District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Huat [2021] NSWDC 87 Hearing dates: 04 February 2021 Date of orders: 04 February 2021 Decision date: 04 February 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: ML Williams SC DCJ Decision: A term of imprisonment of 21 months with a non-parole period of 11 months: at [12].
Catchwords: SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Maximum penalty
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Tai Huat (Offender)Representation: Ms S Foggo (Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions)
Mr E James (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s): 2020/169948
Judgment
-
Mr Tai Huat is a 21 year old Malay man who came to Australia in late 2019, when he was in his late teens after finishing high school in Malaysia. He worked in Australia as an electrician and then got a job at the recommendation of friend, growing cannabis.
-
On 5 June 2020, Police attended a site at Marulan where they discovered a cannabis plantation with a total of 2,443 plants. It was on a large rural property with a number of tunnels constructed for the growing of the cannabis. Other people were arrested at that time but the offender took himself to Goulburn Police Station three days later and volunteered that he had been involved in the cannabis plantation.
-
In an interview with Police he said that he expected he could earn $20,000 a month but he had not been paid anything and he was given a place to stay and food. He worked from 7am to 5pm watering,feeding and tending the plants.
-
His mother encouraged him to hand himself into Police. He had run away and hidden in the forest when he became aware that police attended on 5 June 2020. He had searched online about cannabis after he took the job and he discovered that it was illegal, but he needed the money.
-
He has no criminal record. He has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea. It is conceded that fulltime custody is required and I need not consider any alternatives.
-
I accept that a further discount of 15% in accordance with the decision in R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 should be allowed by reason of his surrender and volunteering information to the police. A total of 40% discount will be applied to the term of imprisonment which will commence on the day of his arrest, 8 June 2020.
-
There is a psychological report which sets out an uncontroversial history of his background and notes that there were no psychological, mental or other medical difficulties.
-
In terms of…
Continue reading R v Huat
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Huat [2021] NSWDC 87
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 87
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate term of imprisonment for the defendant, considering various legal issues. These issues included the mitigating factors present in the case, such as the defendant's plea of guilty, his level of rehabilitation, and his display of remorse. The court also needed to weigh subjective considerations such as the age of the offender and any special circumstances that might impact the sentencing decision. Furthermore, the court had to consider the co-offenders' role in the offence, the need for deterrence, and the maximum penalty available for the offence.
In delivering its judgment, the court considered the mitigating factors and subjective considerations in detail. The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea, which led to a discount in the sentence. The court also took into account the defendant's age and his prospects for rehabilitation, which were seen as favourable. The court further noted the defendant's display of remorse and his low likelihood of re-offending. After weighing these factors, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of 21 months with a non-parole period of 11 months.
The court's final orders were that the defendant was to serve a term of imprisonment of 21 months, with a non-parole period of 11 months. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors and subjective considerations presented by the defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
A term of imprisonment of 21 months with a non-parole period of 11 months: at [12].
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.