DPP v Tran [2025] VCC 1934

United Energy, regarding unusual readings and activity at the premises, pointing to unmetered use of electricity. The day prior to this information, patrol cars had detected a strong smell of cannabis in the surrounding streets, including the street in which the premises were located. At 2.15 pm, on

7 April 2025, investigators observed a vehicle reverse-parked in the driveway, namely a silver Nissan X-Trail, registration 1FG 9PH. This vehicle was registered to you. The following day, the same vehicle was observed still parked in the driveway at the premises in the same position as previously. 3. Later the same day, at 7.44 pm, investigators observed another motor vehicle arrive and park outside the address, being a white Lexus, registered to another individual Nat Minh Nguyen. Nguyen was observed as the sole occupant of the vehicle seated in the driver's seat. On 14 April, investigators observed another vehicle parked on the front lawn of the premises, being a blue Honda Odyssey with two unknown Asian males putting something in the boot before entering the property. This vehicle is registered to another individual Nhu Quynh Ho. On 15 April at 8.10 am, police members executed a Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act search warrant on the premises. You were located in the front bedroom and your mobile phone seized. 4. In addition to CCTV cameras observed by investigators at the property, the CCTV camera feed was also observed on your mobile phone. A search of the property located three separate rooms dedicated to cultivating cannabis with each in varying stages of maturity, namely the living room, front bedroom and rear bedroom. A forensic examination was conducted at the property, which included lifting a total of 15 fingerprint exhibits, which, when examined by Victoria Police fingerprint sciences unit, were found to match yours, located on multiple door jams throughout the house and the electrical cupboard. In total, 66 cannabis plants were seized from the premises. These were later examined and analysed by forensic botanist Kylie Slattery. 5. The cannabis plants, and associated plant material, had a total weight of

74.52 kilograms. The quantity seized was in excess of the commercial quantity applicable. However, the prosecution case is put on the basis that you did not intend to cultivate a commercial quantity of cannabis. You were interviewed by police at the Box Hill police station, with the assistance of an interpreter, and you gave no comment when asked questions. A warrant executed on your Commonwealth Bank account revealed payments of $2824 from your account to buyer's real estate agency trust. This is the real estate agent with whom the premises were leased. They were leased in names with identity documents which were later revealed to have been false. 6. The single payment of the monthly rental matches that to be paid to the real estate agency. During an unrelated investigation, police unearthed CCTV footage from Bunnings in Doncaster, which depicts you, on 1 April 2025, buying bamboo stakes and seedling pots from the tool shop. The stakes and pots match those located at the premises during the execution of the search warrant. During the search that was part of that separate investigation, your Vietnamese citizen identity card and driver's licence and VicRoads learner permit were located at a premises which was suspected as a crop house and found to contain dried cannabis and Ziploc bags of cannabis. This information is provided by way of context only and you are not charged in relation to anything with respect to that investigation.

1. Turning now to your personal circumstances. You are aged 35 years. You were born in Hanoi, Vietnam, where you grew up with your family. Your father passed away in 2006 from cancer when you were aged 16. Your mother worked as a cleaner and the two of you have maintained a close relationship. You have an older brother who has worked in finance. You completed high school and went on to complete a Bachelor of Banking and Finance at Trade Union University in Hanoi. Whilst in Vietnam, you had a good employment history, which included working in insurance sales and a bank in Hanoi.
2. You married your wife in 2018. She works as a claim officer for an insurance company in Hanoi. Together you have two children, the eldest being seven years old and the youngest being two. In 2018, your brother was incarcerated for fraud offences. This required your family to financially support him and this burden fell on you. In 2023, your mother was involved in a car accident in which she was seriously injured. She was required to undergo multiple surgeries and, as a result, can no longer work. This placed a greater financial burden on both yourself and your wife as your mother was not able to receive social security benefits. She ultimately moved in with you and your young family so that you could care for her.
3. Tendered on your plea was a surgical certificate relating to your mother's injuries and ultimate hospitalisation in February 2023. Despite being employed, you began to experience significant financial difficulties, providing for your young family, your mother and your brother in custody. You made a decision to travel to Australia on a tourist visa, hoping to secure employment to financially support your family. You arrived here in July 2024, leaving your mother and wife and children behind in Vietnam. Upon arrival in Australia, you completed some work as a labourer, handyman and cleaner and then you were ultimately offered work through your friends that you met in Australia. It was through these people that you became involved in the offending.

1. Cultivating cannabis is an inherently serious offence. This offending does not fall at the lowest end of seriousness, given that it occurred over three days and given the amount of cannabis seized from the premises and the sophistication of the set-up. You were more than simply a crop-sitter or the like who had attended on a single day, but were also subordinate to the principal offender; you have instructed your counsel that you were acting under the direction of a friend, and were given directions to stay at the house and feed or water the plants.
2. You accept that your involvement was purely for financial reasons. However, it is submitted on your behalf that there is no evidence of any significant enrichment - a matter which I take into account.
3. I have had regard to the various factors identified by the Court of Appeal in the 2017 decision of Nguyen v The Queen.[1] These include: the tasks performed by you in the enterprise; the nature of your relationship with the principals or leaders of the enterprise; the degree of trust and responsibility reposed in you; the size, scope and sophistication of the enterprise; and any expectation of rewards to be derived. There is no evidence as to you having any advanced relationship with those responsible for the crop, but clearly there was some degree of trust vested in you. Again, you expected to be paid for your role in this enterprise, however, you were not said to be the architect.
4. It is not alleged that you were involved in the leasing of the premises and the prior organisation and set-up of the cannabis crop. Clearly, you were financially motivated, but I accept that you became involved in this offending as a result of the stress associated with financial difficulties and being unable to adequately provide for yourself and your family. I accept that this may have seemed an easy way to make some additional money, but it has ultimately proved costly to you. Your offending here comprised attending at the premises to cultivate cannabis on three days over the period of a week.
5. Notwithstanding that you have pleaded guilty to cultivating simpliciter, and you must be sentenced accordingly, the weight of the crop and the sophistication of the premises inform the court as to the seriousness of the charge. Here, the amount of drugs seized, or amount of cannabis seized and analysed, equates to three times the applicable commercial quantity. Again, the prosecution does not allege an intention to cultivate above the commercial threshold. The fact that your fingerprints are throughout the premises, coupled with your attendance on multiple days, suggests that you were involved, to some reasonable degree. You had been in Australia for less than a year on a tourist visa before being involved in this offending.

1. You have now been in custody for 246 days. You are not a citizen of Australia and you no longer hold a visa. You will be deported back to Vietnam upon your release from custody. I am told that you are looking forward to being reunited with your family in Vietnam and obtaining employment. Whilst in custody, you have put your time to good use, engaging in course work and working as a cleaner, which bodes well for your prospects of rehabilitation. Certificates relating to your course work were not available, given that you have just been moved from Fulham Prison and this plea was listed at short notice. Whilst you have been in custody, you have not had any visitors, but you have kept in contact with your family via weekly Zoom calls.
2. I accept that your time in custody has been onerous, given the stress and worry that you have in relation to your wife and children, and also your mother. I accept that these concerns about them have weighed heavily upon you whilst in custody, and I take this into account in accordance with the principles in Markovic v The Queen.[2] I accept that you have good rehabilitation prospects, given that you have a strong history of employment, you are well-educated and come before the court with no prior criminal history - further, that you have strong family support in Vietnam with stable accommodation to return to.

1. I take into account your plea of guilty. It is accepted that you indicated your intention to plead guilty to this offending at the earliest opportunity, being on 12 September this year prior to the committal hearing. Both the prosecution and your counsel submit this can be considered a very early plea. I know that the matter did not resolve in this court until after a case assessment hearing on 8 December, however, previously you were charged with additional offending. Your plea of guilty is of significant benefit. It has both a utilitarian purpose and it demonstrates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your conduct. It is also evidence of some remorse.

1. Your counsel has prepared a table of what are said to be comparable sentences. I have had regard to that table and the sentences contained within that table, each of which are County Court sentences. Whilst no two cases are alike, and I am not bound by these cases, current sentencing practices is a relevant consideration when it comes to determining the ultimate penalty here. It is, however, only one consideration. I must have regard to the basic purposes for sentencing, namely: general and specific deterrence; just punishment; denunciation; protection of the community; and rehabilitation. The sentence I impose must reflect the seriousness of the offending and deter others who might be inclined to commit similar offences from doing so.
2. Sadly, it is people like yourself, with no prior criminal history, who are vulnerable to being recruited into this sort of offending, which only serves to enhance the need for general deterrence to be given considerable weight in the sentencing process. The sentence I impose must deter you from committing further offences in the future. It is also necessary to denounce your conduct whilst ensuring that the penalty imposed is one that is just. These considerations are to be balanced with the desirability to see you rehabilitate - a process upon which you have already embarked.
3. It is submitted on your behalf that a term of imprisonment is warranted, but in the current circumstances, that a straight sentence is within range, and given the period spent on remand, any further immediate term of imprisonment is not necessary. As I understand the prosecution's position, this is not largely in dispute, though the prosecution submits that a further, immediate term is warranted.

1. On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 246 days' imprisonment.
2. I declare 246 days' pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as time served. This means, in effect, that you have served your sentence.
3. I indicate, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that, but for your plea of guilty - that is, had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty after trial, I would have sentenced you to 20 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 months.
4. I make the orders for forfeiture and disposal, each of which are not opposed.

[1] [2017] VSCA 286.

[2] [2010] VSCA 105.