AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 9 June 2022

R v HUNG; R v DUONG

[2022] NSWDC 501

Drugs

Citation: R v Hung; R v Duong [2022] NSWDC 501
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 June 2022
Judge: Buscombe DCJ

Background

Police established a strike force in late 2020 to investigate drug supply across Sydney's southwest metropolitan area. Over a period of several months, an undercover officer conducted a series of controlled drug purchases from a co-offender, with two further co-offenders, Duong and Hung, playing supporting roles in the supply chain. A fourth person, referred to as Wong, acted as a courier and was connected to a dismantled clandestine drug laboratory found at his premises.

Duong was the partner of the primary supplier and operated from a residential address in Mt Pritchard. He collected methylamphetamine from Hung's residence before each transaction and stored it until it was passed on for sale. He was involved in eight separate controlled supply transactions between January and March 2021, totalling 915.88 grams of methylamphetamine. When arrested, police found a further 29 grams of methylamphetamine, $5,600 in proceeds of crime, a drug ledger, and multiple mobile phones at his address.

Hung served as an intermediary who received the drug from Wong and held it until Duong collected it. He was involved in the last four of the eight supply transactions, covering a total of 722 grams of methylamphetamine. Police executing a search warrant at his premises found $4,750 in proceeds of crime, 5 grams of heroin, 5 grams of methylamphetamine, and 5 millilitres of gamma-butyrolactone.

  • What were the appropriate sentences for Duong and Hung, each having pleaded guilty to supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)?
  • How should the sentences reflect the different roles each co-offender played in the supply network relative to each other and to the previously sentenced co-offender Vuong?
  • What weight should be given to parity considerations, given that Vuong had already been sentenced?
  • Were there subjective factors, including any health issues, that warranted adjustment of the sentences?

Decision

Buscombe DCJ found that both Duong and Hung played lesser roles than the primary supplier, Vuong, who had already received a more substantial sentence. The court found that Duong and Hung occupied intermediate positions in the supply chain, with neither exercising the degree of control or initiative that Vuong had. Their roles were nonetheless serious, forming essential links in a structured and repeated drug distribution operation.

The court applied parity principles, having regard to Vuong's sentence, and concluded that both Duong and Hung warranted considerably lesser sentences. The court was conscious of avoiding sentences that would create a justifiable sense of grievance among any of the co-offenders. The guilty pleas of both offenders were taken into account as a mitigating factor.

The court noted the relevant subjective circumstances of each offender, including any health considerations, and made findings regarding prospects of rehabilitation and risk of reoffending for each. Special circumstances affecting the ratio of non-parole period to total sentence were considered and, in Hung's case, the court fixed a non-parole period that was proportionally shorter than Duong's, resulting in an earlier parole eligibility date despite both receiving the same total sentence.

Orders Made

Duong:
- Total sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment
- Non-parole period of 4 years; balance of term of 2.5 years
- Sentence commences 18 March 2021; expires 17 September 2027
- Eligible for parole from 17 March 2025

Hung:
- Total sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment
- Non-parole period of 3.5 years; balance of term of 3 years
- Sentence commences 18 March 2021; expires 17 September 2027
- Eligible for parole from 17 September 2024

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court sentenced two co-offenders to identical total terms of 6.5 years, while differentiating their non-parole periods to reflect their respective roles and subjective circumstances.
  • Parity is a live consideration where co-offenders have been sentenced separately: the court actively compared each sentence against Vuong's earlier, more substantial sentence to avoid unjustifiable disparity.
  • A guilty plea to supply of a large commercial quantity under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 carries a maximum of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years, providing the baseline from which sentencing discretions are exercised.
  • Participation in a structured, repeated drug supply operation, even in a logistical or intermediary role, was treated as objectively serious offending warranting significant custodial terms.
  • Special circumstances affecting the non-parole period can produce different parole eligibility dates for co-offenders receiving the same total sentence, allowing the court to account for individual subjective factors without disturbing overall parity.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A

Cases:
- Mitchell v R [2013] NSWCCA 318
- Valetta v R [2021] NSWCCA 208
- R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186