NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tran [2022] NSWDC 357 Hearing dates: 18 July 2022 Date of orders: 18 July 2022 Decision date: 18 July 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bennett SC DCJ Decision: Specify an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Enhanced indoor cultivation — Knowingly take part in enhanced indoor cultivation SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, number 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 DPP for the Commonwealth v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Ha Thi Tran (offender) Representation: Felicity Evans (Solicitor for the ODPP) Robert Steward (Counsel for the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) File Number(s): 2021/00183728
REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT
Introduction 1. The offender in this matter is Ha Thi Tran. She pleaded guilty in the Local Court to three offences, each of them an offence contrary to s 23(1A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, shortly described as knowingly take part in the cultivation of cannabis for commercial purposes by enhanced indoor means. In each case the maximum penalty specified is imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of $385,000. 2. The offences upon which sentence is to be imposed are respectively sequences 17, 19 and 22. When I sentence her for the offence charged as sequence 17 she asks that three additional offences be considered. These are also offences of knowingly take part in the cultivation of cannabis for commercial purposes by enhanced indoor means contrary to the same provision. Thus the offences before me involve six separate premises where cannabis was cultivated in the fashion alleged.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate