R v Eyles [2021] NSWDC 300

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Eyles [2021] NSWDC 300 Hearing dates: 12 March 2021 Date of orders: 12 March 2021 Decision date: 12 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: A term of imprisonment of two years, ten months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [24]. Catchwords: SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Special circumstances Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Cases Cited: Pham v R [2009] NSWCCA 266 R v Ma; R v Zheng [2020] NSWDC 862 Truong v R [2009] NSWCCA 41 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Fredrick Eyles (Offender) Representation: Mr M Harper (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Mr G Goold (Solicitor for the offender) File Number(s): 2019/00397045

Judgment 1. Frederick Eyles is 55 years of age and is described by his partner as a typical old‑school, working class, Balmain boy, who values independence and has aneed to be useful. Lacking the skills to succeed intellectually, he has always relied on his manual ability. As Mr Goold put today, getting into his fifties his manual skills are not as valuable as that of a younger man and he turned to involvement in cannabis cultivation in Artarmon. This leads him to being sentenced today for one count under s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of ten years. 2. He pleaded guilty at an early opportunity justifying a 25% discount on the term of imprisonment. He has been in custody since his arrest on 17 December 2019 in maximum security at the MRRC and it is agreed that the term of imprisonment which should be imposed will commence on that date. 3. I have already sentenced two co-offenders in relation to this cannabis cultivation operation being conducted at Artarmon. They were sentenced on 16 December 2020, Mr Ma and Mr Zheng, who were both sentenced to three years imprisonment with non-parole periods of 18 months. Their role and their subjective case are set out in my remarks on sentence, which have been published (R v Ma; R v Zheng [2020] NSWDC 862). Today a further five co-offenders have had their matters listed for sentence before me on 9 July 2021. 4. The sentencing process of course must take account of the maximum penalty and the standard non‑parole period as important yardsticks in the sentencing process as well as the the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. 5. I have been greatly assisted by comprehensive written submissions from Mr Goold and the Crown Prosecutor, which address the objective and the subjective case. Mr Eyles' subjective case is set out in a report of psychiatrist, Dr Olav Neilssen, an affidavit of his partner, Joanne Manning, who has known him for 20 years, an affidavit of his daughter, Chloe Eyles, and an affidavit of his elder sister Leslie Eyles, as well as a document described as a life history which I accept was provided to Dr Neilssen as the basis of the history. 6. In short, there were two premises located in an industrial area of Artarmon, 29 Hotham Parade and 2 McLachlan Avenue In December 2019, in particular on 10 December, the police observed the offender exiting 29 Hotham Parade. Then on the following day, 11 December 2019, while police were conducting surveillance on 29 Hotham Parade, they saw Mr Eyles leave those premises and walk to the other premises, 2 McLachlan Avenue. 7. A search warrant was executed on 17 December 2019 at 2 McLachlan Avenue where the offender was arrested along with his co-accused, Ma. There was a sophisticated and complex hydroponic set up with multiple grow tents to grow cannabis plants under irrigation. On 19 December the premises at 29 Hotham Parade were searched, again a sophisticated cultivation system was in place The number of plants located at each premises were as follows: 2 McLachlan Avenue 29 Hotham Parade 240 plants 453 plants