//
[2025] NSWDC 544
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-10-22
Bourke SC DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nguyen; R v Leckloksavang [2025] NSWDC 544
Hearing dates: 21/8/25, 22/10/25
Date of orders: 22/10/25
Decision date: 22 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision: Re offender Leckloksavang:
Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years 10 months with a NPP of 3 years 4 months (14/11/23-13/3/27). I find special circumstances.
The indicative sentences (after 25% discount) are:
Seq 2 Supply lg comm qty pseudoephedrine – 4 years 8 months with NPP 2 years 8 months (Form 1 taken into account).
Seq 7 Posses gel blaster – 15 months.
Seq 13 Supply comm qty pseudoephedrine – 3 years 7 months with a NPP of 2 years (Form 1 taken into account).
Seq 14 Supply lg comm qty heroin – 4 years 1 month with NPP 2 years 3 months (Form 1 taken into account).
Re offender Nguyen:
Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months with a NPP of 3 years 2 months (14/11/23-13/1/27). I find special circumstances.
The indicative sentences (after 25% discount) are:
Seq 1 Supply lg comm qty – 4 years 8 months with NPP 2 years 8 months (Form 1 taken into account).
Seq 2 Supply lg comm qty pseudoephedrine – 4 years 7 months with NPP 2 years 7 months
Catchwords: Crime – Sentence – Supply large commercial quantity pseudoephedrine – Supply commercial quantity pseudoephedrine – Supply large commercial quantity heroin – Possess gel blaster
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Firearms Act 1996
Category: Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Daniel Nguyen – Offender
Philip Leckloksavang - Offender
Representation: Mr D Lawless for Crown
Mr B Hart and Mr A Ly for Nguyen
Mr M Rammage for Lecklosavang
File Number(s): 23/361997, 23/362028
The offenders, Mr Philip Leckloksavang and Mr Daniel Nguyen, have each pleaded guilty to a number of offences for which they must be sentenced.
In Mr Leckloksavang’s case, there are four substantive offences which are as follows.
Sequence 2, which is an offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine, that being an offence under section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years is specified for an offence in the middle range of objective seriousness.
Secondly, an offence, which is sequence 7, of possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm, relating to two gel ball air guns, that being an offence under section 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and having specified a standard non-parole period of four years.
Thirdly, sequence 13, which is an offence of supply a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 4002.4 grams of pseudoephedrine, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and in respect of which a standard non-parole period of 10 years is specified.
Fourthly, sequence 14, which is another offence of supply a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 1181.1 grams of heroin, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and has a standard non‑parole period of 15 years specified.
In relation to the sequence 2, the sequence 13 and the sequence 14 offences, there are also matters on Form 1 documents to be taken into account, which I will do, and to which I will make some reference as I go through the various remarks that I will be making.
In Mr Nguyen’s case there are two substantive offences for which he is to be sentenced. The first one is sequence 1, and that is an offence of supply a large commercial quantity, being pseudoephedrine, 5.994 kilograms, which is an offence carrying a maximum of life imprisonment and has specified a standard non-parole period of 15 years.
The second offence is sequence 2 and is the same type of offence with the same relevant penalty and standard non-parole period relating to the supply of a large commercial quantity, namely 9998.4 grams of pseudoephedrine.
In addition, in sentencing him for the sequence 1 offence, I am asked to take into account, which I will do, three matters which are on a Form 1 document, to which I will make reference later in these remarks.
The maximum penalties and, where applicable, any standard non-parole periods are important guides in the sentencing exercise and I have had regard to them for that purpose.
Each of the offenders pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and will be given a 25 percent discount on their sentence by reason of the utilitarian value of those pleas of guilty.
Turning to factual matters. The facts in each matter are agreed. There are, however, two sets of agreed fact documents, one for each offender, and while they share a great deal in common, there are numerous differences. This has made the sentencing exercise and my consideration of the facts difficult and time-consuming, given that the Court has to identify relevant differences between the two sets of facts.
As I commented earlier in the hearing today, this is, perhaps, an unavoidable situation given that it is the entitlement of an offender to negotiate an agreed set of facts that is in accordance with his or her position. However, where that occurs, it would be helpful, as I have earlier said, for the Crown to set out in a summary form the essence of the facts that relate to each offender. To not do so, as I have said, makes it a difficult and time-consuming exercise and also has the potential for a sentencing judge to make factual errors.
In any event, I have had regard to the entirety of the two sets of facts, but in order to save time I will recite the essence of the agreed facts, noting those parts where there are relevant differences.
The arrest and charging of the two offenders arose out of a joint New South Wales Police and New South Wales Crime Commission investigation. As part of the investigation/controlled operation, authorities were granted authorisation for a number of persons, including a person using the name “Max” to engage in controlled activities.
Between about 2 April and 21 October 2023 this person Max communicated with a person named Mahmoud Mariam using an encrypted app known as “Threema”. Max used a particular profile name and Mr Mariam used a different profile name.
Turning then to the facts relating to H number ending in 592, sequence number 1, which is one of the offences to be taken into account on a Form 1 in Mr Leckloksavang’s case, the relevant facts are these.
An agreement was reached between Max and Mr Mariam for the supply on 28 April 2023 of 1 kilogram of pseudoephedrine at a price of $37,000. On 28 April 2023 a group chat took place on Threema between Max, Mariam and Mr Leckloksavang, which included photographs of the pseudoephedrine and the money. Arrangements were made for the exchange of the money and the drugs to take place at an address in Hasluck Road, Bonnyrigg.
On that day a person referred to as “a witness” took $37,000 cash to the Bonnyrigg address and placed the money under the seat of a Honda Accord that was parked outside, this being in accordance with instructions given by Mr Leckloksavang on the Threema app. Police saw a Volkswagen Golf vehicle registered to Mr Leckloksavang park nearby, which he was seen to drive away and park in Kempt Street, Bonnyrigg. Messages were sent on Threema confirming the drop-off of the money and that the location for the delivery of the pseudoephedrine would be sent shortly.
Shortly after the drop off the cash, the offender, Mr Leckloksavang, was seen to walk to and enter the Honda Accord in which the cash had been deposited and then drive the car to his residence in McKell Close, Bonnyrigg, which he entered. He exited the house about three minutes later carrying a bag, which evidently contained the pseudoephedrine, and he entered the Honda which he then drove to Thesiger Road where he got out of the Honda and placed the bag of pseudoephedrine into a trolley before driving up the street to a location where he could watch the trolley. In the Threema group chat Mr Leckloksavang subsequently sent a message confirming the count of the money with a photo of a money counter, presumably the one that was later found at his residence, and providing the location where the pseudoephedrine had been left for pick‑up. The bag of pseudoephedrine was then collected by the witness and found to contain 993.6 grams of pseudoephedrine at 81 percent purity.
The Statement of Facts notes that the Crown does not allege that Mr Nguyen was a participant in the exchange of this pseudoephedrine, but he was a member of the group chat in which the exchange was arranged.
The facts then take us to H number ending in 592, sequence number 2, which is one of the offences for which Mr Leckloksavang is to be sentenced.
The facts relevantly are these. Max and Mr Mariam continued to have discussions on Threema about exchanging illicit cigarettes for pseudoephedrine. After the supply of a sample of cigarettes by Max, it was agreed that an exchange would occur on 15 June 2023. This involved an exchange of a large quantity of illicit cigarettes for 7 kilograms of pseudoephedrine and $31,860 cash. The facts note, however, that it is not suggested that either of the offenders before the Court was involved in this transaction.
However, subsequently a Threema group chat involving Max, Mr Mariam and these two offenders was created so as to coordinate the supply of a further quantity of pseudoephedrine, which was to be dropped by Mr Leckloksavang into an empty truck parked in Elizabeth Street, Granville.
At about 6.45pm that day, that is 15 June 2023, police saw the Honda Accord park opposite a Pantech truck on Elizabeth Street and the offender, Mr Leckloksavang, accessing the rear of that truck before returning to the Honda and driving away. Inside the truck was subsequently found 6.497 kilograms of pseudoephedrine at 80.5 percent purity.
Messages were exchanged in the group chat about the pseudoephedrine being 750 grams short, and about money still being owed for cigarettes. It was agreed that Mr Mariam owed $50,180 for the transaction, being $31,680 for cigarettes and $18,500 for the missing pseudoephedrine. Mariam advised that the owed money could be paid the next day. However, an agreement was reached for the money to be deducted from “the next round”.
It is not suggested that the offender Mr Nguyen was involved in this transaction. However, it is agreed that he was a party to the group chat in which the exchange was arranged.
On 11 and 12 July 2023 further supplies of cigarettes were arranged between Max and Mr Mariam, with the value of the cigarettes to be put towards future purchases of pseudoephedrine. In total 2,320 cartons of cigarettes were to be exchanged for a price of $65 per carton which was to be put towards future purchases of pseudoephedrine.
It is not, however, suggested that either offender participated in these discussions.
The facts further note that - the facts in relation to Mr Nguyen, at least, note that on Threema, the person Max arranged the sale of a van which had a secret compartment, that sale being to Mr Mariam, and in exchange Max was to be paid $60,000 for the van. The van was delivered on 1 August 2023 by Max to Mr Mariam. Payment for the van was subsequently arranged in the Threema group - I should say, in a Threema group chat where the offender Mr Nguyen was using a particular profile.
On 14 August 2023, police were conducting surveillance in the vicinity of the Whitlam Leisure Centre at Liverpool, and at about 12.30 that afternoon they saw the person Max drive into the car park and stop in a parking bay. A few minutes later they saw the offender, Mr Nguyen, drive into the car park in a silver Subaru Forester which was registered to him. Police saw the co‑accused reverse park into the parking bay adjacent to Max. I assume that the reference to “the co‑accused” is a reference to Mr Nguyen. They observed the offender then exit the vehicle holding a red bag, and saw him approach the passenger seat of Max’s vehicle and place the red bag inside, after which he was seen to return to his vehicle and drive away.
I note that those circumstances relating to the sale of the van are agreed by the Crown to be provided essentially as context, and also relating to Mr Nguyen’s participation in the criminal group.
Turning then to the facts relating to H number ending in 172, sequence number 1, which relates to Mr Nguyen. This is an offence of supply of 5,994 grams of pseudoephedrine. The facts being as follows.
Threema communications continued between Max and Mariam and an agreement was reached for the supply by Mariam of 6 kilograms of pseudoephedrine. Given the debt already owed by Mariam for previous supplies of cigarettes, it was agreed that $22,000 was to be paid to Mariam in exchange for the 6 kilograms.
It is not suggested that Mr Leckloksavang was a party to these negotiations, although he was a party to a group chat in which messages were exchanged about the exchange of the pseudoephedrine and cash.
The exchange was agreed to occur on 24 August 2023 at the Whitlam Leisure Centre in Liverpool. It was agreed that Mr Nguyen would take the money and replace it with the pseudoephedrine. A series of Threema messages were exchanged between 21 and 23 August about these arrangements, and these are set out in the two Statements of Facts.
As a result of these arrangements, on 24 August 2023 a witness drove his car with a bag containing $22,000 cash in the boot to the Whitlam Leisure Centre where he parked. Shortly after, the offender, Mr Nguyen, parked next to him and Nguyen then took the bag of cash from the witness’s boot - boot of the car, that is, and left in the boot of the car a total of 5,994 grams of pseudoephedrine, which was of 78 percent purity.
It is not alleged that Mr Leckloksavang played any role in this transaction, but he was a member of the group chat in which the transaction was arranged.
On 18 September 2023 further discussions occurred about cigarettes being supplied by the witness, with an arrangement for a sample to be provided on 20 September 2023 at Lidcombe McDonald’s. On that day Mr Leckloksavang attended the McDonald’s store in a vehicle and then approached the car driven by Max, upon which Mr Leckloksavang was handed a Woolworths bag which contained sample cigarettes. After this, the offender, Mr Leckloksavang, sent a group chat message saying “collected”. Arrangements were then made for the remainder of the cigarettes, being 5,130 cartons, to be delivered on 21 September 2023.
It is not, however, suggested that either Mr Leckloksavang or Mr Nguyen were involved directly in this part of the exchange.
Turning then to the facts relating to H number ending in 172, sequence number 2, which relates to Mr Nguyen only, and is an offence of supply 9998.4 grams of pseudoephedrine. The facts are these in summary.
On 21 September 2023 a Threema group chat was created to facilitate a further supply of pseudoephedrine. The participants included Max, Mariam and the two offenders, as well as a number of witnesses. In this chat, arrangements were made for the supply by Mr Nguyen of 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine at the Whitlam Leisure Centre. Police conducting surveillance there on 21 September 2023 observed Mr Nguyen drive into the car park and that then “the witness” entered the car being driven by Nguyen. The car then drove to another spot in the car park which was next to the car being used by the witness.
The conversation between Nguyen and the witness was recorded, and included Nguyen telling the witness that “it” was in a box in the boot of the car. The two men then got out of the car being driven by Nguyen, and went to the boot of the car, from which a box was removed and placed into the vehicle being driven by the witness. That box contained white powder which comprised 9,998.4 grams of pseudoephedrine with a purity between 76 and 80 percent. Subsequent testing of the shopping bag containing the pseudoephedrine detected Mr Nguyen’s fingerprints on them.
I note that the Crown does not allege that Mr Leckloksavang was involved in this exchange, but he was a member of the group chat where the exchange was arranged.
Turning then to the facts relating to H number 392, sequence 5, which relates to Mr Leckloksavang only, and which is on a Form 1 document. The facts being in summary as follows.
In the group chat, another exchange was arranged which was to involve the supply by Leckloksavang of about 2 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, for $26,550.
On 21 September 2023 the offender, Leckloksavang, was seen by PolAir to exit his residence in McKell Close, Bonnyrigg and to approach a vehicle which stopped outside his house. He was then seen to open the passenger door and walk away carrying a bag. After this he sent messages to the Threema group saying that the location for the exchange of pseudoephedrine was to be in Hasluck Street, Bonnyrigg, and that he would be in a grey Honda Accord.
Shortly after this, the witness attended Hasluck Street where he received from Mr Leckloksavang 1,998 grams of pseudoephedrine which was 78.5 percent pure, in exchange for $26,550 cash that was provided to him by the witness.
It is not suggested that the offender, Mr Nguyen, was a participant in this exchange, but he was a member of the group chat where the exchange was arranged.
Subsequently, police obtained search warrants to search the residences of the two offenders. It was on 14 November 2023 that they executed those search warrants.
At the premises of Mr Leckloksavang in McKell Close, Bonnyrigg, police found a large number of items which are set out in a table in the agreed statement of facts, many of which are irrelevant and should never have appeared in the Statement of Facts. However, in summary, those that are of some relevance are the fact that police found a number of quantities of prohibited drugs. Those included 131.7 grams of cocaine, which is to be dealt with on a Form 1 document; 4002.4 grams of pseudoephedrine, which is one of the offences for which he must be sentenced; 1,118.1 grams of heroin, which is another substantive offence for which he is to be sentenced. I further note that the Agreed Facts confirm that the cocaine, the pseudoephedrine and the heroin found at Mr Leckloksavang’s premises were in his possession for the purposes of supply.
Police also found a small quantity, namely .74 grams of MDMA, also known as ecstasy, that being an offence to be dealt with on a Form 1 document.
At Mr Leckloksavang’s house police also found a large number of other items of interest, including the following. Two gel blaster rifles, which is one of the offences on which Mr Leckloksavang is to be sentenced and in respect of which he told police that he had bought them online about 10 years earlier. Police also found a money counter, which the offender said was his. And police also found various drugs, including, as I have said, cocaine, pseudoephedrine, heroin and also a large number of diazepam tablets, those tablets being the subject of a charge on a Form 1 document.
A search warrant was also executed at Mr Nguyen’s house on that same day, 14 November 2023. On that day at his house in Five Dock, police identified a number of relevant items, including three mobile phones, which are not the subject of any charge, $3,980 cash, which is a matter to be dealt with on a Form 1 document, and 2,800 grams of pseudoephedrine at 80 percent purity, which is also to be dealt with on a Form 1 document.
Furthermore, there is the fact that - and this is the subject of matters on Form 1 documents for each of the offenders - they participated in a criminal group between dates that are set out in the relevant material that has been placed before me, those dates being between 28 April and 14 November 2023. That criminal group included both offenders as well as Mr Mariam, and the participation was carried out knowing that their participation contributed to criminal activity.
Those are in summary the facts.
It is important that I make an assessment, which I have, of the relative objective seriousness of the substantive offences for which each offender must be sentenced.
Commencing with the offences involving Mr Leckloksavang. The sequence 2 offence is one of supply a large commercial quantity, namely 6,497 grams of pseudoephedrine.
Drug supply offences must, of course, be taken very seriously given the damage that they cause to individuals and to the community. That remains the case with a precursor-type drug such as pseudoephedrine, which is a well‑known component in the making of other drugs such as methylamphetamine. I do not, however, approach the offence on the basis that there was any plans by the offender or, necessarily, anybody else, to manufacture methylamphetamine, but that is just an observation.
The quantity of pseudoephedrine was 1,497 grams more than the large commercial quantity of 5 kilograms. This means that it is serious, but, of course, there is no upper limit to “large commercial quantity”, and it is common for offenders to come before this Court for far greater quantities. The quantity is also, of course, not the most important factor in any drug offence.
The agreed price for the pseudoephedrine was $37,000 per kilogram, I should say, a total value of about $240,000, and it was of high purity.
The offence was not a one-off aberration, but occurred in the context where the offender was involved in a criminal group.
As to the offender’s role in this offence, it was he who delivered the drugs by placing them into the truck parked in Granville. He was certainly not a principal in this supply offence, but he was clearly a trusted courier or middle‑man.
I assess this offence as being below the mid-range of objective seriousness, but well above the low range.
There are two other supply offences on a Form 1 that are to be taken into account in dealing with the sequence 2 offence.
Form 1 matters cannot increase the seriousness of a substantive offence. However, they can, in an appropriate case, be taken into account so as to increase the penalty for a substantive offence by reason of two important considerations; namely, the importance of personal deterrence, and retribution for serious offences. This is not, however, an automatic process, and it is up to the individual judge considering a Form 1 matter as to whether it should have that effect.
The two supply offences on this particular Form 1 document relate to significant quantities of pseudoephedrine which took place on separate occasions. In my view, they should operate so as to increase to some degree the penalty for the sequence 2 offence.
The next offence relating to Mr Leckloksavang is the sequence 7 possession of the two gel blaster type firearms. These were found in the offender’s premises and in the same general area where various drugs were located. The Crown submitted that this was of some significance, the suggestion being, presumably, that they may have some connection to ongoing drug supply. On the other hand, senior counsel for the offender submitted that the Court would accept the offender’s explanation to police that he had bought the items online some 10 years earlier and that he, effectively, was in possession of them as a toy. Counsel also submitted that the guns were not operational. As I observed in the hearing today, the Agreed Facts are silent as to whether the guns were operational or not.
Given that aggravating matters must be established beyond reasonable doubt, I will, proceed on the basis that I cannot be satisfied that the items were operational. I further note that the Statement of Facts makes no mention of any ammunition for the firearms, which, it is agreed, were not capable of firing actual bullets, in any event.
Nonetheless, these sorts of weapons are prohibited in New South Wales and are capable of causing injury and capable of being used to threaten and intimidate.
In my view, balancing all of these matters, the offence is towards the lower range of objective seriousness.
The next offence in relation to Mr Leckloksavang is sequence 13, which is an offence of supplying 4002 grams of pseudoephedrine, that being in excess of a commercial quantity. This relates to the pseudoephedrine which was found in the offender’s premises when they were searched. It is agreed that he had possession for the purposes of supply. The quantity was more than three times the commercial quantity of 1.25 kilos and not far below the large commercial quantity, and it was of high purity.
I accept that the offender was, as the Crown submitted, storing the drugs for future deliveries. He was not the principal in relation to this offence, but he was clearly a trusted custodian.
I assess this offence as falling slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness.
There are two offences to be taken into account on a Form 1 when sentencing for this sequence 13 offence. The two matters are “participate in a criminal group” and possessing a restricted substance, namely 400 tablets of diazepam. That is a very significant quantity of diazepam, also known as Valium, a drug known to be abused in the community. In my view, this should increase the penalty for the substantive offence.
As to the participation in a criminal group matter, this encompasses the offender’s criminal activities over a period of about six months. While I take this into account, there is a need to not double count this aspect of his criminality, and so I approach the participate offence on the basis that it should impose only a limited upwards pressure on the penalty for the sequence 13 offence.
The sequence 14 offence relates to the deemed supply of 1,181.1 grams of heroin. This heroin was found also in the offender’s premises when it was searched and it is agreed that he had it in his possession for future supply. The quantity was slightly over the large commercial quantity of 1 kilo. It was of quite a high purity at 63 percent.
Again, I accept that the offender was storing the drugs for future deliveries. He was not the principal, but clearly he was a trusted custodian.
I assess this offence as falling below the mid-range of objective seriousness, but not within the low range.
There are two offences on a Form 1 to be taken into account in sentencing for this sequence 14 offence. One of the offences relates to the offender’s possession of a small quantity of MDMA, which I treat as of no real consequence. The other, however, relates to his possession of 131 grams of cocaine, which is a substantial amount, and involved additional criminality to the substantive supply offence. It should, in my view, operate to increase slightly the penalty for the substantive supply offence.
Turning then to the objective seriousness of the two offences for which Mr Nguyen is to be sentenced.
The first is H number ending in 172, sequence number 1. That relates to his actual supply of 5,994 grams of pseudoephedrine on 24 August 2023 in exchange for a large quantity of cash. The quantity of drug was almost 1 kilogram in excess of a large commercial quantity, and at 78 percent it was of high purity. The offence occurred in the context of an organised drug supply operation. I accept that the offender was not a principal, but his role was one of a trusted courier or middle‑man.
I assess this offence as being below the mid-range of objective seriousness, but well above the low range.
There are three matters to be taken into account on a Form 1 attached to this offence.
Sequence 5 on the Form 1 relates to a relatively large quantity of pseudoephedrine, and sequence 8 relates to $3,980 cash which was reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. These two offences were detected on 14 November 2023 when police carried out their search and involved separate criminality to the substantive supply offence. In my view, they should operate so as to increase to some extent the penalty for the substantive offence.
The remaining matter on the Form 1 is the participate in criminal group offence. As I said when discussing that offence in Mr Leckloksavang’s case, that offence encompasses the offender, Mr Nguyen’s, criminal activities over a period of about six months. While I take this into account, there is a need, as I have said, not to double count this aspect of his criminality, and so I approach the “participate” offence on the basis that it should impose only limited upwards pressure on the penalty for the substantive offence in sequence 1.
The second substantive offence in Mr Nguyen’s case is the sequence 2 offence. This relates to the offender’s supply of just under 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine on 21 September 2023. The quantity was almost double the large commercial quantity of 5 kilograms and it was of high purity at 76 to 80 percent. The offending again occurred in the context of an organised drug supply operation. The offender was a trusted courier or middle‑man.
In my assessment, it is an offence that sits slightly below the mid‑range of objective seriousness.
Turning then to subjective matters relating to each of the offenders.
I start with Mr Leckloksavang. He is 40 years of age. He has no prior criminal history.
His subjective case is before the Court by means of written material. The psychological report of Anthony Diment sets out that the offender was born in Blacktown, the elder of two children of his parents’ marriage. The offender said his parents looked after him “okay”, but that his father was hard and expected the offender to do well academically. The offender attended school to year 12 where he was a fairly good student and after leaving school he was employed in sales and then IT.
The offender described being affected by a number of stressful circumstances commencing around the COVID lockdown periods, where his parents had split up, but were living in the same house, resulting in a lot of tension. This was at a time when his mother was recovering from breast cancer and had compromised immunity.
The offender said that from around this time he was drinking more and was also using cocaine. He said he got involved with “the wrong guys and they got a grip on me because of my drug use”. The offender told the psychologist that his main motivator in life now is his family, who remain supportive of him and with whom he can live on his release. The offender claims to have possible work opportunities with a friend who owns a gym and he says that he intends to avoid drugs once he is released.
The psychologist did not detect any major anti-social personality disorder in the offender, but concluded that he fits the diagnoses for persistent depressive disorder with anxiety, and also substance use disorder, with the substance use disorder currently being in remission in custody. Mr Diment says that anxiety and depression have strong potential to impact on a person’s thought processes and normal decision‑making, especially in situations of perceived emotional distress, and that these circumstances existed for the offender prior to and at the time of his offending.
On balance, I accept that the offender’s stressful family circumstances, together with his tendency towards depression and anxiety, made a contribution to his abuse of alcohol and cocaine and that these in turn contributed to his becoming more and more involved with drugs and contributed also to the commission of the offences.
There was, of course, however, a degree of choice involved in this because not every depressed and anxious person commits offences like these.
However, on balance, I accept that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced to some degree by the contribution made by his compromised mental state. I accept that this reduces the importance of general deterrence to a moderate degree.
Since being in custody the offender has completed a number of courses to better himself, including the Equips Addiction course. He is a valuable, trusted and senior member of the kitchen staff in custody, and is described as a good mentor to others. There is a large volume of other testimonials from persons who have expressed very positive views of the offender and confirmed their continued support for him.
The offender’s incarceration has, no doubt, impacted very seriously on his family. While it is not suggested that there is any exceptional hardship, the impact on the offender’s family is a matter which I have taken into account in the overall sentencing exercise.
I also take into account the fact that the offender’s arrest and conviction have meant that he has lost his previous employment and is unlikely to be able ever again to be employed in the public service.
The Court also has letters from the offender’s mother and sister, various friends and a letter from the offender. In his letter the offender explains how his own drug use led to his involvement in the offences and he expresses the intention to avoid a similar path in the future. He expresses significant remorse, which is supported by the contents of other material tendered in his case.
Turning then to subjective matters relating to Mr Nguyen.
He is currently 38 years of age. He also has no prior criminal history.
There is a volume of written material that has been admitted in support of his subjective circumstances.
The report of psychiatrist Dr Furst notes that the offender was born in Germany where he and his Vietnamese family lived as refugees until coming to Australia when he was aged about four. He grew up in the Liverpool area and attended school to about year 10, but then lost interest.
His history as a child includes significant discord in the home arising from domestic violence and exposure to his father’s alcohol abuse and its consequences. The offender moved out of home at about age 19 and lived in Canberra where he secured work in the IT industry.
He has never been diagnosed with mental illness, but he has a history of abusing alcohol and cocaine and had some problems with gambling.
In relation to his offending, he told Dr Furst that he had a serious gambling problem and associated debts, and that this, combined with his abuse of alcohol and cocaine, placed him in a bad place around the time of his offending, which he acknowledged and described as a big mistake.
Dr Furst’s report notes that the offender, Mr Nguyen, claimed to have spent a lot of time reflecting since being in gaol and that he does not wish to return to his prior lifestyle of alcohol, drugs and gambling.
He has been engaging himself usefully in work and studies while in custody and has attained the trusted position of sweeper.
The offender intends to move back in with his family on his release and to pursue work, although it may have to be in a different industry given his convictions.
Dr Furst opines that the offender meets the diagnosis for substance use disorder (cocaine), alcohol use disorder and gambling disorder. Dr Furst suggests that the offender likely developed maladaptive patterns of coping after a relationship breakup in about 2015 and that this led to a gradual increase in his drinking and then drug use in his 30s. This, combined with the offender’s socialising with other drug users, his exposure to domestic violence as a child, and his predisposition to addiction by reason of his father’s problems, formed the foundation and context to the offending.
I take into account all of this background and the views of Dr Furst about the offender’s disorders, which I accept made a contribution to his offending.
However, and as I observed when speaking about Mr Leckloksavang’s circumstances, there was nonetheless a significant element of choice in the actions and lifestyle of the offender.
On balance, however, I accept that this offender’s moral culpability is reduced to some degree by the contribution made by his compromised mental state. I accept that this reduces the importance of general deterrence to a moderate degree.
I also accept that the offender has, by reason of his offending, lost his prior employment, and that his convictions will create challenges for him in obtaining work in the future.
Turning then to aspects of remorse, future risk and prospects of rehabilitation, firstly, with respect to Mr Leckloksavang.
I accept that he has demonstrated remorse. This has been done in the form of his letter and the things that he has said to others, including the author of the sentencing assessment report.
As to his future risk, I note that he has no prior offences, he has a good work history and, until his involvement in these offences, he was a responsible and contributing member of the community, who also participated in voluntary work. Since his arrest he has engaged himself very well in work and study in the custodial environment.
He has been assessed as a medium/low risk in the Sentencing Assessment Report, and I think this is a reasonable assessment.
I think his prospects of rehabilitation are guarded, but fairly positive. I think he has already achieved a good deal towards his own rehabilitation and, in my view, this reduces to some degree the importance of personal deterrence in this sentencing exercise.
In relation to Mr Nguyen, I also accept that he has demonstrated remorse, both in his letter to the Court and in his comments to other persons.
He has been assessed, according to the Sentencing Assessment Report, as a low/medium risk. Given his lack of prior criminal offences, his previous good work history, his family support and the efforts that he has taken towards his rehabilitation in custody, I accept that he is a low to medium risk of reoffending.
As with Mr Leckloksavang, I think Mr Nguyen has already achieved a great deal towards his rehabilitation and his prospects are guarded, but fairly positive. As in the case of Mr Leckloksavang, I think this reduces to some degree the importance of personal deterrence in his case.
Turning then to my ultimate determination in each case. I have had regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. I do not intend to recite them all. They are all of relevance.
However, as I have observed, I have concluded that the importance of general deterrence is reduced slightly in the case of each offender given the reasons I have already set out.
I have also set out that, in my view, the importance of personal deterrence is reduced to some degree and that is largely due to the rehabilitation that each of the offenders have achieved already.
Rehabilitation of each offender is, of course, an important consideration to which I have attached some considerable weight, as well as the various other aspects of sentencing discussed in section 3A.
For the purposes of section 5 of that same Act, I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate for each of the substantive offences on which each of the offenders is to be sentenced.
I intend in each case to impose an aggregate sentence, given that there is more than one offence for each offender. In those circumstances I am required to set out the indicative sentences for each substantive offence which would otherwise have been imposed. However, this is not a process of simply adding up the indicatives and then imposing the aggregate as the ultimate sentence.
Rather, I must have regard to totality principles and look at the overall criminality and the extent to which there should be any notional accumulation in relation to the various indicative terms.
It is important that the ultimate sentence to be imposed in each case not amount to a sentence that might be described as crushing.
As I am sentencing two offenders for their involvement in somewhat similar offending, committed in the context of their involvement in the same criminal group, it is important that I have regard to parity considerations. In other words, that the penalties that I impose represent a fair, and appropriate assessment of the respective criminality of each offender, taking into account not only their offences and their seriousness, but also their subjective circumstances and any relevant differences. It is important that neither of the offenders, nor the community, should be left with the impression that there is some unfairness or some inappropriate difference between the penalties imposed on the two men.
In my assessment, the subjective background and circumstances of the two offenders are somewhat similar and they are both first offenders. They have both expressed remorse and have made significant steps in their rehabilitation. Their involvement and role in the supply of prohibited drugs was also of a broadly similar nature.
However, I do not ignore the fact that in Mr Leckloksavang’s case there are four offences on which he is to be sentenced, while Mr Nguyen is to be sentenced for two offences. Also, Mr Leckloksavang has a greater number of matters on Form 1 documents, which is largely, or at least partly, the product of the smorgasbord of various drugs and other prohibited substances or items which were found in his premises.
Commencing with Mr Leckloksavang. As I have said, there are four offences on which he must be sentenced. I convict him of each of those offences. I have made a finding of special circumstances for adjusting the ratio between head sentence and non-parole period in his case. That is based on this being his first period in custody, as well as the importance of there being a significant period of monitoring once he is subject to parole.
Because I am imposing an aggregate sentence, I must set out the indicative terms in Mr Leckloksavang’s case. Each of these are after the application of the 25 percent discount for the plea of guilty and, as I have said, these are not the final sentence, these are what are called indicative sentences. They are as follows.
For sequence 2, which is the supply 6.497 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, taking into account the Form 1 matters, the indicative term is four years eight months’ imprisonment, the indicative non-parole is two years eight months.
For sequence 17, which relates to the gel guns, the indicative term is 15 months’ imprisonment.
For sequence 13, which is the supply 4002 grams of pseudoephedrine, taking into account matters on the Form 1, the indicative term is three years seven months. The non-parole indicated is two years.
For sequence 14, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 - sequence 14 I note is the 1,181 grams of heroin, the indicative term is four years one month. The indicative non-parole is two years three months.
I have considered the extent to which there should be any notional accumulation among those various indicative terms. Sequence 2 was an actual supply committed on 15 June 2023, while the other three offences, two of which were deemed supply offences, and the possession of the gel blasters, were effectively committed on 14 November 2023. In my view there needs to be some, but a relatively moderate degree of notional accumulation among the four indicative terms so as to acknowledge the separate criminal acts involved and so as not to give the appearance that a discount is being given for multiple offending.
In Mr Leckloksavang’s case, I impose an aggregate head sentence of five years 10 months. I impose a non-parole period of three years four months. That will date from 14 November 2023. The head sentence will expire on 13 September 2029, the non-parole period will expire on 13 March 2027.
Turning to Mr Nguyen’s case. Firstly, I will set out the indicative terms for the two offences on which sentence must be passed. Each of these are after the 25 percent discount for pleas of guilty.
For the sequence 1 offence, taking into account the Form 1, the indicative term is four years eight months’ imprisonment and I indicate a non-parole period of two years eight months.
For sequence 2, taking into account the Form 1 matters, the indicative term is four years seven months with a non-parole period of two years seven months.
I have made a finding of special circumstances in his case for the same reasons that I set out when discussing Mr Leckloksavang’s case.
He is convicted of the two offences.
I impose a head sentence of five years six months. I set a non-parole period of three years two months. They will date from 14 November 2023. The head sentence, therefore, in his case will expire on 13 May 2029 and the non-parole period on 13 January 2027.
**********