District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Vu [2020] NSWDC 955 Hearing dates: 29 October 2020 Date of orders: 29 October 2020 Decision date: 29 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: See par [24].
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – Take part in the cultivation of prohibited plants not less than the commercial quantity – Culpability of offender – Unique subjective factors.
Legislation Cited: Nil.
Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Nil.
Category: Sentence Parties: Offender – Tien Dung Vu
R – Crown (NSW)Representation: R - L. Stueckradt
Offender – M. Ramage QC
File Number(s): 2020/00044827 Publication restriction: Nil.
Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: Tien Dung Vu stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that on 11 February 2020 at Marsfield in this State did take part in the cultivation of a number of prohibited plants, namely 98, which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited plant. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 15 years and/or a fine of $385,000. There is no standard non parole period. The offender was arrested on 11 February 2020 and remained in custody until being granted bail by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2020. He accordingly has spent two months and six days in gaol.
-
Despite what is pleaded in the Court Attendance Notice, the property in question is named 120 Vimiera Road, Eastwood. Police became aware of suspicious activity at that address on 30 October 2019. They went to the property on 31 October 2019 and observed multiple phasing power cabling running from the street power, sourced to the property, and they could hear a faint humming noise from inside the property.
-
The police conducted a surveillance operation at that property from time to time. They identified a Toyota Camry car which was present at the property throughout the month of November 2019, but there was no suggestion that vehicle belonged to the offender. On 10 December 2019, police installed surveillance equipment and commenced covert surveillance. Police would also periodically attend the property each week to obtain images from the surveillance camera and to conduct actual surveillance. Multiple unknown Asian men aged between 25 and 30 attended the property in November 2019.
-
The offender was captured by closed circuit television to be at the property on 12 occasions over a six week period. The first occasion was 26 December 2019, Boxing Day. He was at the property for 20 minutes on that day. He attended on the following day, 27 December 2019, and was at the property for nine minutes, commencing at noon, and was in the company of an unknown man. He next attended the property on 3 January and was present for about two hours and 20 minutes. During that period, he retrieved the garbage bins from the street and removed a box of unknown items from a car…
Continue reading R v Vu
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Vu [2020] NSWDC 955
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 955
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the appellant's culpability, particularly concerning the subjective factors that should influence the severity of the sentence. The court was required to determine if the trial judge appropriately considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances in imposing the sentence.
The High Court found that the trial judge had not given adequate consideration to certain subjective factors that could have impacted the appellant's culpability. The court held that the trial judge should have taken into account the appellant's limited understanding of the law, his role in the cultivation process, and the influence of others on his actions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
The High Court ordered that the case be remitted to the trial judge for resentencing, with instructions to consider the appellant's subjective factors more thoroughly in determining an appropriate penalty. The specifics of the new sentence were to be determined by the lower court in light of the High Court's directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See par [24].
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.