Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen

[2023] VCC 2468

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

(Not) Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 23-00808

CR 23 00809

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MINH NGUYEN

BAO NGUYEN

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE GAYNOR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 October 2023 and 15 December 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 December 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Nguyen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 2468

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:	Cultivating a narcotic plant – not less than commercial quantity – possession of drug of dependence – dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:	-
Sentence:	Bao Nguyen sentenced to 2 years and 8 month’s imprisonment, non-parole period of 16 months. Minh Nguyen sentenced to 2 years and 2 month’s imprisonment, non-parole period of 14 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. Weinman	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Accused Nguyen	Mr N. Rudston
For Accused Nguyen	Mr I. Crisp

HER HONOUR:

1Bao Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of cultivating a narcotic plant in not less than a commercial quantity applicable that plant,  one charge of possessing a drug of dependence, namely cannabis, and one related summary offence of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.

2Minh Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating a narcotic plant, in not less than a commercial quantity applicable to that plant, one charge of theft and one charge of possessing a drug of dependence, namely cocaine. 

3The facts underlying your offending are as follows.  On 31 May 2019, a private tenancy agreement was made between a landlord, Jin Hahn Yoo and three tenants for a house at 13 Mahogany Drive Point Cook.  The agreement was made in the names of three people, which were later found to be fraudulent names.  On 27 January 2022, Mr Lieu attended the house for a pre-arranged rental inspection, but while there, was prevented by the tenants from entering certain rooms.

4In a cupboard were some multiple power cords, power banks and power adaptors, but Mr Lieu was pulled away from looking any further and he also saw silver ducting tape connected to the ceiling of the house.  He noted the house was warm and that there was no food in the fridge.  On 28 January 2022,
Mr Lieu reported his observations to the Box Hill police station and provided copies of the identification used in the tenancy agreement.

5Subsequent enquiries by police revealed that the names and identification used for the agreement were fraudulent.  On 17 February 2022, licenced electricians from Powercor conducted an electricity check on the property, revealed it was drawing more electricity than was being recorded on the metre, indicating an electrical bypass had been installed.

6At about 11.30 am on 5 April 2022, police from the Westgate Division of the Response Unit, executed a search warrant at 13 Mahogany Drive Point Cook.  While they were knocking on the door, you Bao Nguyen and a third co-accused, Hong Nguyen, exited the backdoor and jumped the rear fence.  Police entered and saw a smoking cigarette butt on the coffee table in the lounge room and commenced on foot to look for both of you.

7CCTV footage in the area captured audios of police forcing entry and you
Bao Nguyen, seen six seconds later, running east along a nearby street, followed by Hong Nguyen.  Ultimately Hong Nguyen was located nearby in Point Cook and arrested by police.  He denied being at the house, before making admissions to in fact being at that address.  You were unable to be located.  Hong Nguyen was taken to the Werribee police station and during the car ride there, told police he attended at the house to look after plants.

8A search of the residence revealed that five of the bedrooms had been turned into cannabis crop rooms, all of them containing lights, shrouds and water systems.  In room one were 113 cannabis plants, weighing 2.12 kilograms,  in room two, 20 cannabis plants, weighing 20.8 kilograms,  in room three,
12 cannabis plants, weighing 27.48 kilograms.  in room four, 10 cannabis plants, weighing 12.38 kilograms and in room five, 18 cannabis plants weighing 37.60 kilograms.  Police recovered chemicals, plant nutrients, irrigation hosing, power transformers and other equipment consistent with that cannabis cultivation in those rooms of the house.

9Police seized a total of 173 plants located at the address, which were later examined and weighed by forensic botanists,  that total weight being
99.60 kilograms, as well as plant material identified as cannabis weighing
27 grams.  Your actions in being involved in the cultivation of that crop underlie Charge 1 on the indictment relating to you Bao Nguyen, cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant.

10On 30 June 2022, police began investigating your criminal activity, determining via surveillance and call records your presence around a house at 50 Balloan Street in Coburg.  Telecommunication records revealed that between 2 August and 10 October 2022, you were present at that address or near that address on twenty-seven occasions, typically three to four times a week.  Those investigations also revealed that you Minh Nguyen, were active in the same locations, as Bao Nguyen, between 31 August and 10 October 2022.

11The records indicated that the phones of both of you remained in those locations from between thirty minutes to six hours.  Police surveillance carried out between 19 August and 16 September 2022, observed the two of you attending at the Balloan Street premises.  At about 8 am on 10 October 2022, police executed warrants at the house in Balloan Street and at the residential premises of each of you. 

12When police attended at the Coburg premises, entry was forced after no persons answered the door and investigators identified the house had been modified to cultivate cannabis.  Police found chemicals, plant nutrients, irrigation hosing, power transformers and equipment consistent with the cultivation of cannabis inside the house.  Investigators identified that four of the bedrooms had been transformed into cannabis crop rooms, each room containing the usual equipment required to grow such a crop.

13Police recovered in one room, 40 cannabis plants weighing 48 kilograms,  in a second room, 20 cannabis plants, weighing 47.52 kilograms.  A third room contained 47 cannabis plants, weighing 5.88 kilograms and a fourth room containing 34 cannabis plants, weighing 9.16 kilograms.  Police also recovered a tub of dried cannabis weighing 1.61 kilograms.  Whilst at the premises, police also identified an electrical bypass, which underlies Charge 2 on the indictment relating to you Minh Nguyen, a charge of theft.  In all, police seized
141 cannabis plants, weighing 110.56 kilograms in total.  The actions of each of you in relation to this crop, underlie Charge 2 on the indictment, concerning you Bao Nguyen and Charge 1 relating to you, Minh Nguyen.

14You, Bao Nguyen, were arrested at your home in Deer Park.  Amongst other items, police discovered $1,240 cash in your wallet, which was believed to be the proceeds of crime.  Possession of this money underlies the related summary charge I have outlined.  In a rear bungalow of your home,
Bao Nguyen, police located seedling pods and equipment used for cannabis cultivation and two bags containing green vegetable matter, ultimately determined to be 340 grams of cannabis.

15Your possession of those drugs underlies a charge on the indictment relating to Bao Nguyen, that is possession of a drug of dependence.  At your home
Bao Nguyen, police also located equipment used for the cultivation of cannabis being electric power boards, extension leads, power transformers, fertilisers, pot plants, exhaust fans, light shrouds, light globes and a mechanical timer.  

16You, Minh Nguyen, were arrested by police on the same day at your home in Caroline Springs.  There, police found a number of mobile phone sim cards and a ziplocked bag containing white powder, ultimately identified as cocaine,  the possession of which underlies Charge 3 on the indictment relating to you
Minh Nguyen, that is, possession of a drug of dependence.

17You, Bao Nguyen, in a record of interview gave no comment answers to questions, but admitted to having a particular phone number which had been the subject of police surveillance.  You, Minh Nguyen, participated in a record of interview where you made partial admissions in relation to having a particular phone number, which had been the subject of surveillance, being present during the search of your house and telling police the white bag contained cocaine, knowing that cultivating cannabis was illegal and admitting you were the only person who used your phone.  You insisted you had never been to the Coburg address and denied involvement in cultivating cannabis there.

18The maximum penalty for cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant is 25 years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for possessing a drug of dependence is one year's imprisonment or 30 penalty units.  The maximum penalty for dealing with suspected proceeds of crime is two years imprisonment.

19Cultivating a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity is a Category 2 offence, and therefore must be dealt with by way of the imposition of a term of imprisonment, unless exceptional circumstances apply.  You were both released on bail in October and November of 2022.  The matter proceeded by way of a straight hand-up brief at a committal mention on 18 May 2022.  It is conceded by the prosecution that your pleas were entered at the earliest opportunity.

20I now turn to the personal circumstances of each of you, beginning with you, Bao Nguyen.  You are now 30 years of age and were aged 28 and 29 at the time of the offending and you have no prior convictions.  You were born in Vietnam where your mother worked in a factory and your father was a taxi driver,  both parents working hard and achieving a financial security, which was unfortunately lost during the COVID crisis effects in Vietnam.

21You have two sisters aged 26 and 32 and a 19-year-old brother.  When you were 10, your parents sent you to a boarding school in South Vietnam, which you found difficult, but you completed your secondary education in the equivalent of Year 12.  You came to Australia at age 19 on a student visa, studying English for several months, but struggled with this and have achieved only very limited English.  You felt isolated in Australia away from your family and began mixing with other members of the Australian/Vietnamese community, in particular, cannabis smokers.

22You began smoking cannabis because of loneliness and in an attempt to fit in and you were also introduced by that same peer group to cocaine.  You established a good work history, undertaking farmwork and then settling into handyman work, such as cleaning, laying floorboards, painting and repairing plastering and you remained in constant employment in this capacity on a casual basis for many years.

23In 2017, you married your wife who is an Australian citizen, but who grew up in Vietnam.  She worked and still works as a nail technician.  You have one son and two daughters aged between nine months and nine years.  Your life took a dramatic turn for the worse when COVID-19 lockdown ended your employment and you were ineligible because of the casual basis of your employment for government financial support.

24You and your wife had borrowed a considerable amount of money to purchase your home and you had large mortgage repayments.  Your somewhat sporadic use of cannabis and cocaine, escalated into an addiction disorder as a result of this stress and you then gambled in a desperate attempt to make money, which in fact worsened your financial situation, as you lost and you gambled more both as a means of self-soothing and in a further desperate to recoup your losses.  It was in this context I was informed by your counsel, that you agreed to assist in the cultivation of the cannabis crops.

25Psychologist, Gina Cidoni, administered a number of psychological tests on you and in her report dated 11 September 2023, reported that your non-verbal reasoning abilities were in the extremely low range.  She wrote the testing revealed you have a difficulty with tasks requiring visual problem solving and abstract reasoning.  She diagnosed you as suffering a persistent depressive disorder, with anxious distress, a cannabis use disorder and a gambling disorder.

26She said that your persistent depressive disorder which was present at the time of your offending and may have been worsened by your drug use, contributed  to a heightened state of anxiety and to your cognitive impairment.  Under the heading of 'Mental State at the time of the alleged offending', Ms Cidoni wrote:

'Mr Nguyen's substance use has had a significant impact on his offending behaviour.  Daily cannabis and regular cocaine use likely impaired his judgment and decision making, leading him to engage in illegal activities, such as cultivating cannabis and dealing with crime proceeds.  Additionally, the financial strain caused by substance use and gambling, may have caused him to turn to crime as a way to alleviate his financial difficulties, increased risk taking behaviour, associated with substance use, might have made him more willing to engage in criminal activities'.

27She continued:

'His diagnosis of PDD and an anxiety disorder, may have influenced his overall emotional state, making him more vulnerable to poor decision making and impulsive actions'.

28It was her opinion that the combination of the persistent depressive disorder, anxiety and gambling disorder could have impaired your emotional state, rational decision making and self-control.  She wrote:

'These mental health conditions may have limited his ability to fully understand the consequences and wrongfulness of his actions and could have driven him to engage in compulsive and impulsive behaviour'.

29It was also her opinion that your psychological conditions, combined with the stress and isolation of imprisonment could exacerbate those mental health conditions,  she writing:

'The restricted environment and separation from family may also increase feelings of hopelessness and distress'.

30Ms Cidoni also pointed to your poor English, which could impact on your capacity to receive appropriate care during incarceration, together with prison limitations on professional appointments and therapy sessions.  She concluded this could impact the consistency of your treatment and would have a negative effect emotionally and financially in your family, which would in turn, further impact your mental health and well being while in custody.

31Following your release from custody in November 2022, during which time you became drug free as a result of incarceration, you became determined to remain drug free and have since voluntarily undertaken drug screening through your general practitioner.  I received a number of drug screens throughout that time since your release on bail and up to the time of the second plea in this matter on 14 December 2022,  the results of which have all proved negative for drug use.

32You were determined to undertake any work you could and therefore, worked for a short time as a nail technician at the nail bar where your wife is employed, before then obtaining factory work which you have retained to this day.  I received a supplementary report in relation to your psychological condition.  Whilst I am satisfied you have remained both drug and crime free since your release from custody, your life has continued to present with underlying anxiety, so that your persistent depressive disorder has continued.

33Because of the items attached to cannabis cultivation, which police located at your house, confiscation proceedings have been issued in relation to your home and it is likely that you will lose that.  Your wife has only recently returned to work after giving birth to your third child.  Additionally, while she is an Australian citizen, you are a permanent resident only,  so that any sentence of twelve months or more imposed upon you, will immediately result in the revocation of your visa on character grounds and an investigation will then take place as to whether or not you should be returned to Vietnam.

34I accept that both these consequences which the prosecution explicitly conceded I could take into account, would be calamites for you and your family and will add greatly to your distress and anxiety while serving a term of imprisonment. Your counsel submitted that your psychological condition and the likely effects of imprisonment upon it, meant that you met one of the exceptions pursuant to s5(2)(8)(c)(2) of the Sentencing Act.  He submitted that given your previous crime free history, the extenuating and desperate circumstances surrounding the offending, your remorse as evidenced by the early plea and expressions of it to Ms Cidoni, your determined and continuing rehabilitative efforts and the impact of the psychological condition you developed, meant the court should consider imposing a combination disposition, consisting of a term of imprisonment and then release on a community corrections order.

35Additional to this, he submitted was your clearly minimal role in the cultivation.  He submitted, and I accept, that whilst the court could not infer that the offending was done for financial reward, there was no evidence of enrichment and your instructions were that by the time of your arrest, you had not been paid for any of the work you had undertaken in relation to those two crops.

36The prosecutor submitted that the charge of cultivating a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity was inherently serious, as reflected by the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.  He submitted that you were motivated by financial gain, which submission I do accept, at the same time, conceding that your role was confined to that of cultivator and it was not alleged that you were a principal offender in the enterprise.

37Whilst conceding that you are entitled to a sentencing discount due to your early plea, and the application of Verdins limb 5 in your case, that the prospect of the automatic visa cancellation would cause you psychological hardship and that the evidence of urine screens from the time of your release had relevance in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation,  the prosecutor submitted that the charge of cultivation of a criminal quantity of cannabis was an offence that generally required substantial punishment, where general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment were the relevant sentencing purposes for such offending.

38Whilst I accept there are powerful mitigatory circumstances surrounding your offending, Bao Nguyen, they being your lack of prior convictions, the financial desperation you were brought to during the pandemic lockdowns which I accept led you to foolishly worsen your financial circumstances by gambling, then gambling more and more and resorting more regularly to drug use in the face of your mounting debts,  as well as the solid evidence of your rehabilitation since, together with your remorse, which I accept via your plea of guilty and your expressions of it, it is my view that this offending is too serious for the imposition of a mixed disposition, of the type sought by your counsel.

39In sentencing you, I do take into account the mitigatory factors I have outlined and which were advanced on your behalf, which will be reflected in a more than usual disparity between the maximum and minimum term. 

40I now turn to you, Minh Nguyen.  You are now 40 years of age and were born in Saigon,  one of three children born to your parents.  Your father worked as a transport driver and you told psychologist Bernard Healey whose report dated 15 October 2022 was tendered on the plea,  you grew up in a happy home and still enjoy a close relationship with your parents and two sisters.  Indeed, your parents have now emigrated here.  You too completed the equivalent of Year 12 in Vietnam.  At the age of 24, you came to Australia on a spousal visa, following your marriage to your first wife in 2007.

41She is also Vietnamese but grew up in Australia and was an Australian citizen when you married.  On coming to Australia, you worked for five years in a Vietnamese grocery store in St Albans, where you also lived with your wife.  You then took on the occupation of handyman, assisting contractors, which occupation you continued to hold until arrested on these matters.

42Your wife, however, suffered serious psychological problems, in particular, depression.  You were not able to cope with this and she was also often not compliant with her medication.  You have two daughters now aged seven and 15 from that marriage.  You became unhappy in your marriage, but your wife threatened to kill herself if you left.

43Eventually, however, you did leave the marriage in about 2013 to 14 and for some time, your ex-wife restricted access to your daughters.  Eventually, they did come to visit you.  You have now serious concerns for your older daughter who is depressed and refusing school.  In about 2015, you met and married your second wife and moved with her to South Australia and a child now aged four was born of that union.

44However, your second wife resisted your attempts to make contact with your other daughter, leading to the eventual end of that marriage in 2019.  You returned to Victoria.  You met your third and current wife online.  She was at the time an American citizen living there, but she came to Australia and the two of you married in early 2022.  She remains supportive of you.  You have experienced many difficulties in relation to your first wife, who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-2002 by stabbing herself and was for some time, placed into an induced coma.

45You told Mr Healey, you began using cannabis eight to nine years ago, in the wake of the end of your first marriage and used it daily, up to the time of your arrest.  You also used cocaine on a regular weekend basis.  In addition, you also engaged in gambling on a regular basis.  Mr Healey diagnosed you as suffering a drug use disorder, of what he said was “a rather chronic drug addiction, which has arisen as a form of dubious solace and escape in his life for some and very real distressing circumstances.”

46He also found you to be suffering a generalised anxiety disorder, as well as persistent depression at clinical significance.  He said you had a preoccupation over a period of years, with feelings of discouragement, grief, lack of initiative, apathy and low self-esteem, which he said was masked at times by the intake of cocaine and cannabis.  He found your drug use had caused you to experience confusion and disorientation and subsequent incongruous regressive behaviour, 'of a severity that it reached the schizophrenic spectrum' without he formally, as I understand it, resulting in him making a diagnosis of that psychiatric illness.

47Mr Healey described you as suffering personality disorders, 'Consistent with clinical depression', so that you had become 'a very reduced person, dependent on the dubious escape and solace provided by drug abuse addiction'.  He noted you had also descended into gambling as a further means of escape. 
Mr Healey attributed this to an incapacity to cope with your first wife's psychological depressions and the failure of your second marriage.

48You have a limited prior criminal history, but some of it is serious and relevant.  In 2015, you were placed on an 18 month community corrections order for trafficking cannabis.  Apparently you were apprehended by police driving a vehicle on behalf of others, which contained a large amount of cannabis.  You have successfully completed that community corrections order.  In 2016, you were placed on an adjournment to be of good behaviour without conviction for criminal damage and unlawful assault.  You are an Australian citizen.

49On release from custody, you also refrained from cannabis use.  You also undertook a number of drug analysis tests, up to the time of the plea,  also, consistently proving negative for use of drugs.  Since April 2023, you have been employed as a labourer at a logistics warehouse.  I received a reference from your employer, describing you as a reliable hard worker, who is an asset for the organisation.

50I received a reference from your wife who works as a nail technician and she described you as remorseful for your offending and determined to remain drug free in the future.  In addition, I received a reference from her employer who has also become a friend, who has described you also as remorseful for your offending and as a person who is kind and caring and a hard worker.  As I have said, your wife continues to support you and she also outlined the stress you experienced at the time of the offending and the steps you had taken to address your drug and gambling issues.

51I accept that you have made sincere and sustained efforts at rehabilitation, that you are remorseful for your offending as evidenced by your early plea of guilty and the expressions of remorse you have made both to Mr Healey, to your wife and to friends.  I accept that you have prosocial supports in the community, in the form of your parents and your wife and your sisters.  Your prior criminal history, although relevant, is limited and I do accept that your offending occurred in the context of a drug addiction, which had grown as a result of your own psychological problems.

52I also accept, as I do with Bao Nguyen, that you have psychological conditions which will make the service of a term of imprisonment more difficult and which is likely to worsen under those conditions.  The prosecution also agreed that your role was confined to tending the crops and in your case, there was likewise, no evidence of enrichment.  Nor was there evidence that you were to become a major beneficiary of the profits involved.  The arguments the prosecution mounted in relation to sentence, insofar as Bao Nguyen concerned, were also raised in your case.

53As I have said, whilst each of you has undoubtedly made strong efforts in relation to your rehabilitation, it is my view that only a term of imprisonment can be properly imposed in this particular case.  The offending is serious in the case of each of you.  That offending behaviour stretched over a matter of months.  I do accept in your case, Bao Nguyen, that whilst you pleaded guilty to two charges of cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis, the first occasion relates to one visit only.

54As I stated during the plea, I accept that there appears to be some sort of business, if I could put it that way, being run by the same entity, which involved more than one house and that as an employee if you like of that business, you would be required to attend whatever premises were devoted to cannabis growing.  It is therefore my view that there should be considerable concurrency between any sentence I impose, in relation to each of the crops.

55I was also referred to the sentence imposed by Her Honour Judge Ellis of this court in relation Hong Nguyen, the third co-accused that I mentioned in my description of the offending.  Hong Nguyen was said by the prosecution in that case, to hold a more superior role in the criminal hierarchy surrounding the crops.  He had no prior convictions and was ultimately sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and two months, with a non-parole period of fourteen months. 

56However, on examination of Her Honour's sentencing remarks, it did not seem to me that Her Honour particularly found that Hong Nguyen held a position in that hierarchy, much different to your own.  The prosecution assertion appeared to be based largely upon research undertaken by Hong Nguyen, in relation to cannabis growing.  Likewise, there was no evidence of enrichment, nor had he been paid for his own efforts.

57It is my view therefore, that the sentence imposed by Her Honour falls pretty much into the same category of that which should apply to you.  I do note that in relation to each of you, you, Bao Nguyen, were said to have attended the premises in Coburg on multiple occasions and indeed, that you did so, even though you were aware police were investigating those activities as evidenced by the police raid on the premises at Mahogany Drive.

58Taking into account all the matters I have outlined, I therefore sentence you as follows.  Bao Nguyen, in relation to Charge 1, you are sentenced to twelve months imprisonment.  On Charge 2, two years imprisonment.  On Charge 3, three months imprisonment and for possessing the proceeds of crime, six months imprisonment.  The base sentence will be the sentence imposed on Charge 2, two years imprisonment. 

59I order that four months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 and three months of the sentence imposed on the summary charge be served cumulatively to the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and all other sentences.  This gives a total effective sentence of two years and eight months.  I order that you serve a minimum term of 16 months before becoming eligible for parole.  What is the pre-sentence detention please?

60MR WEINMAN:  Thirty-three days with respect ‑ ‑ ‑

61HER HONOUR:  I declare that 33 days of that sentence have been served by way of pre-sentence detention. 

62In relation to you Minh Nguyen, on Charge 1, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.  On Charge 2, you are sentenced to four months and on Charge 3, you are sentenced to two months imprisonment.  I order that the base charge is the charge - the sentence imposed on Charge 1, two years, and I order that two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, be served cumulatively to the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and all other sentences, giving a total effective sentence of two years and two months and I order that you serve
14 months before becoming eligible for parole.  What is the pre-sentence detention please?

63MR WEINMAN:  Ten days, Your Honour.

64HER HONOUR:  I declare that ten days of that sentence have been served by way of pre-sentence detention.  Pursuant to s6AAA, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty, Bao Nguyen, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months and order that you serve a minimum term of two years.

65In relation to you, Minh Nguyen, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of three years and two months and order that you serve a minimum term of - what did I say was the minimum for Bao Nguyen sorry?

66MR WEINMAN:  Two years, Your Honour.

67HER HONOUR:  So I said three years and six months.  I should say the minimum term it would have been two years and six months.  In relation to you Minh Nguyen, I sentence you to a maximum term of three years and two months and order that you serve a minimum term of two years and two months.  Thank you, is there anything else that I need to attend to?

68COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.

69HER HONOUR:  Thank you very much. 

70MR WEINMAN:  Your Honour, there were forfeiture and disposal orders.  I'm not sure if Your Honour made those on the last occasion.

71HER HONOUR:  I don't think - did I?  I don't think I did.  They've all been sorted through, have they?

72MR WEINMAN:  Yes, Your Honour.  There was one - Your Honour might recall from the last occasion, there was one item that was ‑ ‑ ‑

73HER HONOUR:  That Mr Minh Nguyen's wife needed, the phone.

74MR WEINMAN:  Yes, Your Honour, it was ‑ ‑ ‑

75HER HONOUR:  That's been sorted has it?

76MR WEINMAN:  The prosecution withdrew ‑ ‑ ‑

77HER HONOUR:  That's right, yes.

78MR WEINMAN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ forfeiture in relation to that. 

79HER HONOUR:  Very well.

80MR WEINMAN:  But just for the record, on Mr Ban Nguyen's forfeiture and disposal orders, that same item was also listed.  If that could be removed, but all items listed on the forfeiture and disposal orders ‑ ‑ ‑

81HER HONOUR:  Very well.

82MR WEINMAN:  ‑ ‑ ‑ I think are ‑ ‑ ‑

83HER HONOUR:  I'll make sure that's done and I'll sign it ‑ ‑ ‑

84MR WEINMAN:  Grateful, Your Honour.

85HER HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ and serve it to you.  Yes, thank you.  Thank you very much, I will adjourn the court sine die.  I wish everyone a good break over Christmas and so forth.  Thank you.

86MR WEINMAN:  As the court pleases.

‑ ‑ ‑