Summary of Judgment Nguyen v the queen [2016] VSCA 198 11 August 2016 The Court of Appeal (Justice Redlich, Justice Tate and Justice Whelan) has determined that current sentencing practice for the offence of cultivation of a narcotic plant has not adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offence and that there has been a lack of consistency in the application of sentencing principles. It has said that in future sentencing courts should increase the sentences to be imposed for such offending. The issue arose in an appeal brought by the offender, Nam Son Nguyen, against the sentence he received in the County Court. Mr Nguyen had pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis weighing 38.9 kilograms, two charges of theft of electricity and one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence (cannabis). For cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, he was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The total sentence was three years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court rejected Nguyen’s argument that his sentence was manifestly excessive. On the agreed facts, Nguyen was an organiser with a financial interest in the cannabis crop and had a leading role in the criminal enterprise, so his offending was correctly assessed as in the mid-range of seriousness. After reviewing sentences passed in comparable cases, the Court concluded that Nguyen could not show that his sentence fell outside the range of existing sentences. The Court considered that this conclusion highlighted the inadequacy of current sentencing for cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. The Court said that because sentences in the upper category were so low, they had driven down sentences for mid-range offending and created a narrow band of sentences for mid-range offending spanning two and a half years to three years’ imprisonment. It said that, as a result, current sentencing practice has not adequately distinguished between significantly different degrees of criminality. The Court said that in future, sentencing courts should increase the sentences passed for offending in the middle category of seriousness. The Court explained the circumstances in which an appellate court could comment upon the adequacy of current sentencing practices. It was not limited to cases in which it directly affected the outcome of the appeal. The role of current sentencing standards in ensuring consistent treatment of like offenders was also discussed. In dismissing Nguyen’s appeal, the Court also rejected his argument that, in the circumstances of the case, the risk of his deportation at the end of his period of
Summary of Judgment Nguyen v the queen [2016] VSCA 198 11 August 2016 The Court of Appeal (Justice Redlich, Justice Tate and Justice Whelan) has determined that current sentencing practice for the offence of cultivation of a narcotic plant has not adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offence and that there has been a lack of consistency in the application of sentencing principles. It has said that in future sentencing courts should increase the sentences to be imposed for such offending. The issue arose in an appeal brought by the offender, Nam Son Nguyen, against the sentence he received in the County Court. Mr Nguyen had pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis weighing 38.9 kilograms, two charges of theft of electricity and one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence (cannabis). For cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, he was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The total sentence was three years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court rejected Nguyen’s argument that his sentence was manifestly excessive. On the agreed facts, Nguyen was an organiser with a financial interest in the cannabis crop and had a leading role in the criminal enterprise, so his offending was correctly assessed as in the mid-range of seriousness. After reviewing sentences passed in comparable cases, the Court concluded that Nguyen could not show that his sentence fell outside the range of existing sentences. The Court considered that this conclusion highlighted the inadequacy of current sentencing for cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. The Court said that because sentences in the upper category were so low, they had driven down sentences for mid-range offending and created a narrow band of sentences for mid-range offending spanning two and a half years to three years’ imprisonment. It said that, as a result, current sentencing practice has not adequately distinguished between significantly different degrees of criminality. The Court said that in future, sentencing courts should increase the sentences passed for offending in the middle category of seriousness. The Court explained the circumstances in which an appellate court could comment upon the adequacy of current sentencing practices. It was not limited to cases in which it directly affected the outcome of the appeal. The role of current sentencing standards in ensuring consistent treatment of like offenders was also discussed. In dismissing Nguyen’s appeal, the Court also rejected his argument that, in the circumstances of the case, the risk of his deportation at the end of his period of
summaryofjudgment_nguyenvthequeen2016vsca198.docx