Nguyen v The State of Western Australia

The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed following her conviction of seven offences, for which she received a total effective sentence of 6 years 6 months imprisonment. The appellant alleged that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive and breached the first limb of the totality principle. The appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court. The appellant was a 60% partner in a cannabis growing and distribution enterprise. She was the senior partner and had control over the enterprise. The appellant took steps to ensure that neither of the two houses at which cannabis would be grown were in her name, and she ensured that her co-accused son appeared to be an innocent homebuyer. The appellant and her partner used the property at Burswood as an administration centre for the business. The property at Langford was converted into a "commercial grow house" and the property at Belmont was converted for the purposes of growing cannabis. The appellant took care to ensure that the premises used for cannabis growing were not in her name, and that her son appeared to be an innocent homebuyer. The appellant was a 60% partner in a cannabis growing and distribution enterprise, and she was the senior partner with control over the enterprise. The appellant performed numerous active executive roles, including the procuring of two houses where cannabis would be grown, and the purchasing of hydroponic equipment. The appellant took steps to ensure that neither of the two houses at which cannabis would be grown were in her name, and she ensured that her co-accused son appeared to be an innocent homebuyer. The appellant and her partner used the property at Burswood as an administration centre for the business. The property at Langford was converted into a "commercial grow house" and the property at Belmont was converted for the purposes of growing cannabis. The appellant was convicted after trial, and the sentencing judge found that the appellant had performed numerous active executive roles in the cannabis growing and distribution enterprise. The appellant was a 60% partner in the enterprise and had control over it. The appellant took steps to ensure that neither of the two houses at which cannabis would be grown were in her name, and she ensured that her co-accused son appeared to be an innocent homebuyer. The appellant and her partner used the property at Burswood as an administration centre for the business. The property at Langford was converted into a "commercial grow house" and the property at Belmont was converted for the purposes of growing cannabis. The appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 6 years 6 months imprisonment. The appellant alleged that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive and breached the first limb of the totality principle. The Court held that the appellant's appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The Court found that the appellant had performed numerous active executive roles in the cannabis growing and distribution enterprise, and that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were not manifestly excessive. The Court held that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were not manifestly excessive and did not breach the first limb of the totality principle. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.