R v Le [2021] NSWDC 524

R v Le [2021] NSWDC 524

The cultivation enterprise was well organised and sophisticated, and involved 149 cannabis plants, but the offender's role was limited to assisting others and maintaining plants; he was not the principal, owner, lessee, funder or organiser and did not know the exact number of plants. Sequence 1 fell below the mid-range and towards the middle of the low range of objective seriousness. The custody threshold was crossed for sequence 1 but, after a 25% discount for the early guilty plea, the appropriate term was 18 months less 35 days already served. Because the offender had good prospects of rehabilitation, was employed, was a low risk of reoffending and presented no risk to community...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Offender convicted on both offences; sequence 1 sentenced to imprisonment to be served by intensive correction order; sequence 3 dealt with by community correction order; cash forfeited to the State.
Legal Topics
['cultivate Prohibited Plant Not Less Than a Commercial Quantity' 'cannabis Cultivated by Enhanced Indoor Means' 'deal With Property Proceeds of Crime Value Less Than $100, 000' 'intensive Correction Order' 'community Correction Order' 'confiscation Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences' 'proceeds of Crime'] ['cultivate Prohibited Plant Not Less Than a Commercial Quantity' 'cannabis Cultivated by Enhanced Indoor Means' 'deal With Property Proceeds of Crime Value Less Than $100,000' 'intensive Correction Order' 'community Correction Order' 'confiscation Order']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for cultivating 149 cannabis plants by enhanced indoor means, being not less than a commercial quantity, contrary to s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'What sentence should be imposed for dealing with property proceeds of crime, being $1,120, contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the custody threshold in s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was crossed for sequence 1 and sequence 3.' 'Whether the sentence for sequence 1 should be served by way of an intensive correction order rather than full-time detention.' 'Whether a confiscation order should be made by consent in respect of $1,120 cash.']

Ratio Decidendi

The cultivation enterprise was well organised and sophisticated, and involved 149 cannabis plants, but the offender's role was limited to assisting others and maintaining plants; he was not the principal, owner, lessee, funder or organiser and did not know the exact number of plants. Sequence 1 fell below the mid-range and towards the middle of the low range of objective seriousness. The custody threshold was crossed for sequence 1 but, after a 25% discount for the early guilty plea, the appropriate term was 18 months less 35 days already served. Because the offender had good prospects of rehabilitation, was employed, was a low risk of reoffending and presented no risk to community...

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on both offences; sequence 1 sentenced to imprisonment to be served by intensive correction order; sequence 3 dealt with by community correction order; cash forfeited to the State.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of cultivate prohibited plant not less than a commercial quantity – cannabis, pursuant to s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985.' 'For sequence 1, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, less 35 days.' 'Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing...