Criminal law – Sentence – Cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis – Theft of electricity – Cumulation upon a count other than that upon which the heaviest sentence was imposed – Sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of two years’ imprisonment not manifestly inadequate having regard to the personal circumstances of the offender.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C. with Ms E.J. Gardner
Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent
Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr M. Gleeson
Michael J. Gleeson & Assocs.
WARREN, C.J.:
I invite Buchanan, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.
BUCHANAN, J.A.:
On 23 April 2002, members of the police force executed a search warrant at a house in Delahay owned by the respondent. They found 152 cannabis plants growing in rooms in the house with the aid of a hydroponic system consisting of plastic linings of the rooms, fans, lights and irrigation equipment. The electricity meter had been bypassed. When she was interviewed by the police, the respondent denied knowledge of the cannabis plants. The respondent was arrested and released on bail.
On 15 November 2004, the respondent was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and one count of theft of electricity.
The next day, police executed a search warrant at a house in Hoppers Crossing containing a sophisticated hydroponic system and 197 cannabis plants. The house was owned by the respondent's husband. The respondent told the police that she had attended at the house to clean it and denied being involved in the cultivation of the cannabis plants.
On 25 October 2005, the respondent was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and one count of theft of electricity. The presentment related to the second house. After a plea, the respondent was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of two years on the count of cultivation in the first presentment, for a term of six months on the count of theft in that presentment, for a term of two years and six months upon the count of cultivation in the second presentment, and for a term of nine months on the count of theft in that presentment. The sentencing judge cumulated 15 months of the sentence imposed in respect of the count of cultivation in the second presentment and three months of the sentence imposed in respect of the theft in the second presentment on the sentence imposed in respect of the count of cultivation in the first presentment,…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading DPP v Duong
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
DPP v Duong [2006] VSCA 78
Case
[2006] VSCA 78
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Duong involved a defendant who was found guilty of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and stealing electricity. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Duong, considering the nature and extent of the offences, as well as his personal circumstances.
The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge had properly considered the principles of cumulation of sentences. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of two years, was sufficient given the gravity of the crimes committed by Duong.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had given due consideration to the relevant sentencing principles and the offender's personal circumstances. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the nature of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court also concluded that the cumulation of sentences was correctly applied, as the offences were closely connected and involved significant criminal conduct.
No further orders were made by the court. The sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of two years, was upheld.