R v Hyland

Case [2020] NSWDC 933


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hyland [2020] NSWDC 933
Hearing dates: 18 December 2020
Date of orders: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Par [29].

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE - Cultivation of a number of cannabis plants, not less than the commercial quantity applicable for that prohibited plant – Sentence of imprisonment – Suitable to be served by way of intensive correction.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW)

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Nil.

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Sentence
Parties: R – Crown
Offender – Susan Gai Hyland
Representation: R – Paterson, D.
Offender – Healey, S.
File Number(s): 2020/00029714
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Background

  1. HIS HONOUR: This morning’s proceedings are somewhat unusual. A 71 year old lady and her son stand for sentence because each of them participated in a crime. That crime was the use of a residential premises at Bexley North for the cultivation of a number of cannabis plants, not less than the commercial quantity applicable for that prohibited plant.

  2. The mother, Ms Susan Gai Hyland, was the lessee of the premises and the occupier. She had permitted her son, Zoran Kuzmic, to reside with her and allowed him to cultivate a cannabis plantation within her residence. In addition to participating in that crime, the son, Zoran Kuzmic, was cultivating a cannabis crop in another property at Hurstville. He also stands for sentence for two offences of driving whilst disqualified. I shall deal firstly with the case against Ms Hyland.

  3. Ms Hyland, as I mentioned, is 71-years-old. She comes before this Court as a woman of prior good character. In her 71 years she has committed no other crime in this State or elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. In January 2020 the police commenced an investigation into the suspected cultivation of cannabis by enhanced indoor means at premises at 76 Oliver Street, Bexley North, and at other places. The premises at Bexley North were rented by Ms Hyland and were her place of abode. On 29 January 2020, the police applied for and were granted a search warrant for the premises. Ms Hyland was present at the time of the execution of the search warrant, as it was, as I said, her place of residence.

  4. Within the premises, the police located an enhanced indoor hydroponic set up, with one room converted into a growing room. That room had a self-watering system and heat lamps with charcoal ventilation filters. All told, the police found 117 cannabis sativa plants in the premises at Bexley North. Fifteen of the plants were over one metre in height and 102 of them were below one metre. A small number of plants were being grown in Ms Hyland’s bedroom. They were no more than 30 centimetres in height, growing in two plastic tubs underneath a shelf.

  5. Ms Hyland was arrested on 29 January 2020, but declined to be interviewed by the police.…

Continue reading R v Hyland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hyland [2020] NSWDC 933
Case
[2020] NSWDC 933
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hyland involved the respondent, Hyland, who was convicted for the cultivation of a number of cannabis plants, which met or exceeded the commercial quantity applicable for that prohibited plant under the relevant legislation. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the court, which was a term of imprisonment, and Hyland argued that it was inappropriate for the sentence to be served through an intensive correction order (ICO). The case was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment was suitable to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the relevant sentencing principles, and whether an ICO was an appropriate alternative to imprisonment for this type of offence. The court also needed to assess whether the imposition of an ICO would adequately address the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in this particular case.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of imprisonment was indeed suitable to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The court acknowledged that the offence involved the cultivation of a significant number of cannabis plants, which was a serious matter. However, the court also recognised that an ICO could provide a more appropriate and effective means of achieving the objectives of sentencing in this case. The court concluded that an ICO would allow for a more intensive supervision and rehabilitation program, which would be more suitable for the respondent's circumstances and the nature of the offence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of imprisonment with an intensive correction order.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, and the sentence of imprisonment be substituted with an intensive correction order as outlined in paragraph [29] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Par [29].

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.