DPP v Nguyen & Anor [2025] VCC 1845

As I will explain in my reasons, I further directed that pursuant to s 5(2AB) of the SA, I imposed a less severe sentence due to your undertaking to give evidence in confirmation of your statement of 15 July 2025 upon the trial of Elijah Cruse, Andre Cruse, Lee Cruse, David Cruse and Ethan Cruse.

In accordance with s 6AAA of the SA, I declared that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a CCO for a period of 5 years, with 600 hours of unpaid community work, and a fine of $30,000.

1. On 13 October 2025, I imposed the following sentence on you, Mr Nguyen:

In accordance with s 6AAA of the SA, I declared that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a fine of $30,000.

1. At the time of sentencing both of you, I indicated I would provide my reasons for sentence at a later time. These are those reasons for sentence.

1. Abalone is a 'priority species' under s 4(1) of the Fisheries Act 1995 ('FA'). Holders of commercial fishery access licences are the only persons permitted under the FA to take any fish from Victorian waters for sale. A commercial quantity of abalone is, relevantly, 100 or more abalone, two kilograms or more of dried abalone, or 10kg of abalone in any other form, including shells, ice or any other thing that cannot be readily separated from the abalone in the form that it is found.
2. It is an offence to traffick a commercial quantity of any priority species without being authorised to do so. A reference to 'trafficking' includes preparing, selling, processing or receiving a priority species, as well as taking a priority species for sale.[4] 'Sell' includes 'receive, have in possession or expose for sale' and 'take' means to 'gain possession or control by any means'. 'Possess' has an expanded meaning which encompasses where a person has any fish on any land or premises occupied by him or her.

1. The prosecutor filed a summary of prosecution opening on sentence dated 12 August 2025 which I am told by both your counsel I can treat as a statement of agreed facts for the purpose of sentencing you.[5]
2. In early 2019, New South Wales (NSW) fisheries officers detected abalone harvesting by Elijah Cruse, David Cruse, Andre Cruse, Ethan Cruse and Lee Cruse (the Cruse family). As a result of this detection, an investigation was commenced into the activities of the Cruse family and their associates, Tristan Zezovski, Junior Finai and Rydge Hogan. The officers formed the view that illegal abalone fishing or harvesting was taking place in NSW and on occasions, the abalone was being taken to Victoria for sale.
3. You are husband and wife and were residing in Keysborough at the time of the offending. Mr Nguyen, you were the director of Hai Trieu Pty Ltd, which operated 'Hai Trieu Seafood', a seafood store in Springvale. Ms Nguyen, you were an employee of Hai Trieu Seafood at the relevant time.
4. The prosecution's case is that you, Ms Nguyen, purchased abalone from members of the Cruse family in three transactions between 15 December 2019 and 5 June 2020. The abalone found at your residence, Mr Nguyen, was in your possession for the purpose of sale through the seafood store. The prosecution did not allege that you, Mr Nguyen, were aware of the source of the abalone, being the Cruse family.

1. Investigators found a recording on Zezovski's mobile phone of a phone call on 14 December 2019 at 7:21pm between Zezovski and 'Byron'. During this call, Zezovski said they had passed Apollo Bay and wanted to sell 'them' tonight, but as they have to sell 'them' at Springvale, the sale would probably take place the next morning. Zezovski then spoke with 'Ma' at 7:42pm, when he said they got heaps. Zezovski called 'Ma' again at 9:27pm and said, 'we're selling them tomorrow morning, six in the morning'.
2. A recording of a phone call between Zezovski and 'Byron' on 15 December 2019 at 6:35am, captures Zezovski saying, 'we're selling them now...they're having a look now, roughly we reckon, we reckon we've got around 65 kilos...so that's 800 to 900 each'.
3. A photograph of a receipt from Hai Trieu Seafood dated 15 December 2019 was later found on Elijah Cruse's mobile phone. On this day, he sold 45.365kg of abalone to your business and the phone calls made by Zezovski on 14 and 15 December 2019 relate to this transaction.

1. On 28 December 2019 at 12:11am, Elijah Cruse sent a text message to Lee Cruse saying, 'wouldn't fit in the frezzer [sic] so we had to put it one by one'. At 2pm, Elijah Cruse received a text message from Ben Butler asking where he was, to which he replied, 'Springvale, just got rid of it'.
2. A photograph of a receipt from Hai Trieu Seafood dated 28 December 2019 was also later found on Elijah Cruse's mobile phone. On this day, he sold 43.984kg of abalone to your business and the communications between Elijah Cruse, Lee Cruse and Butler relate to this transaction.

1. A photograph of a receipt from Hai Trieu Seafood dated 12 January 2020 was also later found on Elijah Cruse's mobile phone. On this day, he sold 27.525kg of abalone to your business.
2. The total quantity of abalone sold in the three transactions is 116.874 kg; however, the indictment alleges the charges relate to 116.3 kg of abalone. This unexplained difference is inconsequential.

1. According to the prosecution opening, which you accept, you, Ms Nguyen, had a much greater involvement with the Cruse family and the illegal sale by them of abalone on occasions other than those encompassed by the three specific transactions the subject of Charge 1. You made admissions to this effect in your record of interview. For example, on 6 February 2020 at about 5:15pm, Elijah Cruse and Lee Cruse were observed by fisheries officers walking towards your seafood store carrying four backpacks. Once inside your store, they entered a coolroom with the backpacks. You admit you told them to get out, whereupon they hurried out of the store with the backpacks.
2. On 19 April 2020 at 5:04pm, Elijah Cruse sent you a text message stating, 'I got big green lips if you like'.[6] You responded stating, 'sorry, we have to stop buying your abalone as not many people are buying it due to the corona virus, but after the pandemic we hope to still keep in contact. Thank you'.
3. I regard all this material as context evidence which is not directly related to the charges which are before me. Accordingly, you are not to be punished for this additional conduct.

1. On 5 June 2020, several fisheries officers, together with Victoria police officers, executed a search warrant at your home in Keysborough.
2. You, Ms Nguyen, were arrested and the following items were found and seized:

(a) In a Haier chest freezer in the garage:

(i) 11 white plastic bags of blacklip abalone meat - about 25-50 pieces of abalone meat in each bag, with a total weight of 50kg;

(ii) 22 clear plastic bags of blacklip abalone meat measuring roughly the size of a bowling ball - about 3-20 pieces of abalone meat in each bag, with a total weight of 29.3kg.

(b) In a Westinghouse chest freezer in an outdoor area:

(i) Six white plastic bags each containing 30-50 pieces of blacklip abalone meat with a total weight of 29.8kg;

(ii) 16 vacuum sealed bags with 3-20 pieces of blacklip abalone meat in each bag and one yellowish plastic bag containing approximately 8 pieces of abalone meat. The total weight of the vacuum sealed bags and the yellowish plastic bag was 7.2kg.

1. The combined weight of abalone across both freezers was 116.3kg. The prosecution's case is that the total weight is consistent with the three receipts found on Elijah Cruse's mobile phone, which equated to 116.874kg, previously referred to.
2. You made a statement to the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) on 15 July 2025, where you stated the following:[7]

(a) Elijah Cruse would call you to sell abalone. You purchased abalone from the Cruse family because it was cheaper than buying from a wholesaler.

(b) You would only buy blacklip abalone from the Cruse family.

(c) The receipts photographed on Elijah Cruses's mobile phone were from the cash register at the Hai Trieu Seafood store and related to the purchase of abalone from the Cruse family. The weights of abalone on the receipts were correct.

(d) The majority of the abalone bought from the Cruse family was already shucked out of the shell, and when weighing the abalone, you were careful not to include juice or baskets, just the abalone meat.

(e) The receipt dated 15 December 2019 contained purchases over many days on the one receipt. You did not pay Elijah Cruse on this occasion, until the purchases had accumulated to 45.365kg of abalone.

(f) On 28 December 2019, you received three calls from Elijah Cruse all in relation to you buying abalone.

(g) On 13 January 2020, you received five calls from Elijah Cruse, all in relation to buying abalone. You met with him and others that night at the seafood store. You weighed the abalone on shop scales and printed a receipt. You took the abalone home that evening.

(h) On 15 January 2020, you received two calls from Elijah Cruse all in relation to buying abalone. The following day, he visited the store to sell the abalone.

(i) On 21 January 2020, you received three calls from Elijah Cruse all in relation to buying abalone from him.

(j) On 6 February 2020, Elijah Cruse and another male walked behind the seafood store carrying heavy backpacks. You told them to, 'get out, get out!'.

(k) On 19 April 2020, you received a text message from Elijah Cruse offering to sell you 'big greenlips'. You declined in English using an internet translator because you wanted him to stop contacting you.

(l) The abalone found at your home was bought from Elijah Cruse over many purchases.

(m) You were particular about the quality of abalone you bought from Elijah Cruse and did not buy small abalone from him.

1. The prosecution case against you, Ms Nguyen, is that the 116.3kg of abalone found at your house in Keysborough was purchased from the Cruse family, in accordance with the three receipts found on Elijah's phone, or on the other occasions outlined in the prosecution summary. The abalone was in your possession for the purposes of sale through Hai Trieu Seafood.

1. On 5 June 2020, fisheries officers attended the Hai Trieu Seafood store in Springvale for the purpose of inspecting seafood. You, Mr Nguyen, were arrested and two cash registers and your mobile phone were seized.
2. You were interviewed at the Dandenong police station on 5 June 2020 and told police:

(a) You were the director of Hai Trieu Pty Ltd, which employed five people to work at the seafood store.

(b) You never bought stock from a person who was not a wholesaler.

(c) You had never been approached to buy seafood or abalone from someone who was not a wholesaler.

(d) You did not know where the 116kg of abalone which was found at your house came from.

(e) In relation to the abalone found in the store, you said: 'I just bought some because they divide it, it's a big one, they put it in a bigger plastic bag, different from the smaller one, so I just took the plastic bag and I just put them together...I didn't know that I am not allowed to separate them...if I remove the plastic there will be no date written on the bag'.

(f) In relation to the three receipts found on Elijah Cruces's mobile phone, you admitted they came from your shop, but you claimed the items purchased were lobster or prawns for the Christmas period.

(g) In relation to an inspection carried out on 6 February 2020 in which 10kg of unpackaged frozen blacklip abalone was found in the shop, it was put to you that you had purchased that abalone on 13 January 2020, and it was illegal abalone. You denied this and said you were not there.

1. The prosecution case against you, Mr Nguyen, is that you trafficked the abalone by receiving it in that you possessed the abalone at your house.

1. Each co-offender in the Cruse family is charged with trafficking a commercial quantity of a priority of species of fish, namely abalone, without being authorised to do so under the FA. The proceedings against Elijah, David, Andre, Lee and Ethan Cruse are yet to be listed for trial.
2. The circumstances of Zezovski, Van Van Banh (one of the buyers), San Miguel, Ridge and Junior will be summarised later in my reasons for the purposes of parity.

1. Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a priority species is a serious offence, as is reflected by the maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. As I observed earlier, abalone is a highly protected species and holders of commercial fishery access licences are the only persons permitted under the FA to take any fish from Victorian waters for sale. Moreover, recreational fishers are subject to a number of restrictions and are not permitted to take fish for sale or sell their catch.
2. This offence was introduced in 2003 in recognition that:

The illegal take of fish resources, or theft of a public resource, is the biggest known threat to the sustainable use of Victoria's most valuable fishery resources, the 'priority species' of abalone and rock lobster.[8]

In the Second Reading Speech associated with the enactment of the section, the Minister for Agriculture said:

Not only does this illegal take of resources threaten the sustainability or survival of the fishery, but it also threatens the jobs of people in the industry. Broader implications for the wider community include the unfair competition with legitimately sourced product in the market place, the compromising of food safety and also the revenue loss for the government, and therefore the community as a whole. Countries around the world have seen the collapse of their fisheries due to high levels of illegal take. As a result of these collapsed abalone fisheries Victoria and Tasmania are now in the unique position of providing approximately half the world's supply of wild-catch abalone.[9]

1. The Government was also concerned with the 'detriment of an increased vulnerability to being targeted by opportunistic and organised crime'. The Minister for Agriculture said:

Along with the benefit of premium prices for wild-catch abalone comes the detriment of an increased vulnerability to being targeted by opportunistic and organised crime.[10]

1. Moreover, in Strachan v Graves,[11] Underwood J observed:

A fisheries resource is a resource which belongs to the public at large. Offences such as those ... are difficult and expensive to detect. Abalone constitute a natural resource, the preservation, controlled harvest and proper management of which is a matter in which the whole community has a legitimate interest. It is a notorious fact that the abalone fishery is a precarious resource, one which will be lost forever unless strong deterrent penalties are imposed upon those who exploit it outside the controls imposed by those who are authorised on behalf of the community to manage this resource.[12]

1. The prosecutor submitted the offending in this case is inherently serious and relied upon the following features, which I accept, as being relevant in assessing the gravity of your offending conduct:[13]

(a) You both contributed to the threat to a priority species for financial gain. Ms Nguyen, you were an indispensable link in the supply chain as a buyer, and by purchasing commercial quantities you willingly participated in depleting the environment. Mr Nguyen, by knowingly receiving a commercial quantity of abalone into your home, you depleted the environment.[14]

(b) The amount of abalone was almost 12 times the commercial quantity.

(c) Both of your offending was committed for significant profit.

(d) Ms Nguyen, your offending was planned and organised. You negotiated prices and gave detailed instructions to the Cruse family as to how to weigh the abalone, and specified you only wanted 'big ones'. You also organised for the sales to take place at Hai Trieu Seafood, sometimes late at night when the store was closed, and you provided receipts of sale.

(e) Ms Nguyen, your offending was over a protracted period of time and involved frequent contact from members of the Cruse family.

(f) Ms Nguyen, you were aware, through your employment at Hai Trieu Seafood, that the purchase of abalone from the Cruse family was unlawful_._ Mr Nguyen, you were aware, as the Director of Hai Trieu Pty Ltd, which operated Hai Trieu Seafood, that the abalone within your home was unlawfully obtained_._

1. Both of your counsel accepted the offending is serious, particularly due to the substantial quantity of abalone located at your home.
2. However, Ms Nguyen, I accept your counsel's submission that you have limited education and poor English-speaking skills, which contributed to your general inexperience in seafood operations and your lack of detailed knowledge of fisheries laws and regulations. Your role was that of a buyer, as opposed to an illegal harvester or seller. I accept you were approached by Elijah Cruse to purchase abalone and you ended your commercial relationship with him without any knowledge of the investigation which has led to these charges.
3. Mr Nguyen, your counsel indicated the basis of your plea of guilty is that when the search warrant was executed at your home, you were in possession of 113kg of abalone meat packaged in a manner that did not accord with the regulations made under the FA. Your counsel did not dispute that given the nature of your occupation, you would have known this was so.
4. Overall, I accept both of your offending falls in the mid-range for offences of this kind.
5. Clearly, denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing considerations in offences of this kind.

1. I will summarise each of your personal circumstances separately.[15]

1. You were born in Vietnam in the late stages of the Vietnam war, and are currently 51 years old. You grew up in a village on the coast of south-east Vietnam. Your long-term partner is your co-offender, Mr Nguyen. You and Mr Nguyen share two children, aged 23 and 19. You also have three other children, aged 30, 28 and 25, from your first marriage. You are an Australian citizen. You cannot speak English.
2. Your father worked as a farmer and your mother was a homemaker. You have four siblings, all of whom are still in Vietnam. You left school at the equivalent of Grade 5 level to assist your mother and siblings with domestic duties.
3. In 1995, you moved to Australia with your former husband on a spousal visa. Your former husband was already living in Melbourne at this time, and you both settled here. You separated in about 2000, after you had your third child. You were briefly a single mother with three young children.
4. You met Mr Nguyen in 2003 and you never married. Both of your children still live with you in Keysborough. You were a homemaker until around mid-2018, when you began working with Mr Nguyen at Hai Trieu Seafood. You did not have any prior professional experience or exposure to Australian fisheries laws and regulations.
5. During the offending period, you primarily worked at the store, while Mr Nguyen was responsible for purchasing stock and running the business. After being charged with the present offending, you experienced significant distress at the prospect of receiving a custodial sentence. Whilst you were on bail for the present offending, your father's health progressively declined, causing you further distress. After you pleaded guilty, your bail conditions were varied to enable you to travel to Vietnam to see your family. In August 2025, you visited Vietnam for six days. Your father died the day you arrived.
6. In relation to the present offending, you instructed your counsel you intended to eat some of the abalone purchased from Elijah Cruse, but acknowledged your intention was also to sell the abalone through your store. As I have previously observed, in April 2020 you told Elijah Cruse you no longer wanted to purchase abalone from him. You have not communicated with him or any other member of the Cruse family since that time.

1. You were born in Vietnam in January 1962, during the Vietnam War. Your father was initially a police officer, but later became a nurse. Your mother was a homemaker. You have five siblings: one older brother, three younger brothers and a sister.
2. Your father passed away from liver cancer quite suddenly in 1972. You and your siblings were very young at the time. You recalled to your counsel having a 'happy life' while your father was alive, but your family struggled financially after his death. Your mother trained and became a nurse but despite this, things were still quite difficult for you.
3. You completed up to Grade 9, but left school and commenced labouring work in order to assist your family financially. You worked as a labourer until you were 18 years old, at which time you were conscripted into the army. You undertook your compulsory four-year military service. When you returned home you went back to work as a labourer. You also studied part-time to become a watch repairer, and gained employment in this field after one year.
4. At this time, you met your first wife. You have four children from this marriage. After repairing watches for five years, you decided to change careers as you were not making enough money to raise a family. You purchased a small plot of land and raised livestock, predominantly pigs.
5. By this stage, your older brother had migrated to Australia. In 1992, you decided to move to Australia to pursue what you believed would be a better life. Your first wife decided to remain in Vietnam with your children. You do not have a close relationship with these children, but you sent money to Vietnam to support them while they were young.
6. When you arrived in Australia, you started working for your older brother selling seafood. As a result of this work, you saved enough money to open Hai Trieu Seafood, your own store, in 1998.
7. You met Ms Nguyen in 2002. As I have previously mentioned, you and Ms Nguyen have two children. Both of your children are studying and living at home. Your siblings now all live in Australia and you maintain a close relationship with them. Your siblings each have their own businesses near yours in the Springvale area.
8. You have no drug or alcohol issues and you only drink beer very occasionally.
9. In relation to your health, in early 2024, you were found to have very high blood sugar levels and were diagnosed with diabetes. This led to you being somewhat debilitated. To address the impact diabetes was having on you and to stabilise your blood sugar levels, you were hospitalised for one month. Since that time, you have maintained a program of regular checkups with the diabetes clinic and your general practitioners. Other specialists, such as optometrists and podiatrists, are also regularly involved in treating your diabetes and for your general physical wellbeing.[16]

1. Ms Nguyen and Mr Nguyen, you both pleaded guilty to the present charges on 2 May 2025. Your pleas of guilty have significant utilitarian benefit and indicate an acceptance by you both of responsibility for your respective offending conduct. They also indicate your willingness to facilitate the course of justice, by saving the time and expense of the matter running as a trial and avoiding the need for witnesses to attend to give evidence.
2. Mr Nguyen, as a result of resolution discussions, you are pleading guilty to a charge that is particularised differently from that originally laid against you. Your counsel told me in oral and written submissions that you offered to plead guilty to the offence charged on the present basis in an open letter dated 14 August 2023, which the Crown initially rejected. For these reasons, I consider your plea to Charge 2 to be a forensically early plea.
3. While I accept you are both undoubtedly regretful for the situation you are in and the effect this has had on you, there is insufficient evidence before me to make a determination that you are genuinely remorseful and demonstrate true contrition for your offending conduct, beyond what is evident from the plea itself.[17]
4. I accept the effect of delay is a mitigating circumstance in both your cases. Ms Nguyen you were interviewed by fisheries officers in relation to this offending in June 2020 and charged in 2021. It is now five years since the offending conduct occurred and four years since you were charged. Mr Nguyen, you were not charged until June 2022 and there was significant delay between the laying of the charges and their ultimate resolution.
5. As the Victorian Court of Appeal observed in Rodriguez v DPP (Cth):[18]

Delay is normally relevant in two ways. First, it is relevant to rehabilitation that has occurred during the delay and the effect that has in turn on specific deterrence. Secondly, delay is relevant in the sense that the anxiety and uncertainty of having the prospect of a sentence hanging over one's head during the period of delay is akin to punishment in itself.[19]

1. I accept you are both people of prior good character. You have no prior criminal histories and have not reoffended. I accept the submissions of both your counsel that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation. The prosecutor did not dispute this characterisation, but reiterated the seriousness of your offending conduct.
2. Ms Nguyen, your stable family environment is a protective factor which augers well for your future rehabilitation. Mr Nguyen, you have a long history of gainful employment and a positive relationship with Ms Nguyen, your siblings and your children. These, too, are protective factors which will assist you in your rehabilitation.
3. So far as delay akin to punishment is concerned, since you were charged in relation to these offences you both have had the prospect of sentences of imprisonment hanging over your heads. Undoubtedly, this would have caused you anxiety and stress. I take the punitive effects of delay into account in your favour.
4. Ms Nguyen, a significant mitigating circumstance in your case is the degree of cooperation you have provided to investigating authorities.
5. The principles governing the discount on sentence for an offender who cooperates with the authorities are well-established. Those principles were summarised recently by the Victorian Court of Appeal in in Farmer v The Queen:[20]

It is well-established that providing assistance to law enforcement authorities can be a powerful mitigating factor in sentencing. The potency of its mitigation depends on various factors, including the nature and gravity of the crime, the benefit to authorities, the risk posed to the offender and the extent to which the offender will require protective measures in prison, making incarceration more onerous. Underpinning these factors is the very powerful public interest in encouraging offenders to cooperate with law enforcement authorities. In order to determine the extent to which assistance might moderate a sentence, it is necessary to have regard to the relevant factors.[21]

1. You provided a comprehensive and frank statement to investigators, which I have already detailed earlier in my reasons, regarding your involvement with a named co-offender, being Elijah Cruse, and a very large amount of abalone. At the plea hearing on 13 October 2025, you gave an undertaking to give evidence in conformity with that statement upon the trial(s) of members of the Cruse family. Clearly, your cooperation calls for a sentencing discount and I made such an announcement when sentencing you.[22]

1. I have had regard to current sentencing practice in relation to this offence as informed by the decisions of the High Court of Australia in R v Kilic[23] and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym)[24] and the Victorian Court of Appeal decisions in DPP v Zhuang[25] and DPP (Cth) v Thomas.[26]
2. While current sentencing practice is relevant to the sentences I impose on you, it is only one of a number of sentencing considerations I must take into account in imposing just sentences in each of your cases.[27]
3. Moreover, it is difficult to gauge more than a general yardstick from so-called 'comparable cases', given the wide range of offending conduct that can constitute this offence and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent I have been able to gain assistance from comparable cases, I have sought to do so in your cases.
4. The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, both specific and general, protection of the community and rehabilitation. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, your culpability for it and your personal circumstances.
5. In sentencing you for these crimes, I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing your criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, so far as possible, you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
6. Parity is a relevant principal to be applied in this case. I have had regard to the sentences imposed upon your co-offenders, Zezovski, Jason San Miguel, Rydge Hogan, Junior Finai and Van Van Banh.
7. As outlined in the summary of prosecution opening on sentence:

(a) Zezovski pleaded guilty to trafficking a commercial quantity of a priority species, being abalone, without being authorised to so under the FA between 14 December 2019 and 22 January 2020. He was sentenced in the summary jurisdiction to a fine of $8000, with conviction, and ordered to pay costs of $4000.

(b) San Miguel was charged with unauthorised taking fish for sale. On 27 July 2022, he pleaded guilty in the summary jurisdiction and received a fine of $1000, without conviction.

(c) On 14 November 2022, Hogan pleaded guilty in this Court to one charge of trafficking a commercial quantity of abalone and was sentenced to a $6000 fine, without conviction.

(d) Finai pleaded guilty before me on 21 February 2024 to one charge of trafficking a commercial quantity of abalone. I sentenced him to a $6000 fine, without conviction.

(e) On 27 April 2022, Van Van Banh pleaded guilty in the summary jurisdiction to trafficking in a commercial quantity of abalone. He was convicted and fined $25,000 and ordered to pay costs of $6500.

1. Clearly, the application of the parity principle has very limited application in respect to your co-offenders Zezovski, San Miguel, Hogan and Finai. Their circumstances can be differentiated from yours. Zezovski's and San Miguel's matters were dealt with in the summary jurisdiction, and San Miguel pleaded guilty to a different charge. However, I note Zezovski also gave an undertaking to give evidence against his co-offender. Hogan's and Finai's offending is different in nature from yours, as it consisted of diving for abalone with the Cruse family on one occasion.
2. Van Van Banh was a purchaser, not unlike yourselves. His plea of guilty was in relation to trafficking in a commercial quantity of abalone between 13 January to 5 June 2020. He also purchased abalone from the Cruse family. During a search of Van Banh's retail premises, 5.424kg of abalone meat was located in six unlabelled bags.
3. Ms Nguyen, your counsel acknowledged the quantum of abalone in Van Banh's matter was far less than in your case, however I accept Van Banh did not give an undertaking as you did and therefore he did not receive any discount for cooperating with fisheries officers.
4. Mr Nguyen, your counsel also acknowledged the amount of abalone in your case exceeded that of Van Banh's, however argued Van Banh played a more significant role in the trafficking than may have been suggested in his plea, and in comparison to you. As I foreshadowed at the plea hearing, compared to Van Banh, your mode of trafficking does involve a lesser degree of moral culpability.
5. Just punishment, denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing considerations in this case. I consider little weight need be given to specific deterrence or protection of the community in sentencing you both for these offences. Finally, as I observed earlier, I assess each of your prospects for rehabilitation as being excellent.
6. Accordingly, I imposed the sentences and made the other orders set out at the start of these reasons.

[1] Pursuant to s 111A of the Fisheries Act 1995 ('FA').

[6] In context, this is a reference to greenlip abalone, which is highly sort after.

[8] Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 29 October 2003, 1283 (Robert Cameron, MP, Minister for Agriculture).

[11] (1997_)_ 141 FLR 283.

[14] See DPP v Nguyen [2016] VCC 542, [70] (Pullen J).

[17] See Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 226 A Crim R 354, 364-365 [32]-[38] ((Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest AJA) ('Barbaro').

[18] [2013] VSCA 216; (2013) 40 VR 436.

[19] Ibid 445-6 [36] (Warren CJ and Redlich JA) (citations omitted).

[20] [2020] VSCA 140.

[21] Ibid [71] (Maxwell P, Kaye and Niall JJA).

[22] Sentencing Act 1991 ('SA') s 5(2AB).

[23] [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256, 266-268 [21]-[25] (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

[24] [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428,444-447 [47]-[58] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452-455 [78]-[85] (Gageler and Gordon JJ).

[25] [2015] VSCA 96; (2015) 250 A Crim R 282, 292 [30]-[31] (Redlich, Priest and Beach JJA).

[26] [2016] VSCA 237; (2016) 53 VR 546, 606-609 [173]-[183] (Redlich, Santamaria and McLeish JJA). See also Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35 [21]-[25] (Priest and Kyrou JJA); Russo v The Queen [2021] VSCA 244 [53]-[56] (Emerton JA, Priest JA agreeing).

[27] See DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428.