Regina v Luong [2002] NSWCCA 238

Regina v Luong [2002] NSWCCA 238

After taking into account the considerable objective gravity of the offence, the applicant's early admissions, early guilty plea, contrition, disclosure to police of matters they would not otherwise have known, and his subjective circumstances, the sentence of five and a half years was manifestly excessive. The complaint about lack of particulars did not establish a miscarriage because the acts relied upon appeared clearly from the applicant's record of interview, were known to him, and had been volunteered by him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'admissions to Police' 'special Circumstances' 'sentence Served on Protection']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'admissions to Police' 'special Circumstances' 'sentence Served on Protection']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of five years six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the applicant's frank admissions, provision of information not otherwise known to police, early plea of guilty and contrition warranted a substantial discount." 'Whether special circumstances existed because the sentence would be served on protection, the applicant was in full-time custody for the first time, his age, and his need for supervision on parole.' 'Whether the sentencing hearing miscarried because the Crown had not particularised the acts relied on as instances of supply.']

Ratio Decidendi

After taking into account the considerable objective gravity of the offence, the applicant's early admissions, early guilty plea, contrition, disclosure to police of matters they would not otherwise have known, and his subjective circumstances, the sentence of five and a half years was manifestly excessive. The complaint about lack of particulars did not establish a miscarriage because the acts relied upon appeared clearly from the applicant's record of interview, were known to him, and had been volunteered by him.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed; sentence quashed.' 'In lieu of the sentence imposed and taking into account the offence of goods in custody, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years, commencing on 15 March 2001, with a non-parole period of two years, commencing that day and...