R v Nguyen

[2019] NSWDC 905

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Nguyen [2019] NSWDC 905
Hearing dates:	27 September 2019
Decision date:	08 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	I fix an aggregate sentence of 10 years imprisonment; non-parole period six years six months imprisonment.
Catchwords:	CRIME – aggregate sentence – manufacture large commercial quantity of prohibited drug – recklessly deal with proceeds crime – joint criminal enterprise - parity with co-accused – significant criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Crimes Act Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 24(2)
Cases Cited:	Chen v R [2010] NSWCCA 224 DPP(Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540. Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Loc Phouc Nguyen (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Djemal (offender)   Solicitors: Ms J Jayasuriya (DPP)
File Number(s):	2016/00115235
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. Mr Nguyen, my practice is to tell people in advance what sentence is to be imposed. In your case, I proposed to fix an aggregate sentence of ten years imprisonment to commence on 14 April 2016. That sentence will expire on 13 April 2026 with a non‑parole period of six years, six months, expiring on 13 October 2022. You will be eligible for release to parole in October 2022. I will give my reasons for that decision.

2. Before I commence going through the details of the charges and the pertinent matters that arose out of this sentencing exercise, it is important from the outset to point out that I sentenced the co‑accused of this gentleman in 2018. Now that co‑accused was a man called Abby Tannous and I sentenced him on 27 July 2018. Both the defence and the Crown have had access to my remarks on sentence in relation to that matter despite all their imperfections.

3. I have told the prisoner in advance what sentence is to be imposed. But for the general purposes of understanding the reason I have distinguished him between Mr Tannous, it is very important from the outset to explain why that is so. I sentenced Mr Tannous to seven years, eight months imprisonment dated back to the day he came into custody with a non‑parole period of four years. The starting point of the sentence for him before any discount was to be granted was 11 years imprisonment. My understanding is that that sentence has not been the subject of appeal by Mr Tannous, nor by the prosecution so far as I am aware, and I have not been told in these proceedings that it has been.

4. So far as this prisoner is concerned there are a number of substantial distinguishing features that require a bigger sentence to be imposed upon him. A starting point for that is to recognise that whilst I am prepared to give him a 25% discount…