R v Wei

[2014] NSWDC 33

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Wei [2014] NSWDC 33

Hearing dates:

6 March 2014

Decision date:

06 March 2014

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

Decision:

Taking into account matters on a Form 1, sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years and a head sentence of 3½ years.

Order the destruction of the drugs

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form 1 - Cultivating by enhanced indoor means more than the commercial quantity of cannabis - Supply cannabis - Unauthorised use of electricity - labourer in a large scale drug operation

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

The Crown
Vincent Lim Chee Wei

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Jones - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s):

2013/218962

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: As Mr Jones, who appears for the offender Vincent Lim Chee Wei, recognises, the Courts deal with quite a few offences of the type I am about to describe. It seems now relatively commonplace for uneducated Asians illegally in Australia to be approached by those involved in what must be fairly large scale cannabis supply, to look after their hydroponic cannabis growing operations.

1. In this case police went to a four bedroom house in Epping on Thursday 18 July 2013. They had spent the previous two days watching those premises and observed the offender coming and going. Once they got inside after knocking at the door and receiving no response, they saw a number of things. In particular they found that the entirety of the premises, except for the rear living room and kitchen, were devoted to the growing of cannabis plants. The other thing of importance they found was the offender lying on a single bed in the rear living room. He was arrested and taken to the police station where he was later interviewed.

1. Police located 135 growing cannabis plants, 78 lamp shades, 151 light globes and 82 transformers. This was a significantly large scale operation. They also found a number of bags containing what proved to be cannabis leaf; 833.9 grams in fact. Not surprisingly it was discovered that the electricity metre had been bypassed.

1. The supply of that cannabis and the unauthorised use of the electricity are charges on a Form 1 which I will take into account when sentencing the offender for the charge to which he pleaded guilty in the Local Court, cultivating by enhanced indoor means more than the commercial quantity of cannabis plants. That is an offence carrying a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment. It does not have a standard non-parole period attached to it.

1. I mentioned before that the offender was interviewed by police. He told police that he had lived at the premises for several weeks and his job was to water the plants every morning and to mix fertiliser into the water. He said that he was paid $200 a week for this work and had been promised a ticket to Malaysia at the end of the operation. He told police that he had received between $600 and $800 for his work which would suggest, if accurate, that he had been committing this offence for something in the order of three to four weeks.

1. I will sentence the offender on the basis that his involvement was as he described to the police. There is no evidence that he was any higher up the drug cultivation and supply operation. There is no evidence that he was involved in setting up the premises. He appears to have been simply a labourer who looked after the plants and received money and the promise of an air ticket in return.

1. The offender was born and raised in Malaysia. He told the author of pre-sentence report that he has family in Malaysia, and that he came to Australia on two occasions. On the first he was deported. When he got back to Malaysia he changed his name and came again arriving in April 2012. He worked for someone whom he had worked for when he was in Australia on the first occasion, before being deported, for a few months before leaving that employment in order to look after the cannabis the subject of this charge.

1. The pre-sentence report includes this,

"He was reticent to discuss information regarding how he knew any other people involved in the cultivation of the cannabis".

1. The offender appears willing to take the blame for his misconduct without assisting the authorities to identify anyone else involved. He, of course, is not to be punished for this but questions of remorse have to be examined in the light of the attitude expressed by the offender. There is no real evidence of remorse. The plea of guilty was recognition of the inevitable; he was found sleeping in the premises. There is no evidence that he regrets his actions apart of course from being disappointed at being arrested and sent to gaol.

1. The offender went into this clearly with his eyes wide open. He was fully aware of the illegal nature of his actions but went ahead anyway because of financial rewards it would bring him.

1. He will be serving his sentence of imprisonment, it being conceded that fulltime custody is required, in Australia where he has no family and friends. The use to which this circumstance can be put as a mitigating factor is limited given that it was the offender's decision to commit this offence knowing full well that if he was detected his sentence would be served in a foreign country. Also whilst he has not received any visits in custody he does maintain regular telephone contact with family back in Malaysia.

1. His time in custody will be harder than would ordinarily be the case because of what was said to be his poor English skills; he is assisted by an interpreter in Court today.

1. He has no prior convictions and was clearly used by cleverer people to do the work which carried the risk of detection. He took the risk that he would be found out by police. Others used him so that they could go undetected.

1. Mr Jones says that there are special circumstances. He spoke about two things; that this was the offender's first time in custody and that he had been unable to access rehabilitative programs whilst in custody. If it ever was a special circumstance, authority has recently made it clear that going to gaol for the first time does not necessarily mean that there are special circumstances and it is to be expected that once he becomes a sentenced prisoner access to courses involving rehabilitation and the like will be made easier for him. On the other hand his poor English skills will be an impediment in that regard. I will make a finding of special circumstances but there will only be a relatively small adjustment from the statutory ratio.

1. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of two years to date from 18 July 2013 and a head sentence of three and a half years. The non-parole period will expire on 17 July 2015 on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 April 2014