R v Teoh [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) Act 1999 (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.