Thiu Dieu Vu v Regina [2018] NSWCCA 122
No error of principle by the sentencing judge was demonstrated. The same indicative sentences for counts 1 and 3 were justified by the Form 1 offences attached and the circumstances of the offending. The disparity in sentences between the applicant and co-offender Mr Vu was justified by differences in roles and criminality. The aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 June 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'aggregate Sentences' 'parity Principle' 'manifest Excess']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in the approach to indicative sentences leading to an excessive aggregate sentence' 'Whether there was a justifiable sense of grievance comparing the sentence imposed on the applicant to that of a co-offender' 'Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive']
Ratio Decidendi
No error of principle by the sentencing judge was demonstrated. The same indicative sentences for counts 1 and 3 were justified by the Form 1 offences attached and the circumstances of the offending. The disparity in sentences between the applicant and co-offender Mr Vu was justified by differences in roles and criminality. The aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted' 'Appeal dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment