence quashed and respondent resentenced to 4 years imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'supply of Cannabis Leaf' 'cultivation of Cannabis Plants' 'assistance to Authorities' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'offending While on Bail' 'parity With Co Offender' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['crown Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'supply of Cannabis Leaf' 'cultivation of Cannabis Plants' 'assistance to Authorities' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'offending While on Bail' 'parity With Co Offender' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Respondent Resentenced on Count 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for the two drug offences were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the combined discounts for guilty pleas and assistance to authorities were excessive.' 'Whether the sentence for count 2 gave excessive weight to parity with co-offender Bui and made too great an allowance for special circumstances.' 'Whether assistance provided before the later cultivation offence was relevant to sentence for that later offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence for count 1 was lenient but within range and was not disturbed on a Crown appeal. The sentence for count 2 was manifestly inadequate because the offence was a serious, sophisticated commercial cannabis cultivation enterprise committed while the respondent was on bail, the sentencing judge gave the co-offender Bui's sentence greater significance than justified, and assistance provided before the later offence should not have reduced the sentence for that later offence. A sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period was appropriate after allowing 25 percent for the early plea and finding special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; count 1 sentence confirmed; count 2 sentence quashed and respondent resentenced to 4 years imprisonment with a 2 year non-parole period.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The sentence by his Honour in respect of count 1 confirmed, namely, 1 year and 8 months (commencing 20.6.05 and expiring 19.2.07).' 'The sentence by his Honour in respect of count 2 is quashed and, in lieu thereof, there should be a sentence of 4 years imprisonment from 20.6.06 to 19.6.10, with a...