Nguyen v WA

[2009] WASCA 8

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Parity of sentencing
5. › Co-offenders with different roles and antecedents
6. › Whether disparity between sentences gives rise to justifiable sense of grievance
7. › Whether more severe sentence already as lenient as could sensibly be imposed
8. › Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Totality principle
5. › Multiple drug offences
6. › Whether aggregate sentence just and appropriate measure of total criminality
7. › Two limbs of totality principle
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Cumulation of sentences
5. › One transaction rule
6. › Cultivation of cannabis at two separate locations
7. › Whether offences part of one transaction
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Disputed facts on sentencing
5. › Whether sentencing judge obliged to conduct hearing before rejecting accused's version
6. › Obligation on accused to call evidence when facts controverted
7. › R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

Quick Take

The parity principle does not require reduction of a sentence that is already as lenient as could sensibly be imposed, even where a co-offender has received a markedly more lenient sentence. For parity purposes in multi-count cases, the relevant comparison is the total effective sentence, not individual orders for cumulation and concurrence. Sentences of 3 years' imprisonment per count for large-scale hydroponic cannabis cultivation (124-148 plants, crop values of $296,000-$352,000) at separate locations are within the appropriate range in Western Australia.