R v Phuong Thanh Do; R v Van Hung Duong; R v Kenny Tran; R v Hoang Linh Nguyen

Case •

[2018] NSWDC 194

•

25 January 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Phuong Thanh DO; R v Van Hung DUONG; R v Kenny TRAN; R v Hoang Linh NGUYEN [2018] NSWDC 194
Hearing dates: 17 August 2017
Date of orders: 25 January 2018
Decision date: 25 January 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Tupman DCJ
Decision:

DO:
Aggregate term of 8 years with a NPP of 5 years with parole thereafter of 3 years.
Indicative sentences:
Seq001: 4 years overall with 2 ye 6 months NPP
Seq002: 6 years with NPP 4 years
Drug proceeds order in the sum of $3000

 

DUONG:
NPP of 4 years with parole thereafter of 3 years giving rise to an overall term of 7 years.

 

TRAN:
NPP of 3 years parole thereafter of 3 years giving rise to an overall term of 6 years.

 NGUYEN:
Aggregate term of 10 years with a NPP of 6 years with parole thereafter of 4 years.
Indicative sentences:
Seq001: 7 years NPP 4 years
Seq002: 8 years NPP 5 years
Drug proceeds order in the sum of $25,000.
Order pursuant to S 97 Victims Rights and Supports Act 2013, to pay compensation in the sum of 9,030 in relation to the offence H6150592 to be paid to the Downing Centre registry then to be paid to Peter Song.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Guilty plea in Local Court – Four co-offenders - supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug – 491 grams - methamphetamine – Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug – 696 grams – 1.276 kilograms – Supply 4.51 kilograms of Cannabis on a Form 1 – knowingly take part in the cultivation of prohibited plants on a Form 1 – Bail refused from time of arrest – organised criminal activity – Tran no criminal record – Prior criminal record for other offenders – Specific deterrence – rehabilitation whilst in custody – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Ss 23, 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985
Cases Cited: R v Thomson & Houlton
Category:Sentence
Parties: Phuong Thanh DO; Van Hung DUONG; Kenny TRAN; Hoang Linh NGUYEN
The Crown
Representation:

Counsel:
DO: Mr Johnson
DUONG: Mr Schaudin
TRAN: Mr Wozniak
NGUYEN: Mr Overall

  Crown: Mr Marney
File Number(s): 2015/00377517; 2015/00376630; 2015/00376437; 2015/00376440

Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: Each of the offenders before me, Phuong Thanh Do, Van Hung Duong, Kenny Tran and Hoang Linh Nguyen, is before the Court for sentence following his plea of guilty to a connected set of charges.

  2. Phuong Thanh Do is before the Court having pleaded guilty in the local Court to two charges as follows:

  1. That on 7 December 2015 he supplied 491 grams, namely of commercial quantity of the prohibited drug, methamphetamine. That is an offence contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

  2. That on 22 December 2015 he supplied the large commercial quantity, namely 696 grams, of the drug methamphetamine, which is also contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

  1. The second offender, Van Hung Duong, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of methamphetamine on 22 October 2015 in the quantity of 1.276 kilograms. That also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

  2. The third offender, Kenny Tran, also pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one charge of supplying that same quantity, namely 1.276 kilos of methamphetamine on 22 December, which also carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

  3. The fourth offender, Hoang Linh Nguyen, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two charges as follows:

  1. That on 7 December 2015 he supplied the commercial quantity, namely 491 grams of methamphetamine which also carries a maximum penalty of 20 years with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

  1. When sentencing him for this offence he asks that I take into account one offence on a schedule to a Form 1 signed by him of supplying 4.51 kilograms of cannabis on 22 December 2015. If sentenced separately, as an offence contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking 1985 that would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment

  1. (2) That on 22 December 2015 he supplied the large commercial quantity, namely 1.276 kilograms of methamphetamine which also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

  1. When sentencing him for the second offence, the offender asks that I take into account an additional offence appearing in a schedule to a second Form 1 signed by him on 15 August 2017, and exhibited in these proceedings, namely a charge of knowingly taking part in the cultivation of prohibited plants. It is an offence contrary to s 23 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 which, if sentenced separately, would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. It is obviously a serious offence in its own right, and yet despite that, all I have tendered so that I can take this offence into account in a meaningful way, is a signed Form 1 document which curiously is connected to the large commercial quantity supply offence, and a two paragraph statement of agreed facts.

  2. The offence would appear to have been committed in late 2015, apparently during the period of surveillance as part of the Strikeforce which ultimately uncovered the substantive offences, but not dealt with until after these commercial and large commercial supplies were committed and charged.

  3. The circumstances surrounding this Form 1 offence were that on 10 August 2015 Mr Nguyen made an enquiry of the owner of premises in Starkey Street, Forestville, about renting that property. The owner met someone who referred to themselves as “Danny Lee” who rented that property from him on 13 August 2015. That person did so for the purposes of cultivating cannabis plants at that premises.

  4. Mr Nguyen was identified by police on 25 and 30 November 2015 as attending those premises, those observations no doubt being made during the course of this Strikeforce. He attended in order to facilitate the cultivation of the plants. The owner of the premises called the police on 3 January 2015 and they attended. There they located 31 cannabis plants in the course of cultivation.

  5. I do not know when he was charged with this offence. It is clear that after being observed by police to enter those premises in November 2015, premises with which he had no real other connection given that he lived in Turrella, no investigation or action was undertaken.

  6. One can only wonder whether these more significant and more serious drug supply offences would have occurred at all had Mr Ngueyn been take out of circulation at that early stage.

  7. There is almost a complete lack of information from which I could possibly assess the seriousness of the offending covered by this Form 1 offence from his perspective so that I can deal with that From 1 offence in a meaningful way, however the owner of those premises is seeking compensation for that damage, for the damage sustained to that property during the course of the cultivation apparently in the sum of $9,030. I will deal with that in due course.

  8. By asking that each of these offences be taken into account, one for the first offence and the other for the second, Mr Nguyen acknowledges his guilt for these two offences. Both of these additional offences are serious in their own right, albeit there are not separate sentences to be imposed for them. Nonetheless they need to be taken into account in a meaningful way. In this case, given the absence of any exceptional circumstances, that must mean longer sentences will be imposed for the substantive offences than would otherwise be the case.

  9. The pleas were entered by all offenders in the Local Court and thus I accept they were entered early and there is a significant utilitarian value reflected by the timing of those pleas. Pursuant to the dicta of the Court of Criminal Appeal and R v Thomson & Houlton I will apply a discount at the top of the range, that is, 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of those pleas. There has been a considerable saving of time as a result of the pleas being entered when they were. It has not been necessary to prepare and run a trial for any of the offenders. The Court is all too aware that trials for offences such as these involving multiple offenders and need for interpreters and evidence of the type which would have been called here, including surveillance and telephone intercept evidence. would usually run for weeks and consume considerable time and resources. Even though the road to finality in these sentences has been lengthy, nonetheless it pales into insignificance compared to what would have been the length of a trial for these four accused run at the same time, thus the utilitarian value is significant and ought be assessed at the top of the range.

  10. The offenders are to be sentenced separately, but the facts are common and are before the Court by way of documents called agreed facts. Once again, as I have been doing now for over 20 years, I note that these so called agreed facts are not that. The agreed fact document for each is just a summary, mainly of the circumstantial evidence which would have been called by the Crown had it been necessary for the matters to go to trial. For that matter, even though almost identical documents are tendered without objection for each of these four offenders, for two of them at least, half of that document does not even relate to that person. This is the case for Duong and Tran who stand to be sentenced only for the offences committed on 22 December. Each of the so called agreed facts documents extends over eight pages with footnotes referring to various pieces of evidence which were not in fact tendered on sentence, including records-of-interviews, surveillance reports, statements and similar.

  11. These are not agreed facts. This is, in my view, another example of laziness and very limited assistance being provided to the Court. These documents do not seek to extract what it is alleged each of offenders did which can be gained from that summary of evidence. In particular, when this matter was first listed for sentence and right up until December 2017, there was almost nothing tendered in relation to the offender Do from which any relevant findings of fact could be made in relation to his role in the second offence to which he has pleaded guilty. I had considered before the last occasion simply adjourning the proceedings entirely in order to force both the DPP and the legal representatives of each accused to bring before the Court an actual set of agreed facts, namely, a document which sets out exactly what each person did. The bulk of the submissions made on behalf of each of the offenders in relation to the objective criminality of these offences goes to what is a necessary consideration, namely, the role that each of them played in these drug supplies. And yet in no case was there a set of agreed facts which actually set this out. It has been necessary to glean this from lengthy evidence summaries. This is, in this case and every other case in which this occurs, time consuming for judges and is amongst the many reasons why sentences take so long and why sentence dates are so far into the future. The Court is being ill served, in my view, by the legal profession’s continuing to present sentences to the Court in this way.

  12. A particularly irksome example of the problem in this particular sentence is as follows: this Court, dealing with pleas of guilty for offences like those before me where, inevitably, there are telephone intercepts, controlled operations and surveillance simply does not need to know in a so called agreed statement of facts, the identity of the judicial officer who granted various warrants. It does not need to have a footnote to the statement of the undercover operative, particularly where that statement is not even tendered as part of the Crown case on sentence. These are pleas of guilty. Much of pages 3 and 4 in each of the so called statement of facts is unnecessary and irrelevant to the sentence hearing and judgment that I must undertake in this case. This is a criticism I aim at both those appearing for the DPP and those appearing for the accused in this sentence. It is incumbent on everybody who runs these sentences in this Court to attempt to work together to present to the Court a set of agreed facts that is meaningful and is not just box ticking and providing a summary of evidence to the Court.

  13. Doing the best I can with what I consider to be defective documents, I accept that in October 2015 there was a Strikeforce set up to investigate a Sydney based methylamphetamine supply network. Police believed that Mr Nguyen was a supplier in conjunction with a number of other individuals. As part of this Strikeforce, police carried out surveillance operations including the use of undercover operatives and lawful telephone intercepts. As a result, they captured Mr Nguyen on Thursday 3 December 2015 driving his car to a coffee shop in Brighton-Le-Sands, where he met with a drug purchaser and agreed to supply that person with half a kilo of methamphetamine for $80,000. This supply was to occur on 7 December 2015. He went back to the same coffee shop on the morning of Monday 7 December 2015 and met a drug buyer there, and again agreed to supply half a kilo of methamphetamine for $80,000 later that day. The supply was arranged to take place near Mr Nguyen’s residence in Turrella. There was further telephone contact during that day between Nguyen and the buyer finalising the supply.

  14. At 4.45, Mr Nguyen got into a car in Henry Street Turrella and there met with the drug buyer. He assisted to count $80,000 in cash using electronic scales but there was no drug exchange at that point. There was further telephone contact with the drug purchaser. At 5.45pm, Mr Nguyen and an unknown female were again in Henry Street Turella and went back to the drug purchaser’s car. Mr Nguyen got into the front passenger’s seat and at the same time Mr Do arrived at the scene in a car. He got out and went over to the drug purchaser’s car, carrying a blue plastic shopping bag. He got into the back of the car and handed the blue shopping bag to the drug buyer. It contained 491 grams of methamphetamine. The buyer handed $25,000 in cash to Mr Nguyen and $55,000 in cash to Mr Do. This division of the purchase moneys had been arranged earlier by Mr Nguyen when he sent an SMS to the purchaser. Nguyen and Do and the unknown female then got out of the car.

  15. The documents called facts tendered for Do and Nguyen are slightly different. There is no explanation for this but the differences have no bearing, in my view, on any relevant considerations for this offence for these two offenders. As to the way in which the offence occurred they are, in essence, the same. Mr Nguyen, I accept, was the person doing the negotiating and organising. He alone met the drug purchaser twice beforehand and then met with him to count the money before the drug supply actually occurred. Mr Do brought the drugs to the exchange, was present when they were physically supplied to the purchaser and, in fact, was the person who physically handed them over to the purchaser and received $55,000 in cash. Mr Nguyen received $25,000. Do played a lesser role, but nonetheless an important role in this drug supply. There is no evidence that Mr Do was to obtain this $55,000 and he has given evidence that he, in fact, handed it all over. More probably than not, I accept this to be the case. However, his role was important, he was trusted as an integral part of this syndicate, not only to carry, even if only for a short distance, half a kilo of methamphetamine to that which was a prearranged drug supply, but also to take back $55,000, again even if only for a short distance.

  16. Only the offenders, Nguyen and Do, are to be sentenced for this commercial supply offence and as I have said, when sentencing him for this, Mr Nguyen asks that I take into account one offence of supplying 4.51 kilograms of cannabis on 22 December 2015, an offence which came to light at the time he was arrested for the second offence. It was found in a cardboard box in the rear of the vehicle that he had driven to the hotel on 22 November 2015 and was under his control. He has admitted this by asking that this offence be taken into account as an additional offence.

  17. Three of the offenders, Nguyen, Duong and Tran, are to be sentenced as I have said for the offence of supplying the large commercial quantity, namely, 1.276 kilograms of methylamphetamine on 22 December 2015. So too is Mr Do to be sentenced for the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine on that day, but in an amount of 696.4 grams. The offences are connected, but they are not same drugs relevant for Mr Do as for the other three offenders.

  18. The relevant facts for these joint charges are also to be divined from the so-called statement of agreed facts. There is one tendered for each offender in more or less identical terms and an additional statement of agreed facts now tendered in relation to Mr Do. I accept that after the supply which occurred on 7 December police continued with their surveillance of Mr Nguyen. On 11 December he went to the same coffee shop in Brighton-le-Sands and met a drug buyer there and agreed to supply 3 kilograms of methylamphetamine to him for $480,000. This was to occur on 16 December, again in Henry Street Turrella. Nguyen confirmed this in a later phone contact that night.

  19. On 17 December he went to Henry Street Turrella and met there with the drug buyer for the purpose of supplying those 3 kilos as arranged, but the transaction did not occur. Mr Do was seen driving in a car in company with Ms  Dhang in the vicinity as part of this arrangement and was also seen meeting up with another person who was also the subject of surveillance as part of this Strike Force but who has not been charged with any of the offences before me. However that transaction did not occur on that day but there is no explanation for that before the Court.

  20. On 19 December Mr Nguyen was in telephone contact again with the drug purchaser and again on 21 December, when arrangements were made for a meeting to take place. Pursuant to that, on 22 December 2015, Mr Nguyen drove to the Novotel at Brighton-le-Sands. He went into the hotel, then left and drove to Rockdale where he bought a set of digital scales and returned to the hotel. He put a cardboard box into the car that he was driving after he parked there, more probably than not being the cardboard box that contained just over four and a half kilos of cannabis. The evidence does not allow me to make a finding one way or the other about that. The drug purchaser was in one of the rooms at the Novotel at the time. At about 1.26pm there were a number of phone contacts between this person and Mr Nguyen after which he left the room and met Nguyen, Tran and Duong and another person named as N Nguyen in the foyer of the hotel. They all went up from the foyer to the purchaser’s room.

  21. Mr Tran was carrying a box at that stage which to his knowledge, and the knowledge of the other offenders before me relevant to this offence, contained methylamphetamine. The drugs were taken out of the box inside the room and weighed on the scales which Mr Nguyen had bought earlier and taken up to the room. There was 1.276 kilos of methylamphetamine inside the box which is the subject of the large commercial supply relevant to three of the offenders. At that stage Mr Tran left the room and left the building. Arrangements were made during the course of this transaction by the offenders present to supply a further 700 grams to the purchaser which was said to be in a car outside and which could be delivered to the room if required.

  1. At that stage, however, police entered the room and arrested Mr Nguyen and Mr Duong. Mr Tran was arrested at the same time outside the hotel. During this supply by Nguyen, Duong and Tran I accept that Mr Do was in the vicinity of the hotel acting as a driver for a person named as Ms Dhang who police allege was involved in this drug supply syndicate and who has been charged but who has apparently pleaded not guilty. Mr Do had been working as a driver for Ms Dhang I accept for about six months and became aware that she was involved in drug supply in early December. He claimed eventually that his involvement in the offence of 7 December was at her direction.

  2. On 22 December he was driving her in the vicinity of the hotel knowing that she was in possession of methylamphetamine to supply, if required, in the hotel room via Mr Nguyen. This I accept was the 700 grams referred to by Nguyen and others in conversation with what must have been an undercover operative, when supplying to that person 1.27 kilograms of methylamphetamine.

  3. Police observed Mr Do driving Ms Dhang in the vicinity of the hotel and stopped the vehicle. They saw Ms Dhang throw an object from the car which they recovered. It was a tissue box which was found to contain 696.4 grams of methylamphetamine, which I accept more probably than not would have been brought to the room and supplied to the drug purchaser in the room had the police not intervened. Do and Dhang were arrested in that car.

  4. Each of the offenders before me thus was arrested on 22 December 2015 and each has remained in custody bail refused ever since. For that reason in each case their term of imprisonment will be backdated to commence on that date.

  5. I now turn to an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending. Each of these offences is objectively very serious. All drug supply offences are in fact serious criminal offences but particularly so for each of these offenders the charges of supplying the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years indicates that. Equally, the maximum penalty for the two separate charges involving Do and Nguyen of supplying a commercial quantity of this drug is serious, as is clear from the maximum penalty of 20 years and the standard non-parole period of 10 years.

  6. This drug, methylamphetamine, to the knowledge of the Court and, for that matter, to some of the offenders here, is notoriously addictive and regrettably easy to acquire in New South Wales. It is well within the knowledge of the Court that users become addicted to it very quickly and it has very serious deleterious impacts on those who use it and those who become the victims of those who use the drug. The supply of drugs into the community must be condemned, especially when people engage in this as part of an organised syndicate for financial or other gain. That was clearly the case here, although the evidence does not allow me to make a finding as to what each offender gained, except for the offender, Mr Nguyen, who obtained $25,000 in relation to the first offence.

  7. It is an inevitable finding however that when one becomes involved in the commercial supply of drugs, albeit that those persons might themselves be addicts, they almost inevitably expect to make a gain either in money or in kind as a result of that involvement. The fact that each of these offences was committed by each of these offenders for financial gain is a relevant aggravating factor.

  8. The most significant aggravating factor for all of these offences is that they were committed as part of a planned and organised criminal activity. The arrangements were well organised and planned, including at least for the offender Nguyen but overall, multiple telephone conversations, counting money separate from delivery, planning for drugs to be delivered or brought to a handover scene from elsewhere by others in separate cars after arrangements had been finalised and having some other drugs in the vicinity in a car to be delivered as required and having a large group of people involved. The quantity of the drugs relevant for the 7 December offences involving Do and Nguyen was large for a commercial quantity. 491 grams is close to the top of the range for offences capable of being charged as commercial supply offences for this drug. That is a relevant factor in determining the objective criminality.

  9. The quantity for the other charges involving Nguyen, Duong and Tran, namely 1.296 kilograms, is more than double the starting point for large commercial quantity offences, but it is nowhere near the quantity of drugs at the upper end which is both capable of and is often charged for offences of supplying the large commercial quantity of this drug which carries life imprisonment as a maximum penalty.

  10. It is, in fact, towards the bottom of the range in terms of quantity, capable of being charged as this offence and that is relevant even more so for the large commercial quantity supply offence involving the offender Do, namely 691 grams, only just above the 500 gram limit.

  11. The agreed facts do not disclose the purity of any of the three quantities of drugs which were seized by police, so that is not a matter that I am able to take into account in any way in assessing the objective criminality.

  12. Part of the assessment of objective criminality in cases such as this involves findings as to the role of each offender. For the 7 December offence involving Nguyen and Do I accept that Mr Nguyen played a significant role in the organisation and carrying out of this offence. He was the one who did the initial negotiating with the drug purchaser. He met that person and arranged for the supply and he did that on more than one occasion. He met the drug purchaser and counted the money with him, I accept to make sure that it was in the correct amount. By inference it must have been him who at least played a part in arranging for Do to bring the drugs to the ultimate handover, whether or not also through the agency of Ms Dang is not of significance for this sentence. He was present whilst the drugs were handed over and he received $25,000 for himself and allowed the rest of the money to go others by prior arrangement through Mr Do. There obviously were others involved. There is no evidence that he was the one with the contacts to actually source the drugs or even did that, but he was obviously very important as a middle manager in this syndicate on my finding.

  13. Equally for the offence of 22 December again he set it up with the undercover operative by phone calls and a meeting. He then had a meeting which was meant to be a handover but it did not happen and he then arranged for the actual handover. That supply itself in my view was conducted in a relatively sophisticated and well planned way. There were at least three groups of people who all arrived in three different cars at the Novotel. He got there first but he was not the one with the drugs. He also took steps to ensure there were scales there to weigh the drugs. He spoke to the undercover operative and went away and bought those scales. He then stayed downstairs and met up, I infer, at least with an involvement in the arrangement with the other two, Tran and Duong, who were the delivery people for this supply. They all then went up together and the drugs were supplied.

  14. He had negotiated it, made sure it happened, and made sure that everything and everybody was there, and offered to engage in a further supply, which itself would have amounted to a large commercial quantity of this drug had it come to fruition.

  15. I do not accept the submission made on his behalf that he was at the lower end or lower level of the syndicate. Mr Nguyen was significantly involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs and his was not a one-off involvement as is clear at the very least from the fact that he faces two separate charges committed two weeks apart. He also received $25,000 for his role and I accept, but for the intervention of the police, would have received money from his involvement on 22 December. His role, it seems to me, is higher than any of the other three offenders to be sentenced by me. I certainly reject the proposition on his part that his role was lower than that of Mr Do.

  16. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offences committed by Mr Nguyen, as for the first offence it is in my view at about the middle of the range of objective seriousness by way of combination both of his role as middle manager and the quantity involved. The standard non-parole period must be borne in mind but however does not strictly apply because of his plea of guilty.

  17. As for the second offence it seems to me it is a little below the mid‑range in terms of objective seriousness, largely because the quantity is relatively small for a large commercial quantity. The other factors however are the same and again the standard non-parole period of 15 years, whilst it is a matter that I must bear in mind, does not apply strictly because of the plea of guilty.

  18. Turning to Mr Do, and in relation to both offences, I accept that his role was in the nature of a courier or delivery person. He was the driver on both occasions and apparently was involved in what was a non-starting event on 17 December 2015. He knew what he was doing, he was driving Ms Dang for the purpose of supplying drugs. Despite some of the oral evidence he gave, I accept that he well knew what he was doing and knew that he was going to be involved on both occasions in delivering large quantity of drugs.

  19. His role was somewhat greater for the first offence, in that he was actually present and delivered the drugs personally, handing them over and being present when the money was exchanged. He was more than just a delivery boy on that occasion, however only slightly. He must have realised and recognised, at the time he observed this handover, that it was a significant drug syndicate in which he was involved, particularly so when he was permitted to take away $55,000 in cash. Whether or not he gave all of that back to Ms Dang or not it seems to me is largely irrelevant for this sentence. He was involved in both of these offences for financial gain, either to make some money for himself, about which as I understand it the evidence is silent, or to avoid having to pay back moneys he had borrowed from Ms Dang. His role is lower than that of Mr Nguyen and significantly so, but not at the very bottom in terms of roles played by those involved in drug syndicates.

  20. For the offence of 7 December the objective seriousness is close to, but below, the middle of the range as a delivery driver but elevated because of the large quantity. For the offence of 22 December it is in the bottom of the range in terms of objective seriousness.

  21. Turning to Tran and Duong.

  22. I accept Mr Tran was involved as the person carrying the drugs into the premises on 22 December. He knew that he was doing that as part of a drug syndicate. He did not give evidence but I accept from the psychological report of Dr Nielssen tendered in evidence in his case and from admissions he made to Dr Nielssen, that he engaged in this offence for financial gain. He expected to earn between $3,000 and $5,000 for his role, but in fact I accept received nothing. I accept that he became involved in this offence at the request of Mr Duong who had known him for a number of years. He did so to make money because he had accumulated a significant gambling debt. His role, it seems to me, places him at the bottom of the range of offences such as this. He was involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs as part of a drug syndicate but the evidence for him is that this was a one-off event.

  23. The fact that his involvement was clearly as part of an organised criminal gang and involving a large commercial quantity, however, means that only full‑time imprisonment is appropriate to deal with the objective criminality.

  24. For Mr Duong, his role as well on my finding, is that he was to be involved in the delivery of the drugs for supply on 22 December. He was friends with Mr Tran but did not know any of the others. However, he was not a novice in the business of drug supply, which is clear from his criminal history in Victoria at the very least. He engaged in this offending for financial gain and I accept from the content of the record of interview he gave police, that he expected to receive $5,000 for undertaking this role, very much like Mr Tran.

  25. But I do not accept the submission made on his behalf that it is appropriate to treat him as some sort of novice in the business of drug supply. Because of his history, he must have known and realised, when he agreed to commit this offence, that he was doing so as part of an organised criminal group and what is more he was present when the money was counted, the drugs were handed over in the hotel room and an offer was made to supply a further 700 grams. He knew the quantity and the sums of money involved and the fact that there was a further quantity available.

  26. Of course just like Mr Tran his role was at the bottom. He did not have an organising role and as I have said I accept he was at the bottom of the range in terms of his role for those who engage in drug trafficking. But he engaged with eyes wide open and for that matter was on bail for other drug related offences, which at the time he committed this offence more probably than not involved extant commonwealth charges for attempting to possess a quantity of a border controlled drug, albeit that ultimately he was sentenced for the possession of a relatively small quantity of heroin. His involvement was important and, as I have said, what is more he was on bail for another drug related offence which elevates the seriousness of his criminality.

  27. However despite all of that, the objective seriousness of his offending is towards the bottom of the range, albeit that it is for a large commercial quantity, with a limited role as delivery person. His role is similar to that of Tran but for those other reasons the objective seriousness of the offending for him is slightly more than Mr Tran.

  28. There is only one common mitigating factor relevant for all of the offenders, namely that each of them has pleaded guilty which is a matter I have already addressed.

  29. It is a mitigating factor for Mr Tran that he comes to court with no criminal history, which he is entitled to have taken into account as evidence of his prior good character. He is entitled to a degree of leniency as a result of that, particularly so because he was 51 at the time he committed the offences and comes to court therefore as a person who for quite some time has remained free of contact with the criminal law. He is the only one of the four who is entitled to have taken into account the fact that he has no prior criminal record as a mitigating factor.

  30. Mr Duong comes to Court with a prior criminal record in Victoria for a serious drug-related offence. Ultimately, after appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria, he was sentenced on 4 December 1997 for the offence of attempting to possess prohibited import, which I accept were drugs. He ultimately received a sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years. He was transferred to New South Wales as an interstate prisoner transfer in April 2000 and then released to parole on 10 November 2004.

  31. He went back into custody on 11 October 2014 for seven days when he was then released on bail. That was for what initially were relatively serious Commonwealth drug offences. He was ultimately sentenced in this Court on 16 March 2017 for an offence of attempting to possess what I accept was a small quantity of border controlled drug, heroin. The only details I have about this offence are by way of submissions from the bar table. I accept that he was acquitted of more serious Commonwealth offences after trial, that there was a hung jury in relation to another offence and ultimately after negotiation he pleaded guilty to the offence to which I have already referred and was sentenced to a recognisance of two years by his Honour Judge Berman on 16 March 2017. He was, however, as I have said, on bail for these offences when he committed the offences before me.

  32. Mr Do also comes to Court with some criminal history and is therefore not entitled to have prior good character taken into account as a mitigating factor. It is, however, relatively minor, involving a suspended sentence of six months for the offence of hindering the investigation of a serious indictable offence, dealt with the in the Local Court on 17/10/2000 and also a driving offence of refusing to undertake breath analysis in October 2000 which gave rise to a fine and disqualification. These two offences are largely irrelevant in terms of the matters before me and certainly do not operate in any way as aggravating factors, but do disentitle him to the leniency which would arise if he were a person of prior good character.

  33. The offender Mr Nguyen has one entry on his criminal record, namely an offence of cultivating the commercial quantity of prohibited plants and unlawfully using electricity connected with that cultivation in January 2011. He received a suspended sentence of 21 months for the substantive offence. Again this disentitles him to leniency as a person of prior good character but does not of itself operate as an aggravating factor. It does, however, bear consideration when assessing his prospects of rehabilitation, because it is a prior drug offence involving his commercial involvement with prohibited drugs and especially so as one of the form 1 offences relevant for him involves doing exactly the same thing in Forestville not long before the offences to be sentenced here.

  34. There would not appear to be any other mitigating factors relevant for any of the offenders.

  35. Before turning to the relevant subjective cases for each of the offenders I also accept that for offences such as these, as for all drugs offences, the sentences should carry an element of general deterrence. It must be clear to the community that those who involve themselves in the commercial supply of prohibited drugs, even with a relatively minor role, are facing long periods of imprisonment. Each of the offenders before me has tendered before the Court a psychological or psychiatric report. None of those in my view raise any issues about the mental health or mental condition of any of those offenders which might make him an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence.

  36. Specific deterrence must also be a consideration, but for reasons that I will soon explain, it seems to me that in each case the offenders have undertaken rehabilitation themselves whilst in custody and specific deterrence plays only a small part in these sentences.

  37. I then turn to the subjective case for each. Mr Do comes to Court now as 40 year old man who was 38 at the time he committed the offences. Without hopefully appearing insensitive, it must be said that he looks a great deal older than his years, which indicates a poor physical and medical condition over the years. He is married with two children who are now aged 10 and 16. At the time of offending he was unemployed and did not receive benefits. There are a number of documents before the Court tendered on his behalf including the psychological report from Dr Milic which I have read and to which I have already made reference in relation to some factual matters. He also gave evidence under oath. There were also a number of certificates, references and financial documents in support of his oral evidence.

  38. From this combination of documents I accept that he was born in Vietnam and speaks only elementary English. He completed some secondary school in Vietnam. He had a very disadvantaged life in Vietnam as one of three children being reared in the aftermath of the war there. He was sent to live with relatives because his parents had difficulty affording their three children. The whole family migrated to Australia when he was about 15. He did not do well at school overall, in part because of limited English.

  1. He worked for five years in a family clothing business which did subcontract sewing work. The Court has more than enough evidence about the difficult physical nature of that work and the long hours that people usually spend undertaking that work.

  2. He then started to associate with negative peers and to smoke marijuana. He got into trouble with police and so was sent back to Vietnam by his family for six months. There he met his wife and they married. They returned to Australia and he thereafter experienced a long period of stability. He has expressed the view that meeting his wife was a very positive thing for him which appears to be right.

  3. After returning to Australia he worked long hours and his health started to suffer. He then started to smoke methylamphetamine, the drug known as ice, in about 2013. He initially did that for fun but very quickly, as is all too well known to the Court, he developed an addiction to it. He developed a habit of about 2 to 3 grams a day and started to borrow money from family to finance that addiction initially.

  4. He suffered back pain for which he used ice to medicate that pain and when he tried to give up that drug the pain would return so he would always go back to using the drug to deal with that pain. His increasing addiction to the drug caused problems with employment and also difficulties within his marriage. Also at the same time he started to gamble extensively and I accept on one night he lost something between $50,000 and $60,000 at the casino which came from the equity in his home. That he was permitted to do so it seems to me is a disgraceful indictment on a lawful casino operating in Sydney.

  5. He spent about $300,000 in gambling and drugs in three months before he engaged in this offence. I accept from Dr Milic’s report that at the time he had a gambling disorder. He borrowed money from family and acquaintances but could not pay them back. He re-mortgaged his home for a substantial sum which still has a $500,000 debt owing on it. Again how a financial institution allowed him to borrow $500,000 is a matter of great concern and a bit of a mystery in this case.

  6. I also accept that he borrowed money from Ms Dhang, about $20,000, and committed the offences as her driver in an attempt to pay back that debt at least, although the evidence does not allow a finding about specifically what he was to gain from his involvement in either of the two offences.

  7. After his arrest he underwent drug withdrawal and has stopped using drugs in custody. As a result his physical health has improved and he has gained weight. He has lost a number of teeth over the years and has some physical and health problems as a result of that. He has worked towards rehabilitation in gaol including undertaking a work safety course. His wife and children remain supportive of him. She continues to work as a nail artist and to work hard in an attempt to take over the substantial debt mortgaged over the property, which she is trying to pay off herself.

  8. It seems to me that his evidence on the whole was reliable and he appears to be committed towards his rehabilitation. His prospects of rehabilitation in my view are very good but would be improved if he has access to drug and gambling rehabilitation programs whilst he remains in custody and that that is available to him in the community with supervision for a somewhat longer than normal period.

  9. I accept that he is genuinely remorseful for his involvement in these offences and is committed to distancing himself from the people who use drugs who used to be his friends and to devote himself to his family when he is released from custody. He may be able to gain work in due course when he is released on parole but it is never likely to be highly paid work because of his limited skills and his limited English. However, he has been a hard worker and may undertake that in due course.

  10. As for Mr Duong as previously noted he is now 54. For him too there was a psychological report, a letter from the prisoner himself and some other references including from family members.

  11. He is one of nine children originally born in Vietnam. His early life there was happy and stable but in the 1970s following the end of the Vietnam war his family started to suffer as a result of the social and political unrest that occurred. His family suffered financial problems after they had apparently run a successful business, which either they no longer had or no longer operated successfully. His parents urged him and his siblings to move to Australia and so as a teenager he travelled to Malaysia and spent a year in a refugee camp there before he and his three siblings came to Australia, firstly to Brisbane for a year and then finally to Sydney.

  12. He stayed with family initially in the inner west but obviously at some stage went to Melbourne because that is where he was dealt with for the commission of the offence which led to his being in custody for 10 years. After being released to parole in Sydney he met his partner and they remain together. They have a house in the west of Sydney. She continues to be supportive of him.

  13. He had previously been married in 1991 to a young woman from Hong Kong but that ended when he committed the earlier offence and was sent to gaol for 10 years. He does not have any children. He has limited formal education because of the disruption of his early years in Vietnam. Whilst in custody in Melbourne he undertook numerous courses including computing, welding, first aid and obtained a fork lift licence. He has worked as a waiter but for the ten years before committing the offence before me he worked full-time as a handyman and receptionist in a motel in Ashfield which is managed by his brother. There is a very positive reference tendered from his brother attesting to his good work ethic. Since being in custody on this occasion, bail refused, he has continued to work in textiles in the gaol and the evidence from there is that his work is well regarded.

  14. His involvement in this offence I accept was in part as a result of his use of illegal drugs at the time. In 1989 he had a car accident which caused serious injury to his left leg leaving it significantly shorter than his other leg which caused spinal problems and ongoing pain. He was given mainstream pain relief and exercise which did not work particularly well. Ultimately he started using illicit drugs in 2009 to deal with the pain. This was initially smoking heroin from time to time but it escalated to daily use.

  15. He realised that this was not good for him so started on the methadone program from 2010 to 2013. He stopped that program in 2013 but ultimately relapsed into illicit drug use when the pain returned. He was using heroin daily at the time he committed these offences.

  16. Equally significantly and perhaps more significantly was that he became heavily involved in gambling in the early 1990s and had a debt of about $30,000. I accept that he committed the Victorian offence in an effort to repay that debt. At the time of the offences before me he had, as I have said, also been charged with a Commonwealth offence in New South Wales. He had legal expenses to pay relating to that. He was using heroin daily. He looked for financial assistance for all of these matters and I accept agreed to commit the offences before me at the request of an acquaintance, not one of the offenders before me. When he was arrested and taken into custody he also underwent withdrawal for which there are records tendered from the gaol medical records.

  17. His prospects of rehabilitation are also good it seems to me. He has been provided with a very simple solution to overcome his physical disability that means that his pain levels are no longer as they were. His wife continues to be available to him and he has work available with his brother. Even though he has relapsed in the past and has returned to heroin and has undertaken gambling, I accept that this is significantly less likely now, particularly as his pain is being managed in an appropriate way. Also, his age on any statistical analysis would indicate that he is less likely to relapse into criminal activity. He also continues to have ongoing support in the community which improves his prospects of rehabilitation and reduces the likelihood of recidivism. He is also genuinely remorseful. His prospects are however entirely dependent on being able to stay away from heroin and gambling. He is addicted to both and they were the factors surrounding the whole of his criminal history as I understand it. He will need a longer than normal period of supervision in the community to deal with these addictions and to reduce the likelihood of relapse.

  18. In relation to Mr Tran, he is now 53 and comes to Court, as I have said, with no prior criminal history and, on my finding, having played the least role in this offence as compared to any of the others. His reason for offending was because of a large gambling debt which he had accumulated. He only knew Mr Duong and got involved at his suggestion. However, he knew that he was carrying a bag which contained drugs and expected to receive some money as a result. He was not a regular drug user. He had taken ecstasy on a number of occasions before his arrest but it was not an issue. He had never used the drug ice.

  19. He was a heavy user of alcohol at the time and he attributes both this and this subsequent gambling addiction to the fact that he was diagnosed with cancer, specifically lymphoma, in 2014. Not surprisingly he became upset and depressed when he received this diagnosis, started drinking heavily and gambling heavily, leading to a large debt. He committed this offence because of the debts that he had. He claims to have owed $22,000 to friends, $32,000 to a brother and $7,000 to his wife’s brother at the time of the offences and he was working as a machinist at the time.

  20. He too was born in Vietnam and had a relatively stable life there. He came to Australia as a refugee in 1983. Another sibling had already come to Australia and they sponsored their other siblings. He worked in various occupations up to the time of his arrest. He married initially in 1990 but did not have any children. He remarried in 2010 and he and his wife now have two daughters aged six and four. He was initially diagnosed in May 2015 as being in remission from lymphoma. His commission of the offence is out of character for a man of his age and background with no prior history. I accept it was connected to his uncontrolled gambling and in an effort to repay the debts he had accumulated which itself was connected to this diagnoses with lymphoma. Sadly the lymphoma has returned whilst in custody. He underwent a biopsy in March 2017 which showed that fortunately it was limited to a lymph node and had not spread further. He was undertaking chemotherapy for that which was ongoing as at the last report before me in August 2017. On the basis of the limited nature of the lymphoma I accept that that chemotherapy is likely to be successful. However, he has been undertaking chemotherapy in custody. He also suffers from diabetes and heart disease. This combination I accept means that his experience of life in prison will be more burdensome than it is for others, which is a matter I will take into account both when assessing the overall term but particularly the length of the non-parole period for him.

  21. His prospects of rehabilitation I accept are also good. He has ongoing support from his wife and children and I accept there is a low chance of re-offending on his part.

  22. Turning to Mr Nguyen, he is now 32 and the youngest of all of the offenders. He too was born in Vietnam with a normal upbringing until the age of 13 when his father was involved in a serious truck accident. He reacted with alcohol abuse and anger which adversely impacted his family. He also started to gamble heavily. Mr Nguyen himself came to Australia at the age of 22. He sponsored his parents also to come to Australia in 2013. There has been a history given by Mr Nguyen for a psychological report tendered on his behalf, but I do not accept all of that because it is inconsistent with the facts before the Court and the facts which I have found. In particular I accept that to an extent for that report, and also in the letter he has written to the Court, Mr Nguyen has sought to minimise his involvement in this offence and his criminality. There are also references from friends who no doubt are genuine in their support for him but it is far from clear that they have any real understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the offences that he committed.

  23. I do however accept that at the time he committed these offences he was using drugs and gambling extensively. As I have said, his father before him was a gambler and a drinker. His parents had bought a coffee shop when they came to Australia in 2013 and the offender himself was working and training there. They used their life savings to buy that business. The business was closed down in 2015 for a series of reasons which do not affect this sentence but the bottom line was that they lost their money. He became depressed and anxious at that stage and started to gamble like his father had and also started to smoke the drug ice and became addicted to it.

  24. Without making any specific findings I accept that he initially became involved in these offences because of debts he had accumulated from gambling and ice use. However, the impression that he gave Community Corrections and also the psychologist in my view somewhat underplays his role in these offences. He was not just a helpless dupe wanting to pay off a debt of $30,000. He was much more involved than that, organising and directing the supplies, albeit not as the leader but nonetheless with a far greater involvement than any of the others to be sentenced by me and apparently with sufficient autonomy himself that he could initiate sales and arrange for others to be present. That having been said, I do accept that there is a connection between his use of ice and his gambling. He has been married but his wife divorced him whilst he was in custody. He has one daughter who is now aged about eight, from a previous relationship.

  25. On his release I accept he will reside with his parents, his daughter and his ex-partner, the mother of his child. He continues to have the support of his family which increases his prospects of rehabilitation. However, the fact that he minimises his role in the offending causes some concern about those prospects. They are nonetheless relatively good. He has done well in custody. There are no institutional offences. He has stopped using drugs and apparently is undertaking medication in prison and also has started to attend church. There is a positive reference from the prison chaplain in relation to this.

  26. I then turn to what are the appropriate sentences for these offences. Obviously there must be some relativity as between the four offenders to take into account all of the relevant facts, not just the objective criminality and the role that each of them played, but also the different subjective cases that they present to the Court. It seems to me that the sentence for Mr Tran should be the lowest and Mr Duong should be a little more. Their roles are similar but, as I have said, Mr Tran as a person with no prior convictions is entitled to have that taken into account reflecting in a somewhat lower sentence.

  27. For Mr Tran, without attempting to be mathematically precise, I have concluded that an overall sentence of 6 years is appropriate. There will be a non-parole period of 3 years and a finding of special circumstances. They are these: It is his first time in custody and his medical condition, including treatment for cancer, means that he will experience his time in custody more onerously than would others.

  28. Ultimately for him I make the following formal orders: He is convicted, he is sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years commencing 22/12/2015 and expiring 21/12/2018 with a parole period thereafter of 3 years commencing 22/12/2018 and expiring 21/12/2021, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 6 years commencing 22/12/2015 and expiring 21/12/2021.

  29. For Mr Duong for all of those reasons I will be setting an overall term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years. For him there are some special circumstances, largely being the need for a slightly longer than normal period with supervision in the community to deal with the issues that connected him to this offending.

  30. Therefore for him the formal orders are: He is convicted, he is sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years commencing 22/12/2015 expiring 21/12/2019 with parole thereafter of 3 years commencing 22/12/2019 expiring 21/12/2022, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 7 years commencing 22/12/2015 expiring 21/12/2022.

  31. For Mr Do there are two offences to be sentenced. For the offence of 7 December 2015 his is a more minor role but the quantity is large. I have concluded that there should be an overall term of 4 years, taking into account the objective seriousness, his subjective case and the discount for a plea of guilty. There are some special circumstances for him. One is that there will be a partial accumulation with the other sentence and the other that there is a need for a longer than normal period of supervision in the community. I will be setting a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months for that offence.

  32. For the offence of 22/12/2015 this is obviously a more serious offence, both because of the penalties and the quantity, but for him only just above the large commercial quantity. I have concluded that taking into account the discount the overall term should be 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years on the same finding of special circumstances, namely partial accumulation and the need for a longer than normal period of supervision in the community. If these were wholly accumulated on each other that would give rise to a term of imprisonment of 10 years which in my view is excessive. There will be a partial accumulation so that the overall term is 8 years with an overall non-parole period of five years.

  33. For Mr Nguyen, as I have said, his role is more serious and his sentence should be higher than that for Mr Do. There are also Form 1 offences to be taken into account for both.

  34. For the offence of 7 December 2015 I will be setting an overall sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4. For him there are special circumstances, namely that this is his first time in custody and that he requires a longer than normal period of supervision in the community.

  35. For the offence of 20/12/2015, taking all of those factors into account, it seems to me the overall term should be 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years. If these were accumulated on each other that would be 13 years which in my view is excessive. I am going to set an overall term of 10 years with an overall non-parole period of 6 years for Mr Nguyen.

  36. For him, because I have done the maths, the sentences will be as follows. He is convicted of both offences. For the offence of 7 December 2015 he is sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years commencing 20/12/2015 and expiring 21/12/2019 with parole thereafter of 3 years commencing 22/12/2019 expiring 21/12/2022, giving rise to an overall term of 7 years commencing 22/12/2015 and expiring 21/12/2022. I have taken into account the Form 1 offence when sentencing for this matter.

  37. For the offence of 22/12/2015 he is sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years commencing 22/12/2017 expiring 21/12/2022 with parole thereafter of 3 years commencing 22/12/22 expiring 21/12/2025, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of eight years commencing 22/12/2017 expiring 21/12/2025.

  38. In relation to the first sentence I note that whilst he is eligible for release to parole on 21/12/2019 he will be serving another non-parole period at the time.

  1. Now I only just have to work out the figures for Mr Do because I had wanted to give him a fixed term but I cannot. Whilst the appropriate penalty for the offence of 22/12/2015 on my finding was one of 6 years with a 4 year non-parole period, I have concluded that for both offences the total criminality should give rise to an overall term of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years. Initially, I indicated that the non-parole period for the offence of 22/12/2015 should be 4 years but for entirely mechanical reasons I will reduce that to 3 years so that the total criminality which I have concluded is appropriate, is reflected in both of the sentences together by way of partial accumulation. For those reasons then for him, the first sentence is as I indicated, that is, non-parole of two and a half commencing 22/12/15 expiring 21/06/17, parole 22/06/17 expiring 21/12/12, overall 4 years. For the second offence it will be non-parole 3 years commencing 22/12/17 expiring 21/12/20

  2. I have just identified the same mathematical issue in relation to the sentences. Perhaps I should just go back and do what I hate doing and just do an aggregate sentence for both Do and Nguyen and the indicative sentences will be the ones that I’ve said I’ll do, that might be the easiest way to do it.

  3. I will just revoke everything that I said in relation to the sentences of Do and Nguyen because it is the announcement of what the individual sentences are and the ratio between the non-parole period and the overall sentence as individual sentences and the way that reflects in the total criminality that causes the problem and that is frequently the issue and most of the time it is solved by just applying a fixed term for the smaller of the sentences and starting the other one at a time that works. But when you cannot do that for standard non-parole period offences it often causes this problem.

  4. I return to the sentences of Do and Nguyen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to deal with their sentences by the imposition of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act which sentence will be that which I have already decided reflects the total criminality for each of them for the two offences that they face including the form 1 offences relevant for Mr Nguyen.

  5. For Do then, he is sentenced to an aggregate sentence for each offence pursuant to s 53A of a non-parole period of 5 years commencing 22/12/2015 expiring 21/12/2020 with parole thereafter of 3 years commencing 22/12/2020 expiring 21/12/2023, overall 8 years commencing 22/12/2015 expiring 21/12/2023.

  6. The indicative sentence for the offence of 07/12/2015 is 4 years overall with an indicative non-parole period of two years and six months. For the offence of 22/12/2015, the indicative sentence is 6 years overall with an indicative non-parole period of 4 years.

  7. For Nguyen, aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of 10 years with an aggregate non-parole period of 6 years commencing 22/12/2015 expiring 21/12/2025, the non-parole period commencing 22/12/2015 expiring 21/12/2021 with parole thereafter of 4 years commencing 22/12/2021 expiring 21/12/2025.

  8. The indicative sentence for the offence committed 07/12/2025 overall 7 years with an indicative non-parole period of 4 years. The indicative sentence for the offence of 22/12/2025 overall 8 years with an indicative non-parole period of 5 years.

  9. I order that Mr Do pay a drug proceeds order in the sum of $3,000. I order that Mr Nguyen pay a drug proceeds order in the sum of $25,000. Other orders as per short minutes of consent order.

  10. Further order re Nguyen that pursuant to s 97 of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013, he pay compensation in the sum of $9,030 in relation to the offence H61505962 to be paid to the registrar of the Downing Centre Local Court to be paid out to Peter Song.

**********

Decision last updated: 18 July 2018

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1