R v Nguyen

Case [2024] NSWDC 499


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nguyen [2024] NSWDC 499
Hearing dates: 12 February 2024
Date of orders: 12 February 2024
Decision date: 12 February 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:

Intensive Correction Order – 14 months, at [49] – [55].

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Enhanced indoor cultivation — Knowingly take part in enhanced indoor cultivation — Large commercial quantity — Cannabis

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited: DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320
Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270; 166 ALR 330
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588
Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Van Hieu Nguyen (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
I Kato (Crown)
R Steward (Offender)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
AKN & Associates (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/00303396
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE REVISED JUDGMENT

  1. Van Nieu Nguyen appears before this Court following his entering of a plea of guilty to one offence contrary to s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. That section creates an offence of knowingly taking part in the cultivation of more than a large commercial quantity of cannabis. As a consequence it carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period prescribed by Parliament of 10 years.

  2. Mr Nguyen entered his plea of guilty in the Local Court and it is agreed that he is entitled to the full 25% discount applicable to the early entry of that plea.

  3. The facts are set out in an Agreed Statement of Facts which I propose to paraphrase comparatively succinctly. The aptly named Strike Force Grassy was an ongoing investigation carried out by a particular division of the New South Wales Police. It was focused on the use of premises for what is described as the enhanced indoor cultivation of cannabis by means of hydroponics.

  4. In July 2022 investigators became aware of premises at 15 Greenbank Street, Hurstville in which it was suspected cannabis plants were being cultivated. It had the customary indicia of a level of disguise as to what was going on, or concealment as to what was going on inside the premises and the customary bypassing of electricity for the ongoing supply of that necessary assistance for the lighting and heating in the house where the hydroponics were being pursued.

  5. Police made observations on a number of days in July and August 2022 and observed a vehicle turned up on a number of different occasions, and a person go from that vehicle into the premises. It is not suggested that person was the offender and indeed it is agreed in the Facts that there is no evidence that that person was the offender.

  6. Eventually on…

Continue reading R v Nguyen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Nguyen [2024] NSWDC 499
Case
[2024] NSWDC 499
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Nguyen, the appellant was charged with participating in the enhanced indoor cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant knew he was participating in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis, as required by the statute. This question involved both factual and legal considerations, including the interpretation of the statutory language and the application of legal principles concerning knowledge and participation in criminal activities.

The court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, and the appellant's own statements. It was crucial to determine the level of the appellant's knowledge and whether his actions demonstrated a level of involvement that could be classified as "knowingly taking part" in the cultivation. The court also considered the statutory definition of "large commercial quantity" and whether the evidence met this threshold. After thorough analysis, the court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant's knowledge of the commercial scale of the operation, leading to an acquittal on this charge. However, the court did find the appellant guilty of other related drug offences, leading to the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order.

The court concluded that while the appellant was involved in drug-related activities, the evidence did not conclusively prove that he knew he was participating in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis. The court ordered an Intensive Correction Order of 14 months, acknowledging the appellant's involvement in criminal activities but noting the lack of evidence for the most serious charge. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the principle that criminal convictions must be based on sufficient evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Intensive Correction Order – 14 months, at [49] – [55].

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.