R v Bui

Case [2020] NSWDC 119


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bui [2020] NSWDC 119
Hearing dates: 28 February 2020
Date of orders: 28 February 2020
Decision date: 28 February 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

First offence: 3 months fixed term of imprisonment.
Second offence: 1yr 9 months, NPP 1yr 3 months

Catchwords: CRIME. SENTENCE.
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 offences contrary to sections 23(1A) and 23(2)(a) – Offender not a principal but paid to cultivate plants (first offence) and to reside in drug growing house (second offence). Prior good character. Not a drug user. Working to send money home to Vietnam.
Legislation Cited: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Crown – Regina

  Offender – Van Truong Bui
Representation:

Crown - Ms. Pinkerton

  Offender - Mr. Fung
File Number(s): 2019/00002955
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Van Truong Bui stands for sentence as a consequence of having pleaded guilty to two substantive charges. He also asks me to take into account the two charges on a Form 1.

  2. The offender is from Vietnam. He came to Australian in February 2015 when he was 21 years old. He came to Australia on a student visa. He told me that he was studying accounting. I do not know how this occurred but there is on the sentencing assessment report handwritten material indicating that the offender was studying at a college of advanced education and completed two of a three year course in finance.

  3. The first substantive charge to which the offender has pleaded guilty is that between 29 December 2016 and 8 March 2017 at Eastwood in this State did knowingly take part in the cultivation of a number of prohibited plants, namely 88 cannabis sativa plants, which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that plant. However, as the matter has been argued, the Crown cannot establish that the offender knew that there were 88 cannabis plants on the property and Crown accepts that the offender knowingly took part in the cultivation of prohibited plants by enhanced indoor means for a commercial purpose in an amount no more than the commercial quantity. The commercial quantity of cannabis plants is 50. The offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty is one contrary to s 23(1A) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 15 years and/or a fine of 3,500 penalty units.

  4. In December 2016, police commenced enquiries into the suspected cultivation of cannabis at premises at 25 Holway Street, Eastwood. On 29 December 2016, police conduced surveillance outside that property. At 7.30am a white Toyota Camry was parked outside the address and two Asian males left the vehicle. They then entered the address and stayed there for a very short period, until 7.38am, when they re-entered the vehicle. The vehicle was driven to Birchgrove where the two males began fishing. They were approached by uniformed police officers and one of the…

Continue reading R v Bui

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bui [2020] NSWDC 119
Case
[2020] NSWDC 119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bui, appealed against his conviction and sentence for two drug-related offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The first charge was for cultivating plants contrary to section 23(1A) and the second for residing in a drug growing house contrary to section 23(2)(a). Bui was not the principal in either offence but was paid to carry out these activities. Bui had no prior criminal history, was not a drug user, and was working to support his family in Vietnam. Bui was sentenced to three months imprisonment for the first offence and a non-parole period of one year and three months for the second offence.

The court considered whether the sentence was excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances. It was necessary to examine the nature and circumstances of the offences, Bui's role, and his personal circumstances. The court had to weigh the need for denunciation and deterrence against Bui's personal circumstances and his lack of a prior criminal record. The court also had to consider the need to provide some measure of proportionality in sentencing.

The court found that the sentence for the first offence was appropriate, but the sentence for the second offence was excessive. The court considered Bui's personal circumstances, including his good character, lack of drug use, and motivation to work to support his family. The court found that the sentence for the second offence did not provide sufficient measure of proportionality given Bui's personal circumstances. The appeal against sentence for the second offence was upheld and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

First offence: 3 months fixed term of imprisonment.

Second offence: 1yr 9 months, NPP 1yr 3 months

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.