Director of Public Prosecutions v Kuah Choon Siong & Vu Nguyen
[2013] VCC 1213
•13 June 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-12-02366
CR-13-00161
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KUAH CHOON SIONG VU NGUYEN |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Allen | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 June 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. Kuah Choon Siong & Vu Nguyen | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1213 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms T Saville | |
| For the Accused (Nguyen) | Mr T Strong | |
| For the Accused (Siong) | Mr B Johnston |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Vu Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity. You also plead guilty to another count of cultivation of a narcotic plant.
2 Kuah Choon Siong, you have pleaded guilty to cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity.
3 Mr Nguyen, you also pleaded guilty to a number of related summary offences, namely to the charges of possessing a prohibited weapon, two charges, possessing ammunition and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. You Mr Nguyen, also admitted two previous court appearances, both of them quite some time ago. There was a minor matter in 2004 of shops theft and a more serious matter of trafficking in 1999. I note that that trafficking charge was accompanied by a charge of using heroin and the disposition of the court was a Community Based Order requiring you, amongst other things, to undergo assessment and treatment in relation to drug addiction.
4 The circumstances of your offending, each of you, were set out in the prosecution opening which was marked as Exhibit A and which will remain on the court file. Briefly summarised, those circumstances were as follows. You Mr Nguyen, at the time of the offending, were aged 31 and you, Kuah Choon Siong, were aged 25. In 2012, as a result of various forms of investigation including surveillance, the police had identified three addresses as being used for the cultivation of cannabis, namely a property at 6 Uvadale Grove, Kew, a property at 10 Bedford Court, Hoppers Crossing and a property at 10 Bieske Road, Grovedale. On 8 August 2012, the police obtained a search warrant in relation to each of those addresses.
5 On 13 August 2012, the police attended the address in Kew and executed the warrant. Once they had gained entry, the police observed a sophisticated hydroponic cannabis crop growing in four rooms of the house. There was a large amount of hydroponic equipment including transformers, lampshades, fans, water pumps, industrial fans, timers and the like. The total number of cannabis plants located at that address was 79 and the total combined weight of all the cannabis located there was 4.98 kilograms.
6 On 14 August, the police attended the Grovedale address and again upon gaining entry, observed a sophisticated hydroponic cannabis crop growing in four rooms of that house. They also located were various items of equipment necessary for the hydroponic cultivation of cannabis, including transformers, lampshades, light globes, switches, water pumps and timers. At those premises, the number of cannabis plants located was 96 and the total combined weight of all of the cannabis located was 64.96 kilograms.
7 Finally, on 13 August 2012, the police attended the address at Hoppers Crossing, and there again observed a hydroponic cannabis crop growing in the garage and a room attached to the garage. You Mr Siong, were present at the time and were arrested by the police and conveyed to the Mill Park Police Station for interview. In the garage, the police located 21 cannabis plants, having a weight of 31.76 kilograms. They also located there similar equipment as found in the other premises, such as transformers, power boards, lampshades, filters, water pumps and timers. In the extension adjoining the garage the police located a further 59 cannabis plants. I withdraw that. They located a further 99 cannabis plants in total, and similar equipment.
8 It is important to note that you Mr Nguyen are charged in relation to the 21 plants and the 31.76 kilograms found in the garage itself, whilst you Mr Siong, are charged in relation to the total number of plants being 120 plants and the total combined weight of all the cannabis round at those premises, namely 34.62 kilograms.
9 On 15 August, you Mr Nguyen, were intercepted by the police and arrested. Upon a personal search, the police located $1550 in cash in your pocket. In a later search of your home address, the police located an operational Taser, a silver imitation handgun and ammunition round and ammunition magazine. Elsewhere in the house they located a green cylinder containing more rounds of ammunition and shotgun cartridges.
10 Both of you participated in records of interview. To the credit of each of you, you made full and frank admissions to the police, which of course I take into account in your favour. You Mr Nguyen, explained to the police that you were effectively engaged as a supervisor in relation to these three crops. You explained that you had an agreement with those who employed you to be paid a percentage in relation to the Kew property, namely 20 per cent and the Grovedale property, namely ten per cent. In relation to the Hoppers Crossing crop, you told the police that no agreement had been reached with those who employed you as to how much you would be paid.
11 When asked your reason for cultivating cannabis, you told the police, "I'm really stuck in life. I am desperate for money to pay back money that I owe, that I borrowed before. I think that was an easy way out and that's why". Your counsel later expanded upon that reason in some detail. You Mr Siong, told the police that you had been living in the house in question at Hoppers Crossing for about two months. You had been employed by a man you called "The Boss" to water the plants and to trim them. You were promised that you would be paid four to $500 per week, but until then you had been paid nothing except $50 on three separate occasions.
12 Cultivation of a narcotic plant is a very serious offence. Cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity carries one of the longest gaol sentences applicable to any crime in this State, namely 25 years. Cultivation of a narcotic plant simplicita itself carries a serious gaol term of 15 years. The law has made it clear time and time again that in cases such as this, as the prosecutor submitted, the sentencing objectives of general deterrence and specific deterrence are to be given significant weight. That is, the sentence should be stern in order to discourage other people from engaging or being tempted to engage in this kind of conduct, even when they are desperate. The sentences that I propose to impose have taken into account the need for strong general deterrence.
13 On your behalf Mr Nguyen, Mr Terry Strong of counsel made a powerful and characteristically carefully prepared and detailed plea, which I found to be quite persuasive. He told me about your background. You had been born in Ho Chi Minh city and left that city at the age of ten with your father. You then spent two years in a refugee camp in Malaysia, before arriving in Melbourne in 1993 with your father. You and your father obtained Australian citizenship in 1995. At about the same time, your brother and mother arrived. You were brought up in the western suburbs of Melbourne. When you first arrived, you attended a language centre for a short time and then a local primary school and your secondary education was achieved at the Redden Catholic College.
14 You left school before completing Year 11, before you turned 17. This was in part due to very difficult circumstances at home. Your parents were undergoing a traumatic marital separation. They eventually did separate, you remained for a short time with your mother. She was suffering severe financial difficulties and it was she who urged you to leave school so that you could obtain employment and help her with her financial difficulties. You did that, but after a short time found it impossible to live there any longer and left home. You went to live with friends. You were unable to work and were living on benefits. You began frequenting nightclubs. You did get some odd jobs after a time in fencing and manual labour and other such menial work.
15 You lived with an uncle for a short time and then again were engaged in so called "couch surfing", living here and there at friends' places and undergoing short periods of employment. Eventually you married in 2007. In September 2008, your son, Kien was born. He is now four and a half. He has been diagnosed as suffering autism. He has had to undergo a great deal of assessment and treatment in relation to that. Sadly, you and your wife separated in 2010. Fortunately, however, you and your wife remain on good terms and both of you have been committed to the care of your young son.
16 Your wife has provided a character reference which was tendered and is marked Exhibit VN1. In that reference she confirms that your son has been very dependent on both of his parents in order to cope with daily living and social issues. She said that in the past and until recent times, when you have become overborne with depression and anxiety as a result of this case hanging over your head, you were very deeply involved in your son's care and welfare, frequently attending, seeing him three times per week and taking him to various appointments in relation to his developmental issues, including appointments with paediatricians, counsellors, child psychologists and speech pathologists.
17 As I have said, your former wife notes in her report that since being charged in relation to these matters, whilst you have been waiting for these proceedings to conclude, you have been overborne with severe anxiety, depression and stress, as she observes it. Up until I remanded you in custody last week, you had been still seeing your son a couple of times a week.
18 In July 2011, you were re-married in Vietnam. You sponsored your wife here on a spousal visa. She was present in court during the course of the plea and I believe she is present in court again today. Sadly, your wife is isolated here in Australia. She has no family and has yet been able to make few friends. She speaks no English, although she has been able to undergo some training with Vietnamese people as a nail technician. At the moment, she has no income.
19 As far as your drug history is concerned, at the age of 17 you began using cannabis and ecstasy. You were in a relationship then with a young woman who herself was a heroin user. From the age of 21 and following, you were also using methylamphetamine, from time to time, on a "recreational" basis. Your general drug use, that is the using of cannabis, ecstasy and from time to time methylamphetamine, had escalated by the time you committed these offences. In relation to the circumstances of your offending, your counsel explained that in the period leading up to you being hired as a manager as it were, your life had fallen to pieces.
20 Your marriage had broken up in late 2010, as I have said, you had been engaged in good employment, working as a manager for a fruit juice company until that company was sold and you were laid off, again in late 2010. You became lonely and isolated. It was in that context that you began hanging around with people who you met whilst you were working as a manager at what your counsel described as a "sleazy nightclub". You worked there for several months in early 2011. The people you met there introduced you to the casino and a lifestyle involving heavy gambling, drug abuse and drinking. These associates, who your counsel referred to as "criminal associates", began lending you sums of money, a common tale I must say, in these courts, in relation to people employed to become engaged in looking after cannabis crops.
21 Eventually, as a result of your excessive gambling which became an addiction, you owed these people $90,000 and they were putting you under immense pressure to repay your debts. Eventually, they offered you a way out, and so you were engaged to assist in growing cannabis in these crops. They took you to a number of other places and basically trained you in what you should do as a supervisor. This went on for a period of months until you were put in charge of these three crops in relation to which you have been charged before this court. Your job, essentially, was to give instructions to the individual crop sitters and to keep an eye on them.
22 Upon being arrested by the police, as I have mentioned, you have been totally cooperative. You made full and frank admissions to the police. You were initially remanded in custody for 34 days, which you found to be a very difficult experience, until you were released on bail. Having been released on bail, you were placed on the CISP program. Under that program, you were referred to Dr Chow for assessment for depression, gambling addiction and substance abuse issues. He in turn assessed you as requiring specialist psychological treatment under Dr Julie Janev. You saw Dr Janev on at least ten occasions during the course of 2012 and early 2013.
23 A report from the CISP program has been tendered and marked as Exhibit 2, which indicates that the program was successfully completed by you. It notes amongst other things, that you were cooperative and engaged well in every session and had been able to gain insight into your offending behaviour. The report also noted that you were actively seeking fulltime employment and had an appointment coming up in relation to that. You were eventually successful in obtaining fulltime employment. Since early this year you have been working as a labourer, doing metal work for a company manufacturing trailers. You have been working hard, up to 50 hours a week. You told your counsel that this has been a very positive experience for you. In particular, what you have enjoyed most is working with ordinary decent people, people who talk about family, home and work as opposed to drugs and gambling.
24 You told your counsel this had given you even more insight into your past criminal activities and that you were very ashamed of your previous conduct. By way of mitigation, your counsel relied on your early plea of guilty at the committal, the earliest practical stage, given all the circumstances. The fact that you had made full and frank admissions to the police, he submitted that you have good prospects of rehabilitation and I accept that. You have shown remorse for your earlier conduct. I should have noted, amongst other things, that a psychological report from Julie Janev was tendered as Exhibit 3, which refers to your remorse. It states, amongst other things, that your compliance with the services provided by her during that period of time in 2012 and early 2013, had been exceptional.
25 She says that you had frequently voiced remorse and regret for your actions and that you had indicated, as a result of a number of factors, a strong potential for change. She noted the changes in your life that she regarded as protective risk factors against you ever reoffending. They included the positive engagement in treatment services for the first time, which had resulted in significant psychological stability. Secondly, your detachment from negative peer influences and substances. Thirdly, a refocus on your part on fatherhood and fourthly, your recent employment.
26 I have taken all these matters into account. In the early part of his submissions your counsel asked me to take into account your personal circumstances, and I do. Whilst they are not exceptional, I accept that whilst you are in gaol, your experience of imprisonment will be made more difficult in the knowledge that you have left behind a young son who depended on you for a lot of help. You will be separated from him and unable to assist him. That will cause you a great deal of anguish, I am sure. You will also be leaving behind a young wife, who is isolated and alone. Again, that will make your experience of gaol more difficult than it might others. I have taken that into account. I take into account your early plea, your cooperation with the authorities, what I regard as your very good prospects of rehabilitation. I also take into account that this is your first sentence of imprisonment, that you are still a young man and that you have got relatively few priors, in fact only one relevant prior conviction, which was many years ago.
27 I move on now to the circumstances of Mr Siong. As I indicated earlier this morning, Ms Franjic made an outstandingly strong plea-in-mitigation on your behalf, Mr Siong. She commenced her plea by pointing out that you were here in Australia totally alone. You had arrived from Malaysia in mid 2011, seeking work. You arrived on a tourist visa and you planned to work hard for a short period and send as much money as you could home to support your family.
28 Since having been remanded in custody about ten months ago, you have received no visits whatsoever from anyone, and that is because you have no family here and no friends. Since being in custody, you have gone to great lengths to shield your family from the truth about your present circumstances. Via Facebook contact with your sister, you have been able to convince your family that you are working hard in the country and out of telephone range. Your concern about your family discovering where you really have been and what is happening to you, has been based on your concern for their welfare and a concern that they will be overwhelmed with worry and distress.
29 As far as your background is concerned, you were born in Malaysia, as I have said. Your father worked as a welder in an iron factory, and your mother in home duties. You are the eldest of four children. You have a younger sister who works as a beauty therapist in Singapore, another younger sister who is a hairdresser, who lives with your parents and your young brother, who is 18, is a student and also lives with your parents. Your family live in relatively poor circumstances, although they have generally managed to put food on the table. They have just managed financially, your counsel told me.
30 They were able to purchase a small, humble home for themselves and their children and your grandparents in 2008, as a result of you becoming a co‑mortgagee with your father. As Mr Franjic pointed out, your destiny was to follow in your father's footsteps into the factory in which he worked, and that is what you did. Despite being a talented student at school, when you left school you went to work in the factory as a welder with your father. You worked there for about five years until 2008, when you went to Singapore to work as a fitter, expecting to earn more money and to be able to send more money home to assist your parents. You remained in Singapore doing this for three years until 2011, when believing that the opportunities were better for you in Australia, you came here hoping to obtain more work and be able to send more money home to your family.
31 When you arrived in July 2011, you initially stayed with a student friend and then travelled to Mildura where you worked in orange picking for a short time. From there you returned to Melbourne and eventually found work in Koo Wee Rup as an asparagus picker. You were there for six months living in circumstances of quite extreme hardship, on very little income. You eventually returned to Melbourne in March 2012. By now you had overstayed your tourist visa. As a result of that you could not apply for a job, you could not apply for benefits. You had very few contacts in Melbourne and, as I have said, no family. You had virtually no English language skills. You ended up sharing a house in Springvale, until you were given a leaflet in an Asian supermarket in Springvale offering employment. You rang the number on the leaflet and eventually were persuaded to take up this job. You were told that it would involve a farming job and that you would be paid four to $500 per week.
32 You were taken to a house that you believed was in Kew. You were kept there, effectively, for some weeks as I understand it, about a month possibly. You were not able to leave and you were there waiting for the job to start. You were fed, you did not have to pay rent, but you had to wait. You were told that you were not to contact or to speak to anyone. Eventually in about June or July, you were collected from these premises and asked to follow someone else in a car and you followed him to Hoppers Crossing. You were shown the house and told what your job was and how much you would be paid, and then you remained for two months until you were arrested by the police.
33 It had been your plan to return to Malaysia before the expiry of your passport in June 2013, but you were arrested. Your passport has now expired and your visa had expired a long time ago. Since being remanded in custody, you have found the circumstances difficult. As I have already mentioned, you have had no visitors. There are very few Mandarin Chinese speaking people in custody and you have laboured under extreme language difficulties, but you have not wasted your time whilst at the MRC. You have learnt new skills. You worked in the kitchen, five days a week until recently. You have done a barista course to learn how to make coffee and, for the last two months, you have been working in the timber workshop three days a week.
34 You have also completed an English language course, a computer course and a maths course. You have been benefited with the opportunity to live in, I think it is called Dakota unit, a particular unit within the MRC which involves considerable independence. That has been helpful to your welfare. A letter that you had written was read to the court through the interpreter. I must say, as I said at the time, I found it to be a most compelling letter. It was one of the strongest letters that I have heard from someone in your position. It clearly reflected your genuine remorse and insight into your wrongdoing and your shame. It indicated to me that you do have excellent prospects of rehabilitation and that you will never get involved in this sort of criminal conduct again. Your only wish is to return to Malaysia to your family and to return to a decent lifestyle, which is what you had been living before you got into this trouble.
35 I accept your counsel's submission that you fell prey to a criminal element by reason of your circumstances. I suspect that Ms Franjic was accurate when she described your naivety as "palpable". I accept her submission that having been arrested and remanded in custody, you have made every effort to improve yourself whilst in custody. I accept her submission that you have excellent, if not outstanding prospects of rehabilitation. I take into account the following matters upon which she relied.
36 Firstly, the circumstances of the offending. There is no doubt that you were employed at the bottom of the rung in the pyramid in relation to this sort of offending as a humble crop sitter. That is not to say that that type of conduct is not serious criminal conduct. It is, but you were, as crop sitters often are, someone who was vulnerable, who was abused and exploited by others. It doesn't excuse your conduct, but it puts it in proper context. In your case, the quantity involved was at the low end of the range as far as commercial quantity is concerned, some 34 kilograms when a commercial quantity is 25. There is no evidence of any enrichment on your part. Your motive was simply to achieve a modest financial reward, which you were never actually paid. You received $50 on three occasions.
37 I take into account that you should be sentenced as a youthful offender. I accept, as I have just said, that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation, particularly bearing in mind that you have no prior convictions anywhere, and that you have a good employment history in Malaysia, Singapore and you did your best to work hard while you were here. I take into account that you made completely frank admissions to the police, that you demonstrated strong remorse, that you demonstrated a strong desire to change, that you entered your plea at the earliest practical stage in the proceedings. I also accept that imprisonment for you would be more onerous than it would be for the average prisoner, by virtue of your language difficulties, your isolation, inability to receive any visits, the total lack of contact with your family and the weight of uncertainty that you have been suffering over the last ten months, wondering what your future holds.
38 I accept your counsel's submission that your youth and excellent prospects of rehabilitation warrant a longer parole period than otherwise might be the case. I have decided however, in your case, that to place you on parole would be contrary to the community's interest, a waste of time in effect. It is conceded by all that when you are released from gaol, you will be taken into custody by the immigration authorities, placed on a plane and returned to Malaysia. There is absolutely no point labouring the parole authorities with your details and with the responsibility to look after you when you will not be here. So what I have decided to do in your case is to partially suspend the sentence of imprisonment that I will be imposing.
39 At the conclusion of the plea, Ms Saville made some final submissions, which as I have said at the outset I accept, namely that general deterrence and specific deterrence are important sentencing objectives. She submitted that the appropriate sentencing range in relation to you Mr Nguyen, was a head sentence in the range of seven to eight years and a minimum non-parole period of five to six years, and your case Mr Siong, a head sentence in the range of two and a half to three years, with a minimum non-parole period of 12 months to 18 months. As I indicated at the time, whilst I regard the range stated in relation to Mr Siong as being an appropriate range, I considered the range staged in relation to Mr Nguyen to be excessive. Since then I have received further written submissions from your counsel, Mr Nguyen, in which he refers me to the sentencing range contained in the sentencing statistics in relation to large commercial trafficking.
40 The most recent sentencing snapshot he informs me, for large commercial trafficking, is an average sentence - reveals an average sentence of seven and a half years, which is effectively in the middle of the range stated by the Crown in your case. He also submits that the minimum non-parole period submitted by the Crown, given your relative absence of prior convictions and other circumstances, is excessive and bearing in mind that the range shows that the sentencing practice in this State, according to the statistics, reveal that the disparity between the head sentence and non-parole period would normally be in the range of 55 to 70 per cent.
41 Having been borne all these matters into account, I have determined that the appropriate sentences are as follows. In relation to you Mr Nguyen, on Charge 1, the charge of cultivating a narcotic plant, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 18 months. On Charge 2, the first charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for four years. On Charge 3, the second charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, you are sentenced to two and a half years. On the summary offences of possessing a prohibited weapon, namely an imitation firearm and possessing a prohibited weapon, namely a Taser stun gun, on each charge you are sentence to be imprisoned for two months.
42 On the charge of dealing in proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for two months, and on the charge of possessing ammunition, whilst not being the holder of a licence or permit, you are fined $300. I make the following orders in relation to cumulatively. The base charge is Charge 2, in relation to which I have already sentenced you to four years. I direct that six months of the sentence on Charge 1 and nine months of the sentence on Charge 3 and one month of each of the sentences on the three summary charges to which I have sentenced you, be served, that is on the two possess weapon charge and the deal with the proceeds of crime charge, one month on each is to be served cumulatively.
43 On my calculation, that results in a total effective sentence of five and a half years and I fix a minimum non-parole period of three years. I declare that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to seven years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of four and a half years and I declare that you have already served 41 days by way of presentence detention.
44 In you case Mr Siong, on Charge 3, the charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for two years and I suspend 14 months of that sentence for a period of one year. You can sit down now. I need to explain to you Mr Siong, that I have sentenced you to two years, I have suspended 14 months of that. That means that you must serve ten months. It may well be that you have already served those ten months. If you have not, you will have served them within a short time. That means you will be eligible to be released on a suspended sentence for the balance of the two years.
- - -
45 HIS HONOUR: Have you been able to explain that Madam Interpreter? If I need to make it longer Mr Strong ‑ ‑ ‑
46 MR STRONG: Yes.
47 HIS HONOUR: Thanks for that. The operational period I said was 12 months.
48 MS SAVILLE: Yes it is.
49 HIS HONOUR: I will make that two years.
50 MS SAVILLE: Thank you Your Honour.
51 MR STRONG: If Your Honour pleases.
52 HIS HONOUR: Thanks.
53 MR JOHNSTON: Your Honour, in terms of PSD, I understand that it's 304 days including today's date.
54 HIS HONOUR: Yes, I declare that you have already served 304 days, by way of presentence detention and pursuant to s.6AAA, I state that had you not pleaded guilty in relation to these matters, I would have sentenced you to two years and nine months with a minimum non-parole period of 18 months. Were my mathematics correct in relation to Mr Nguyen's sentence? Just before I go on, Mr Siong, do you understand the effect of the sentence?
55 ACCUSED (through Interpreter): So if I serve ten months, that's enough.
56 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
57 ACCUSED (through Interpreter): Is that correct?
58 HIS HONOUR: Yes, but if you commit any further offence within the next two years, you will be obliged to serve a further 14 months unless you can demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Do you understand that? Yes, and the ten months that you have already served will be taken into account, so I expect that you will be released from custody quite soon. Do you understand?
59 ACCUSED (Direct): I understand.
60 HIS HONOUR: Good, thank you. Sit down please. Where do I sign the disposal order? Other side of the page I suppose. I made the disposal order which are unopposed. There's an application for a 464ZF order in relation to Mr Siong. Is that opposed?
61 MR JOHNSTON: It is Your Honour .
62 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
63 MR JOHNSTON: On the basis that he's young, he's about to be deported, he has no prior convictions.
64 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Yes, I don't propose to make the order in his case. In relation to Mr Nguyen, the order would not be opposed would it, Mr Strong?
65 MR STRONG: No, it's a matter for Your Honour.
66 HIS HONOUR: Yes. In the case of Mr Nguyen, Mr Nguyen, I make an order under s.464ZF of the Crimes Act that you undergo a procedure for the taking of a scraping of a DNA sample from your mouth, so that it may be placed on the database. Do you understand that?
67 ACCUSED: Yes.
68 HIS HONOUR: I'm obliged to tell you that if you don't consent to the taking of the mouth scraping, a member of the Victoria Police will be able to use reasonable force to take that sample. Do you understand?
69 ACCUSED: Yes.
70 HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Have a seat. I make the order in view of the seriousness of the offending and the fact that it's not opposed. I make the forfeiture orders in the terms of the draft orders. Ms Saville, is it necessary for me to attend to any other orders?
71 MS SAVILLE: No Your Honour.
72 HIS HONOUR: Mr Nguyen, I can see that the sentence has rocked you. I can only emphasise that engaging in this sort of conduct is a very serious offence. The sentence that I gave you is significantly less than what was submitted was appropriate by the Crown because I have taken into account, amongst other things, all of the important matters that were put to me by Mr Strong about the efforts you have made to rehabilitate yourself. Do you understand?
73 ACCUSED: (No audible response.)
74 HIS HONOUR: And I can only urge you to continue to rehabilitate yourself so that when you are released, you can return to a decent life. All right, thank you. Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
75 MR STRONG: Yes, thank you Your Honour.
76 MR JOHNSTON: Apologies for being late Your Honour.
77 HIS HONOUR: Not at all Mr Johnston.
78 MS SAVILLE: And I apologise for the inconvenience to my learned friends and the court in relation to the interpreter.
79 HIS HONOUR: Thank you Ms Saville. Thanks again, and you are all excused from the Bar table. I'll leave the Bench just for a few minutes until we can reassemble the court.
- - -
0