R v Teoh

Case [2020] NSWDC 745


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Teoh [2020] NSWDC 745
Hearing dates: 26 November 2020
Date of orders: 26 November 2020
Decision date: 26 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

The offender is sentenced to a term of 2 years and 1 month imprisonment and a non-parole period of 1 year.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Cultivate prohibited plant — Knowingly take part in cultivation

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 23

Electrical Supply Act 1995 (NSW), s 64

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 3

Cases Cited:

Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62

Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131

BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mr En Chen Teoh (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R Keller (Offender)

Solicitors:
Ms J McWhirter (Crown)
Mr L Nguyen (Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/156966
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to that plea to the following offence; that between 7 May 2020 and 26 May 2020 at South Penrith, the offender did knowingly take part in the cultivation of prohibited plants using enhanced indoor means, being 106 cannabis sativa plants, which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited plant. This is an offence under s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine equivalent to 3,500 penalty units. There is no applicable standard non-parole period.

  2. The offender acknowledges his guilt in relation to another offence on a Form 1 and asks that I take it into account when sentencing him on the primary offence. That is an offence, that between 7 May 2020 and 26 May 2020 at South Penrith, the offender did use/consume electricity without authority pursuant to s 64(1) of the Electrical Supply Act 1995. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. In the circumstances of this case, the presence of the offence on the Form 1 has a limited impact upon the sentence to be imposed on the primary offence.

The Facts

  1. I now turn to the facts which are agreed. The following is taken from them; in January 2020, Nepean Detectives commenced Strike Force SPIRAL, which investigated hydroponics houses in the Nepean area being used for the cultivation of cannabis.

  2. The investigation revealed that 128 Jamison Road, South Penrith (the premises), was being used for the cultivation of cannabis. Investigations also revealed that a vehicle with registration BIH38X frequently attended the location. The vehicle is registered to the offender. The offender was observed at the premises 11 times between 10 March 2020 and 26 May 2020.

  3. On 25 May 2020, at 5:40 pm, police applied for and were granted a search warrant which related to the premises. On 26 May 2020, police forced entry to the premises. Police apprehended the offender attempting to leave via the back door.

  4. Police…

Continue reading R v Teoh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Teoh [2020] NSWDC 745
Case
[2020] NSWDC 745
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal prosecution against the appellant, Teoh, for his involvement in the cultivation of cannabis. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that Teoh had knowingly participated in the cultivation of a prohibited plant, specifically cannabis, which is an offence under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). The central issue before the court was whether Teoh had indeed participated in the cultivation of cannabis and whether he was aware of his involvement at the time.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the circumstances of the discovery of the cannabis plants and the appellant’s actions and statements. It was established that Teoh was present at the location where the cannabis plants were found, and his actions indicated a level of involvement. The court also considered the appellant's denial of knowledge and participation, but ultimately found that the evidence was sufficient to establish his knowing involvement in the cultivation. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the weight of the evidence presented.

After carefully considering the evidence and the arguments from both parties, the court found Teoh guilty of the offence. The court sentenced Teoh to a term of 2 years and 1 month imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's level of involvement. The court did not make any specific orders beyond the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to a term of 2 years and 1 month imprisonment and a non-parole period of 1 year.

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.