Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen and Ho
[2018] VCC 2215
•21 December 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-17-01763
CR-17-01764
Indictment No. C1711123.1
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| QUAN HONG NGUYEN AND DUONG HO |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Trapnell | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4 December 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 December 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Nguyen & Ho | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 2215 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENTSENTENCERULING
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Cultivating a narcotic plant in commercial quantity – Theft of electricity – Dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime – Single date offence – 493 plants – 286 kilograms – Employee workers – 48 and 42 year old offenders – Late pleas of guilty – Delay
Cases Cited:Doan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 250, DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) (2017) 91 ALJR 1063, Nguyen v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 464, Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 311 FLR 289
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr P Raimondo | Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Nguyen For the Accused Ho | Mr A Jackson Mr L Barker | Valos Black and Associates Valos Black and Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Quan Hong Nguyen and Duong Ho you have each pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of cultivating a narcotic plant in not less than a commercial quantity and one charge of theft of electricity. Additionally, you each have consented to have this Court deal with two related summary offences;[1] namely, two charges of dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime, and you each have pleaded guilty to these charges.
[1] Pursuant to s 145 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic).
2 The maximum penalty for cultivating a narcotic plant in not less than a commercial quantity is 25 years’ imprisonment.[2] The maximum penalty for theft is ten years’ imprisonment.[3] The maximum penalty for dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime is 2 years’ imprisonment.[4]
[2] Pursuant to s 72A Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[3] Pursuant to s 74(1) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[4] Pursuant to s 194 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
3 The prosecution filed a summary of prosecution opening dated 1 November 2018, which I have been told by both of your counsel I can treat as a statement of agreed facts.[5]
[5] Exhibit P1.
The facts
4 In August 2016 Quoc Dang advertised his residential premises at Wembley Road, Kallista, for rent. The house comprised three bedrooms with two bathrooms and the property also included an adjoining two bedroom cottage.
5 On 16 August 2016 Dang commenced letting the property to a Vietnamese man named ‘Long Nguyen’. Long Nguyen paid $2,000 by way of a bond, $1,600 in advance for a month’s rent, and thereafter paid $1,600 in cash on a monthly basis.
6 On 12 January 2017 police commenced an investigation into the possible cultivation of cannabis at the Wembley Road premises. Over the course of the following month investigators noted the attendance of a number of different vehicles at the property, none were registered to either of you.
7 On 13 February 2017 police went to the property to conduct enquiries but no one was home. However, police saw mould on the bottom of the closed curtains and noticed a distinct smell of cannabis coming from the premises. Police could also hear humming sounds coming from the rear of the property.
8 On 20 February 2017 investigators executed a search warrant. Upon entering the house police located a false plaster wall, which they broke in order to gain entry to the room behind the wall. Once access was gained police discovered a bedroom filled with mature cannabis plants growing under lights. A large quantity of cannabis was found growing within several rooms of the house.
9 While police investigators were inside the property both of you and your co-accused Tran arrived in a Toyota Hilux. You Nguyen got out of the car to unlock the front gate, whilst you Ho collected the rubbish bin from a grassed area near the driveway. Once the gate was opened Tran drove the car up the driveway and parked in front of the garage of the house. All three of you walked up the stairs to the property, whilst under the surveillance of police who were at the front of the premises.
10 You both opened the front door to find police waiting for you. Upon identifying themselves police asked you not to move, however you Ho fled into an adjoining room and closed the door behind you which became jammed shut. You Nguyen fled back out the front door and towards the front gate in an attempt to escape but you were caught and apprehended at the end of the driveway.
11 As police walked you Nguyen back towards the house you unlocked the gate. You were subsequently searched and police discovered $598.70 in cash in your possession. Police suspected this cash to be the proceeds of crime. You have pleaded guilty to a related summary offence (charge 5) in relation to this.
12 You Ho remained hiding in the cottage wing of the premises where you had initially fled. Police eventually found you huddled behind cannabis plants where you were arrested and searched. You were found with a total of $2,755.65 in cash. Police suspected this cash to be the proceeds of crime. You have also pleaded guilty to a related summary offence (charge 5) in relation to this.
13 Investigators continued searching the premises the next day. Effectively eleven rooms of the house and cottage (including a bathroom and pantry) contained cannabis plants at varying stages of growth. On the plea of your co-accused Hieu Tran[6] I viewed a large number of photographs of the crop in situ.[7] It is clear this was a sophisticated and extensive hydroponic cannabis growing set-up.
[6] See DPP v Tran [2018] VCC 1387.
[7] Victoria Police, Forensic Services Department, photograph booklet labelled ‘Photo Series #1 – Overall Photos’, containing 293 photos depicting the scene and all property seized relating to the cultivation of cannabis taken at 2 Wembley Road, Kallista produced by Sergeant Clayton Bickerton (see depositions page 139).
14 The total number of cannabis plants located was 493 (nearly five times the commercial quantity). The total weight was over 286 kgs (well over 11 times the commercial quantity). A yield statement prepared by a botanist opined that the leaves and flowering heads of the plants found in three rooms constituted approximately 151 kgs, equating to an air dried weight of approximately 37.8 kgs. The botanist further opined that if the 424 remaining plants had reached maturity, they would have been likely to yield in the vicinity of 231 to 257 kgs of leaves and flowering heads.
15 The Crown has accepted both your pleas on the basis of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, rather than a large commercial quantity, as it is accepted in both your cases the mental element for the more serious offence could not be proved. Moreover, you are both charged on the basis that your involvement in the cultivation is confined to a single date, being the day of your arrests. These facts comprise charge 1 on the indictment.
16 An irregular wiring connection was found in the hallway outside two of the rooms, which was connected to a number of switchboards throughout the premises used to supply electricity to each room. This wiring connection was traced back to unmetered supply cables installed outside the premises on a pole at the front of the property. Any electrical consumption supplied from the illegal wiring connection bypassed the meter installed in the premises. This gives rise to charge 2 on the indictment, which is theft of the electricity, also on a single day, the day of your arrests.
17 An inspection of the lamps and ballasts located in each room revealed that all rooms except one were connected to timing devices on the switchboards set for 12 hours of operation per day. The timing device in the remaining room was set for 18 hours of operation per day. Based on the wattage of the lamps and timings, it is estimated that the equipment would have used approximately 1,770 kilowatt hours per day. The value of the electricity stolen through the use of the bypass is unknown.
18 A search of the Toyota Hilux, in which you and your co-accused arrived, revealed various documents in Tran’s name, keys and an invoice from Fry’s Storage Lockers, in Canterbury Road, Bayswater, in the name of Van Nguyen. Police also matched a fingerprint found on a single light globe in a shelving unit of the premises to be yours Nguyen.
19 A second vehicle parked nearby was identified to be of interest to the investigators, and using the keys found on you Ho, police found two containers of plant growth hormone, electrical fuses, wheelie bin liners, a silver key, several receipts and documents and a pair of runners.
20 A search was conducted at Fry’s Storage Lockers on 2 March 2017 of four storage lockers rented by one Van Nguyen. Van Nguyen sub-let one of these storage lockers too you Nguyen and another one to you Ho. In one of these storage lockers 251 ballasts, 116 lighting shrouds, 14 filter fans, 10 filter flanges, 4 light power units and 22 extension leads were found. These items are similar to those commonly used in hydroponic plant cultivation.
21 CCTV footage shows both of you Nguyen and you Ho entering this storage locker. This gives rise the related summary charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime (charge 7 applicable to each of you respectively).
22 You were both interviewed by police on 20 February 2017 and you Nguyen exercised your legal right to not answer questions.
23 You Ho told police the following:
(a)This was the first time you had gone to the Wembley Road property. You did not know the property but a friend you had recently met asked for your help.
(b)You decided to help because you were unemployed, although you did some building work the previous week.
(c)You did not know the co-accused you were with that day and you did not remember where they picked you up from.
(d)You took in the garbage bin when you arrived because ‘the guy’ asked you to.
(e)You ran from police because you saw a gun pointed at you and you were scared. You did not realise they were police and thought it was a thief or a burglar. You ran and hid inside the house but did not know what was inside prior to arriving there.
(f)The $2,755.65 found on you was given to you by the unknown friend so you could buy some building materials to repair or renovate the house.
(g)You did not know what sort of plants were inside the house and did not help to install any of the items found therein.
Offence seriousness
24 Cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis is a serious criminal offence as indicated by the maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, which is the highest fixed maximum sentence in the criminal calendar. The maximum penalty ‘shows unambiguously how seriously the community, through the Parliament, views this conduct’.[8] However, in both your cases I accept your offending falls towards the lower range for offences of this kind.
[8]Nguyen v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 464, 468 [18] (Maxwell P and Buchanan JA agreeing).
25 Both of you fall to be sentenced for a single date offence. It was accepted by each of your counsel on the plea that on the day of your arrests you had entered into an agreement, arrangement or understanding with your co-accused to commit the offences of cultivate a narcotic plant (being cannabis) in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity and to steal electricity in connection with the commission of that crime.[9]
[9] See Crimes Act 1958 s 323 et seq.
26 Your counsel Nguyen described your role as being that of a ‘labourer’. There is no evidence that you derived personal profit from the cultivation or that you stood to derive personal profit from the crop’s eventual sale. The Crown accepts this characterisation of your role and, further, that you played no part in setting up the enterprise, nor did you stand to profit from it, over and above payment for your services.
27 Your counsel Ho also described your role as being that of a ‘labourer’. Likewise, in your case there is no evidence you sought to profit from the offence beyond payment for your services. Like your co-accused, the Crown accepts this characterisation of your role and, further, that you played no part in setting up the enterprise, nor did you stand to profit from it, over and above payment for your services.
28 Nonetheless, you both played integral roles in this nefarious trade, which wreaks havoc on our youth, in particular, and causes enormous damage to the community at large. Both your counsel accepted this was serious offending.
29 In Doan v The Queen T Forrest AJA (with whom Harper and Nettle JJA agreed) said:
The offence of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis is a serious offence carrying a maximum of 25 yeas [sic] imprisonment. Whilst there is no doubt that the role played by the appellant was of a menial nature, it was nonetheless necessary for the crop to flourish. The maximum penalty fixed by parliament unambiguously demonstrates how seriously the community views this conduct. Recently in this Court emphasis has been placed upon the importance attached to sentencing judges having regard to the maximum sentence fixed by Parliament. This court (sic) has also emphasised recently that general deterrence is an important consideration in sentencing for this type of offence and that the link between general deterrence and the increasing prevalence of this offence is readily apparent.[10]
[10] [2010] VSCA 250 [11] (citation omitted).
Nettle JA added:
In my view lest there be any doubt about it, there should be no doubt that in cases involving cultivation of a narcotic plant in not less than a commercial quantity, general deterrence is at the forefront of sentencing considerations. Consequently, as the judge rightly observed, in cases of this kind there is less room to give weight to considerations of such as youth and antecedents that would otherwise be the case. In the result the judge also correctly found in a case of this kind an immediate term of imprisonment should ordinarily be regarded as virtually unavoidable.[11]
[11] Ibid [17].
30 Whilst your offending conduct is encompassed only by each of you assisting your co-offenders on one day, this was a large crop, both in number of plants and in weight. The set-up was large and highly sophisticated and clearly the crop was being grown by at least one of your co-offenders for a commercial purpose. I accept that you fall to be sentenced on the basis that your state of knowledge was that more than a commercial quantity of cannabis was being grown within the premises, but you were unaware of the precise amount, either in number of plants or weight.
31 Clearly, general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are significant sentencing considerations in both of your cases.
Personal circumstances
32 Turning to your personal circumstances, you Nguyen were born in Hanoi, then the capital of North Vietnam, on 25 April 1970. You were 46 years old at the time of the offending and you are presently 48 years old.
33 You were raised by your parents in Vietnam until they separated when you were about 10 years old. You have one older sister. Since your parents’ separation you and your sister resided with your mother and maternal grandmother. You maintained weekly contact with your father. You are married and have two daughters who are 11 and 7 years of age.
34 You completed your schooling up to the equivalent of year 10, before working in a variety of jobs including food manufacturing, handyman work, bricklaying and in the security industry.
35 Your life in Vietnam was a subsistence kind of existence. In 2013 three of your uncles suggested that you should move to Australia to seek farm work. You borrowed money from your uncles for this purpose.
36 You arrived in Australia on a tourist visa, which expired after three months had elapsed. Your counsel accepted you are unlawfully in Australia. Following completion of the prison sentence I will impose on you today, you will no doubt be deported to back to Vietnam. This is not a circumstance that I can take into account in sentencing you. Moreover, since it is your desire to return to Vietnam and rejoin your family, your counsel accepted that there was no custodial hardship that I should take into account by reason of your likely deportation.
37 Upon arriving in Australia you discovered that it was difficult to find employment and as a result you worked in a variety of casual jobs when the opportunity presented itself. It is no doubt in this context that you came into contact with your co-offenders and became involved in the present offending.
38 You have remained in custody since your arrest on 20 February 2017. Accordingly there are 669 days (or just over 22 months) pre-sentence detention to be declared in your case. You have worked as a billet while in Port Phillip Prison and you receive visits from one friend. You have telephone contact with your family in Vietnam. Nonetheless, I accept that you have been somewhat socially and culturally isolated in prison and I take this into account in your favour.
39 Turning to your personal circumstances Ho, you were born in Vinh City in Vietnam on 21 May 1976. You were 40 years old at the time of the offending and are now 42 years old.
40 You are the eldest of three children. Your parents worked in a market. Your father had been a soldier in the North Vietnamese army when he sustained injuries that impacted on his ability to find employment. Apparently your father later worked in construction for a government enterprise. Your mother, who is now aged 71 years, worked in the same government enterprise as your father before she retired. Your parents were loving, but suffered health problems which contributed to financial difficulties for your family.
41 In 1994 you completed the equivalent of year 12 in Vietnam. You were able to find stable employment working as a handyman and labourer despite not being formally trained. This work was seasonal and consequently your income was not stable. Upon moving to Australia and prior to committing the current offences, you worked as a farmhand, growing Vietnamese vegetables, and as a handyman.
42 You married in 2007 and were divorced in 2013. You have a ten year old son who is currently living with your parents in Vietnam. Their life is rudimentary and poor, which troubles you. As you have no other family or friends in Australia, you have had no visitors whilst you have been on remand and you are limited to two telephone calls per week, which you use to contact your family in Vietnam. I accept that you also have been somewhat socially and culturally isolated in prison and I take this into account in your favour. Your are also concerned about the financial plight of your family in Vietnam and this is making imprisonment more onerous on you.
43 In 2014 you came to Australia on a three month tourist visa in a bid to financially support your family and to escape poverty in Vietnam. Your acquaintances suggested that you would be able to make a decent living in Australia. You were supported in your paperwork and travel to Australia and when you arrived in this country you obtained housing in Springvale. Your ticket to Australia was paid for by a friend, but you were required to repay this. When you arrived in Australia you intended to overstay your visa and settle and work in Australia illegally. You now hope to return to Vietnam to look after your elderly parents and to care for your son.
44 Following completion of the prison sentence I will impose on you today, you also will no doubt be deported to back to Vietnam. As with your co-offender this is not a circumstance that I can take into account in sentencing you. Moreover, since it is also your desire to return to Vietnam and rejoin your family, your counsel accepted that there was no custodial hardship that I should take account of by reason of your likely deportation.
45 You have no history of alcohol or illicit substance abuse.
46 You experienced a motor vehicle accident in Vietnam in 2006. You were in a coma for five days and since then you have had difficulty with your memory and you can become hot-tempered.
47 Upon being assessed by Dr Cunningham,[12] you reported experiencing depression and anxiety and generally having a lowered mood. You have not been prescribed any medication but it is noted that you have been feeling depressed since your motor vehicle accident. Dr Cunningham opined that you would benefit from engaging with neuro-psychological assessment to explore the impact from your prior injuries. However, this condition is not causally connected to your offending and your counsel conceded that Verdins principles are not engaged in your case.
[12] Exhibit H2 – Psychological report of Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 30 November 2018.
Mitigating circumstances
48 You both have no prior or subsequent convictions or findings of guilt and you have no matters outstanding. You each fall to be sentenced as a person of prior good character, although as noted above, in cases of this type that factor does not carry the weight it might otherwise have carried. Nonetheless, in each of your cases specific deterrence and protection of the community need be given little weight. I accept you both have good work histories and I take the view that you each have good prospects of rehabilitation.
49 Neither of you has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity. While you both entered pleas of guilty at a contested committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court before any evidence was called, you both declined to plead guilty in this Court until 21 September 2018 at a further directions hearing.
50 Nonetheless, I accept your pleas have utilitarian benefit in saving the time and cost of a trial. They also indicate an acceptance by each of you of responsibility for your respective offending conduct and your willingness to facilitate the course of justice. However, whilst you are both no doubt regretful for the situation in which you find yourselves, there is no evidence of remorse beyond what is reflected in each of your pleas. There is therefore insufficient evidence before me to make a finding in your favour that you demonstrate true contrition and remorse.[13]
[13] See Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354, 364–365 [32]–[38] ((Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest AJA).
51 I accept that in each case your offending was not driven by greed, but by a desire to improve the impoverished circumstances of your families back in Vietnam. Unfortunately, this is an all too familiar story in this community. I also accept that each of you has experienced a relatively deprived upbringing and that this provides some explanation for your current offending.
52 I also accept that there has been delay in each of your cases. You have had these matters hanging over your heads for 22 months now and I take that matter into account in your favour.
Application of sentencing principles
53 I have had regard to current sentencing practices in relation to the offences before me in light of the decisions of the High Court of Australia in DPP v Dalgliesh(a Pseudonym)[14] and the Victorian Court of Appeal in Nguyen v The Queen.[15] It is difficult to gauge more than a very general yardstick from these and other cases given the wide range of offending conduct which can constitute the offence of cultivate a commercial quantity of cannabis, and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. For the reasons given earlier, I am of the view that your offending falls in the lower range of offences of this kind. To the extent that I have been able to gain any assistance from comparable cases, I have sought to do so in each of your cases.
[14] (2017) 91 ALJR 1063.
[15] (2016) 311 FLR 289.
54 It goes without saying, that by reason of the serious nature of your offending conduct, the only appropriate sentence I can impose upon each of you is immediate imprisonment. Both of your counsel accepted this was so. Parity with your co-offender, Hieu Tran, is an important sentencing consideration.
55 Ultimately, your counsel Nguyen submitted that I should impose a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period which would allow for your immediate release from custody in a Victorian prison in the event the Adult Parole Board saw fit to do so. In light of the sentences I have imposed on Tran, the fact your offending conduct was the same as his, as was your motivation and role, and you and Tran have comparable personal circumstances, I will impose the same sentences on you as I imposed on Tran. This means that you will receive a shorter non-parole period than I would otherwise have imposed on account of your lack of prior convictions and good prospects for rehabilitation.
56 Initially, your counsel Ho submitted that I should impose a ‘straight’ sentence of imprisonment for 21 months in a Victorian prison with no non-parole period fixed. However, I believe Mr Barker ultimately accepted that such a sentence would be inappropriate because it would offend against the parity principle. Accordingly, like your co-accused Nguyen, and for the same reasons as apply in his case, I will impose the same sentences on you as I imposed on Tran. This means that you also will receive a shorter non-parole period than I would otherwise have imposed on account of your lack of prior convictions and good prospects for rehabilitation.
57 The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of factors such as the seriousness of the offences, your culpability for them, and your personal circumstances.
58 I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, as far as possible, you are rehabilitated.
59 General deterrence is an important sentencing consideration in sentencing you both on charge 1. Just punishment and denunciation must also be given significant weight. I am of the view that, in each of your cases, specific deterrence and protection of the community are not required to be given significant weight. I assess each of your prospects for rehabilitation as being good.
Stand up Mr Nguyen
On the charge of cultivating a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity (charge 1) you will be convicted a sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
On the charge of theft (charge 2) you will be convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
On the charge of deal in property suspected of being proceeds of crime; being the $598.70 (related summary charge 5) you will be convicted and sentenced to 7 days’ imprisonment.
On the charge of deal in property suspected of being proceeds of crime; being the 251 ballasts, 116 lighting shrouds and other electrical equipment (related summary charge 7) you will be convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
I order that the sentences imposed on charge 2 and related summary charges 5 and 7 be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on charge 1 and with each other. This makes a total effective sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. I order that you serve a minimum term of 18 months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
I declare the period of 669 days (not including this day) as the period of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I direct that the fact that declaration was made and its details be noted in the records of the court.
Mr Nguyen, the effect of that declaration is that you are now eligible for release on parole. It will be a matter for the Adult Parole Board whether or not you are released on parole, and if you are, in all likelihood you will be taken immediately into immigration detention prior to your eventual deportation from this country to Vietnam.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state that the sentence I would have imposed on you but for your plea of guilty would have been a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2½ years’ imprisonment.
Sit down Mr Nguyen
Stand up Mr Ho
On the charge of cultivating a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity (charge 1) you will be convicted a sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
On the charge of theft (charge 2) you will be convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
On the charge of deal in property suspected of being proceeds of crime; being the $2755.65 (related summary charge 5) you will be convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
On the charge of deal in property suspected of being proceeds of crime; being the 251 ballasts, 116 lighting shrouds and other electrical equipment (related summary charge 7) you will be convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
I order that the sentences imposed on charge 2 and related summary charges 5 and 7 be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on charge 1 and with each other. This makes a total effective sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. I order that you serve a minimum term of 18 months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
I declare the period of 669 days (not including this day) as the period of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I direct that the fact that declaration was made and its details be noted in the records of the court.
Mr Ho, the effect of that declaration is that you are now eligible for release on parole. It will be a matter for the Adult Parole Board whether or not you are released on parole, and if you are, in all likelihood you will be taken immediately into immigration detention prior to your eventual deportation from this country to Vietnam.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state that the sentence I would have imposed on you but for your plea of guilty would have been a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2½ years’ imprisonment.
Remove the prisoners.
0
7
0