R v Bui, R v Bui, R v Nguyen [2019] NSWDC 398

R v Bui, R v Bui, R v Nguyen [2019] NSWDC 398

All offenders knowingly cultivated not less than the commercial quantity of cannabis sativa by enhanced indoor means, with knowledge limited to 142 plants, fulfilling the offence under s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Sentencing took into account the objective seriousness (number of plants, role as crop-sitters, financial gain as inherent), subjective circumstances (absence of prior records, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, immigration status), and the additional offences on form 1 for two accused. Imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence for offences of this prevalence and seriousness, with appropriate non-parole periods set, and sentences backdated to the...

Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown); Accused: Tien Duc Bui; Accused: Quan Trung Bui; Accused: Minh Khiem Nguyen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence
Outcome
convictions and custodial sentences imposed
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Cultivation of Prohibited Plants, Sentencing
Criminal Law Drug Offences Cultivation of Prohibited Plants Sentencing

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Prosecutor

Tien Duc Bui

Accused

Quan Trung Bui

Accused

Minh Khiem Nguyen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for each offender convicted of cultivating not less than the commercial quantity of cannabis sativa by enhanced indoor means?
  2. 2 What is the objective seriousness of the offending and the subjective case of each offender?
  3. 3 Should the ancillary offences on form 1 be taken into account in sentencing?

Ratio Decidendi

All offenders knowingly cultivated not less than the commercial quantity of cannabis sativa by enhanced indoor means, with knowledge limited to 142 plants, fulfilling the offence under s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Sentencing took into account the objective seriousness (number of plants, role as crop-sitters, financial gain as inherent), subjective circumstances (absence of prior records, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, immigration status), and the additional offences on form 1 for two accused. Imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence for offences of this prevalence and seriousness, with appropriate non-parole periods set, and sentences backdated to the...

Court Disposition

convictions and custodial sentences imposed

Orders

  • Tien Duc Bui: Convicted. Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment (non-parole period 11 months, balance 7 months) from 31 July 2018 to 30 January 2020. Non-parole period expires 30 June 2019.
  • Quan Trung Bui: Convicted. Sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment (non-parole period 1 year 10 months, balance 8 months) from 31 July 2018 to 30 January 2021. Non-parole period expires 30 May 2020.