R v Stanley Hou

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stanley Hou
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 124
Hearing Dates:	1 – 2 March 2016, 27 May 2016
DecisionDate:	14 June 2016
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [68]–[72]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drug offences – manufacture a controlled drug – MDMA CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drug offences – possess controlled precursor – nitromethane CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drug offences – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – MDMA
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7, s 33 Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(7), s 607(5), s 612(1), s 607(3) Dangerous Substances Act2004 (ACT) s 151 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Cousins (2002) 132 A Crim R 444 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Walsh v The Queen (2006) 168 A Crim R 237 R v Zdravkovic [2015] ACTSC 393 Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Stanley Hou (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Gul (Crown) Mr D Dalton SC on 1 – 2 March 2016, Mr M Kukulies-Smith on 27 May 2016 (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 82 of 2015 ; SCC 84 of 2015

ROBINSON AJ:

On 12 August 2014, Mr Stanley Hou, “the offender” was arrested in consequence of the discovery of a clandestine laboratory used to manufacture Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy.

The offender was subsequently charged with a number of offences arising out of the manufacturing of the drug, possession of the drug and possession of its precursors. He entered a plea of not guilty to these charges before the Magistrate and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.

The trial was fixed to commence before me on 1 March 2016. After some negotiation, on 2 March 2016, the offender pleaded guilty to three counts in the indictment and asked that a further count be taken into account. The Crown accepted those pleas in full satisfaction of the indictment. I set out those counts below.

After the offender had entered his pleas of guilty, I remanded him in custody. He had earlier spent 11 days in custody in relation to these offences. I propose to backdate any sentence to 20 February 2016 to take account of presentence custody.

Pleas of guilty

The offender pleaded guilty to-

(Count 2) Manufacturing a controlled drug, namely 3,4-Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA).
(Count 5) Possessing a large commercial quantity (>1 Litre) of a controlled precursor, namely 32.1 litres of nitromethane, with the intention of using any of it to manufacture a controlled drug, namely MDMA, with the intention of selling any of the manufactured drug…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the accused, Stanley Hou, stood trial for multiple drug-related offences, including the manufacture of a controlled drug, specifically MDMA, possessing a controlled precursor, nitromethane, and trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, also MDMA. The case was heard in the court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's criminal activities.

The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the role of the accused, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The legal issues involved assessing the severity of each offence, the impact of the offences on the community, and the appropriate deterrent and rehabilitative measures that should be imposed.

The court found that the offences were serious and had significant implications for public health and safety. The court considered the evidence presented, including the quantity of drugs involved and the potential harm to the community. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to deter future criminal activity. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined the appropriate term of imprisonment and other conditions for the defendant's release.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the defendant, along with specific conditions for his release, such as supervision and participation in rehabilitation programs. These orders aimed to address the underlying issues that led to the criminal behaviour while also protecting the community from further harm.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established