R v Nong - [2010] NSWDC 227

CITATION: R v NONG [2010] NSWDC 227

HEARING DATE(S): 1 October 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 1 October 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of twenty months with an additional term of a further twenty months, making a total overall sentence of three years and four months.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Knowingly taking part in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis by enhanced indoor means - Limited involvement - Principle of parity

PARTIES: The Crown
Guanglong Nong

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/00147024

COUNSEL: Mr B Brassil - Offender

SOLICITORS: The Director of Public Prosecutions
LLoyd Truman Sadiq

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Guanglong Nong appears for sentence today after having pleaded guilty at an early stage to an offence of knowingly taking part in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis by enhanced indoor means. That is a relatively new offence created as a result of community concern of high quality cannabis being grown in indoor locations, that high quality cannabis having high concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol, and thus causing more harm to the community than more traditional methods of cannabis cultivation.

2 Not only was the offence created but it carries with it a standard non parole period of ten years. Both the creation of the offence and the relatively standard non parole period are clearly an indication of the seriousness with which offences of this type are to be considered.

3 I will say at once that the authorities on which the Crown and Mr Brassil rely would perhaps suggest that the legislature’s intention has not yet been met.

4 The offender was one of a group of people who were involved in the cultivation of 227 cannabis plants at premises in Bexley. The offender was the subject of surveillance which indicated that he had attended this location at various times and telephone intercepts disclosed that as far back as 20 December 2008, that is, well before the plants were harvested in February 2009, the offender was visiting the premises for the purposes of cultivating cannabis plants. Specifically what he did cannot be determined precisely, except that in the middle of February 2009 a covertly installed listening device revealed that the offender was participating in the cutting and watering of plants. A significant matter is that whilst plants were harvested later on that month the offender did not attend and indeed declined to do so in conversations covertly recorded by police.

5 In assessing the objective gravity of the offender's conduct, I take into account that he has pleaded guilty to an offence of being knowingly concerned, that the quantity was just over the large commercial quantity, and that his involvement was relatively limited. Mr Brassil also relied on the circumstance that ninety of the plants were in propagating trays and were thus were far from mature, but I do not regard that as a significant mitigating feature at all. After all it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Nong

Details

AGLC: R v Nong [2010] NSWDC 227
Case: [2010] NSWDC 227
Decision Date: 1 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nong was heard in the higher courts of Australia, where the defendant, Nong, was convicted for his involvement in the cultivation of a significant commercial quantity of cannabis through enhanced indoor methods. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Nong, who had a limited role in the cultivation operation. The principle of parity, which suggests that similar criminal acts should attract similar penalties, was a central consideration in the sentencing process.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the extent of Nong's participation in the cannabis cultivation, the degree of his culpability, and the applicability of the principle of parity in determining his sentence. The court needed to balance Nong's limited involvement against the seriousness of the offence and ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. Furthermore, the court had to consider the broader societal impact of cannabis cultivation and the need to deter such activities.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged Nong's limited involvement in the cannabis cultivation but emphasised the severity of the crime. It recognised the need to uphold the principle of parity, ensuring that those who engage in similar criminal activities face commensurate penalties. After careful consideration of the circumstances, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. The court imposed a non-parole period of twenty months, followed by an additional term of twenty months, resulting in an overall sentence of three years and four months for Nong.

The court's final orders reflect the sentence imposed on Nong, consisting of a non-parole period of twenty months and an additional term of twenty months, totalling three years and four months. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that justice is served and that sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of twenty months with an additional term of a further twenty months, making a total overall sentence of three years and four 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.

CITATION:	R v NONG [2010] NSWDC 227
HEARING DATE(S):	1 October 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	1 October 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of twenty months with an additional term of a further twenty months, making a total overall sentence of three years and four months.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Knowingly taking part in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis by enhanced indoor means - Limited involvement - Principle of parity
PARTIES:	The Crown Guanglong Nong
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/00147024
COUNSEL:	Mr B Brassil - Offender
SOLICITORS:	The Director of Public Prosecutions LLoyd Truman Sadiq