DPP v Barker

1. The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening on Plea dated 26 August 2025[2] at your Determination Hearing. Your Counsel confirmed that this document contains admitted facts with regards to your offending.
2. Your offending can now be briefly summarised.
3. On 31 May 2024, police arrested a female for possession of drugs of dependence. Upon executing a Search Warrant at this female's residence, police located a commercial quantity of 1,4-Butanediol, a traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine, and police seized a mobile telephone. Several days later, police examined this mobile phone and discovered text messages between you and the female. These messages indicated that you were trafficking drugs of dependence to the female frequently utilising rideshare services such as Uber.
4. On 22 July 2024, as part of a police operation in the vicinity of your residence in Richmond, police entered the foyer of your property.
5. At around 6.50 pm, an Uber stopped directly outside your property. You then appeared in the foyer of your property, holding a brown coloured gift bag with colourful spots, which appeared to be slightly larger than a wine bottle.
6. You were then detained by police for search.[3] When asked by the police what was in the bag, you told them that 'It's just a gift. A bottle of wine for a friend'. When asked who you were referring to, you said, 'Just a friend'. The gift bag had a white sticker on it with an alias and a St Kilda Road address printed on it. Police then opened the gift bag and located a sealed plastic satchel bearing the same name and address on its label. Upon tearing open the satchel, police located a generic reusable shopping bag among other items. Inside this bag, a one-litre sports drink bottle filled with clear liquid was found. When shaken, the liquid displayed the viscosity consistent with 1,4-Butanediol. This was later confirmed after testing. Police said to you that it did not look like a bottle of wine, and you offered no response.
7. The Uber driver who arrived just outside your property was waiting to collect a passenger using an alias for a trip to St Kilda Road, and this matched the name and destination on the gift bag seized by police from you.
8. The police subsequently executed Search Warrants at your property, where they located the following items:
   • Thirty-two bottles of varying size containing 1,4-Butanediol. The

1,4-Butanediol was subsequently weighed and confirmed to be 3,386.1 grams or 3.386 kilograms. This forms the basis of Charge 1 on the Indictment, trafficking 1,4-Butanediol; * Twenty-seven Ziploc bags containing methylamphetamine. The methylamphetamine was subsequently weighed and confirmed to be 124.9 grams with a 98 per cent purity. This forms the basis of Charge 2 on the Indictment, trafficking methylamphetamine; * $6,880 in Australian currency. This forms the basis of related Summary Charge 9, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime; * Seventy-seven Modafinil tablets. This forms the basis of related Summary Charge 10, possession of a Schedule 4 poison (Modafinil); * A Ziploc bag containing approximately 1 gram of Oxazepam powder. This forms the basis of related Summary Charge 11, possession of a Schedule 4 poison (Oxazepam); * Four mobile phones, large quantities of empty Ziploc bags, digital scales, vacuum sealers and vacuum-seal bags; and * A packing station containing gift bags, ribbons, name labels and 'thank you' stickers, matching the one on the gift bag seized from you**.** 9. On this same day, you were arrested, and your mobile phone was also seized by police. You were conveyed to Mill Park Police Station, where you made a 'no comment' interview. 10. You were remanded in custody from this date until 6 December 2024, when you were granted bail. Accordingly, you have 138 days of pre-sentence detention attributable to this matter.

Nature and gravity of the offending and your level of culpability for it

1. In terms of the nature and gravity of your offending, the relevant maximum penalties, particularly relating to the trafficking charges, reflect the general gravity of your offending conduct. It is often said that sentencing for drug related offending, particularly trafficking, is a quantity-based regime, and all things being equal, the greater the amount trafficked, the more serious the offending. The quantity of 1,4-Butanediol which forms the basis of Charge 1 on the Indictment, trafficking in 1,4-Butanediol, was identified as being 3.386 kilograms. This amount far exceeds the traffickable quantity of 1,4-Butanediol pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, and is in fact almost two times the mixed commercial quantity threshold. In relation to the quantity of methylamphetamine, which forms the basis of Charge 2 on the Indictment, trafficking in methylamphetamine, the quantity of methylamphetamine identified was 124.9 grams, or 98 grams pure. This is far in excess of the relevant traffickable quantity threshold, and represents about 50 per cent of the mixed commercial quantity threshold, and almost two times the pure commercial quantity threshold. As this Court well knows through its day-to-day activities, the quantities of these particular drugs have the capacity to cause catastrophic damage to vulnerable members of the community.
2. The circumstances of your offending reflect, in my view, a fairly active trafficking operation, having regard to the quantities of drugs, the amount of cash located, the existence of multiple mobile phones, Ziploc bags, scales, vacuum sealers and vacuum bags, and a packing station. You were utilising a ride share service for the movement of drugs, and police appear to have interrupted you essentially amidst a live transaction.
3. I accept, however, that the context of your offending was primarily to fund your own longstanding addiction. Indeed, your Counsel indicated in oral submissions that you were so well known as a local drug user in the Richmond area that you were on a first-name basis with the local police. Save for the cash found, there were no accoutrements of wealth associated with your offending, and your offending is limited to a single day.
4. As conceded by your Counsel, your offending must be seen as representing offending higher than a low-level example of trafficking simpliciter, and having regard, in particular, to your multiple relevant prior convictions, which includes your prior convictions for trafficking. In my view, your culpability for the offending must therefore be seen as high.

1. I turn now to your background and personal circumstances. In gaining an appreciation of your personal circumstances, I have read and considered the various documents and reports tendered on your behalf, in particular the Psychological Report of Gina Cidoni dated 23 December 2024,[4] your Counsel's helpful written submissions,[5] and the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Assessment Reports in this case.[6]
2. You are 42 years of age. You were supported in Court at your Determination Hearing by your partner of some four or five years, and your mother, with whom you are apparently quite close.
3. Your parents separated when you were an infant. Your father subsequently re‑partnered and ultimately ceased contact with you. You were primarily raised by your mother, who had her own challenges with substance use, mental health issues, and financial difficulties. During your childhood, you apparently spent a great deal of time with your late paternal grandmother, who was, it seems, a pivotal figure in your life. Sadly, she passed away last year. In the last six months of your grandmother's life, you apparently spent a considerable time caring for her both in the hospital and a nursing home, and it seems you have felt her passing acutely. According to your counsel, this led to an increase in your problematic substance use leading up to the offending.
4. Your childhood and adolescence was it seems, in some respects, quite difficult. Following your parents' separation, you would occasionally see your father at your grandmother's house, but your relationship with him was strained, leading to feelings on your part, understandably, of abandonment and rejection. This relationship deteriorated significantly when your father's new partner gave him an ultimatum to choose between her family and you, with your father choosing the former. You have three paternal half-sisters, with you only having occasional contact with one of them.
5. You experienced bullying at school from around the age of 14, in the context of your emerging homosexuality. Despite the bullying, you managed to complete Year 12. Following this, you commenced a Bachelor of Arts at La Trobe University, majoring in Italian studies, but you did not finish this degree. Thereafter, for some years, you obtained employment in the insurance industry, with this career ultimately failing in the context of your ongoing substance use.
6. Your problematic substance use history commenced in your teenage years when you started experimenting with cannabis. From about the age of 17, you commenced experimenting with MDMA in the context of the rave culture with your then-boyfriend. Later, also in this context, you were introduced to GHB. From this point onwards, you were a regular user of GHB, with daily doses of about 60 millilitres, continuing up until your arrest for the current matters. Through the same scene, you were also introduced to methylamphetamine, which commenced at around the age of 22. By your thirties, this became a daily habit, continuing up until your arrest for the current matters. You have described to Ms Cidoni your substance use occurring in the context of your need for belonging, to escape from bullying and your family struggles, and also to deal with issues surrounding your sexuality. Sadly, you have described your drug use as a way to fill an emptiness that you have felt throughout your life.
7. You have reported a history of anxiety and associated panic attacks from a young age. In the past, you have been prescribed antidepressant medication, which has caused unwanted side effects. Sadly, you have been the victim of sexual violence both in the community and whilst in custody, with the former about five years ago, resulting in you being diagnosed with HIV. You apparently received this diagnosis whilst in custody, leading to you being placed in solitary confinement. I do not doubt that this would have been a very difficult time for you. You have reported to Ms Cidoni that during past incarcerations, you have been the victim of both physical and verbal altercations, usually related to your sexuality. As I have stated, you have also been sexually assaulted whilst in prison. Understandably, according to Ms Cidoni, you appeared distressed and anxious during your assessment, particularly when discussing the prospect of receiving a gaol sentence. Ms Cidoni referred to indications of residual symptoms related to trauma stemming from past experiences, such as the sexual assaults, together with the emotional turmoil of your early life. You present with a history and current indications of anxiety. Whilst not meeting the relevant diagnostic threshold, you present with symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, in addition to a clear stimulant use disorder. According to Ms Cidoni, the stigma and victimisation that you would likely face in a male prison setting does increase your risk of further psychological and physical harm. Your history of sexual assault and bullying makes you particularly vulnerable to exploitation and violence.[7]
8. I agree with your counsel that whilst Ms Cidoni's opinions do not enliven the Verdins mental impairment principles,[8] they are relevant however to the Court's understanding of the context in which your substance use and offending arose, and to an understanding of your experiences in custody. Ms Cidoni's opinions are also relevant to an assessment as to your rehabilitation prospects.[9]
9. You do have a concerning criminal history, which includes multiple prior convictions for drug-related offending, including, concerningly trafficking. Prior sentences, which have involved both imprisonment and Community Correction Orders, have not, it seems, deterred you from further offending. I do note, however, that you have managed to complete two of the four Community Correction Orders previously imposed. I note that your last prior conviction dates from March 2020, some four years prior to the current offending, showing your ability, it seems, to remain offence-free for a period of time.
10. You have been on bail now for some 10 months, and it seems you have complied with fairly stringent bail conditions. You were essentially bailed to undertake rehabilitation through the MyHab Addiction Treatment Centre in Glen Waverley. The Reports from MyHab tendered at your Determination Hearing[10] confirm your positive rehabilitative progress. Pursuant to your bail conditions, you have also provided some 26 urine screen results between the period from March to September 2025,[11] with all of these results being negative for illicit substances. I note, however, your candid admission through your Counsel, that you have on occasions used GHB, a substance which is not routinely detected through such screens. I was not informed of any breaches of your bail conditions by the Prosecution. In all the circumstances, I do regard your progress on bail as being significantly positive, a matter which augers well with regard to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.

Factors relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order

1. I turn now to matters relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are to facilitate your rehabilitation, to take account of your drug or alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminal activity associated with drug or alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency.[12] Importantly, if I am considering making such an Order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of the community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence.
2. The criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991. Of relevance to this case, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs or alcohol and that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending now before me. I note in your case that the Prosecution did not dispute that these criteria had been met in your case. After setting out in some detail your drug and alcohol use history, Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Clinical Advisor Terry Sequeira concludes in his Assessment Report dated 18 September 2025 that you would have satisfied the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of severe stimulant use disorder at the time of the offending.[13] According to psychologist Ms Cidoni, your involvement in the drug trafficking was driven by your need to fund your addiction to methylamphetamine and GHB.[14]
3. In order to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, I must be satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years. This criteria again was essentially conceded by the Prosecution in both written and oral submissions. However, ultimately this is a matter for me, having regard to the orthodox sentencing methodology, bearing in mind the prioritisation of the sentencing purposes of rehabilitation and community protection achieved through your rehabilitation, as contained in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991. In terms of the sentence that I would otherwise impose, I have already referred to the maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty, the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it, and your previous character. In particular, the nature of your offending requires me to give appropriate attention to the sentencing purposes of denunciation and general deterrence. Trafficking in substances such as methylamphetamines and 1,4-Butanediol is concerningly prominent in the community, and it has caused untold grief to others.
4. Ironically, given your involvement in the sale of these pernicious substances, your own addiction has no doubt adversely impacted you. Your relevant criminal history means that any penalty I impose must also appropriately reflect the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence - that is, any penalty should seek to deter you from further offending.
5. There are, however, a number of mitigatory factors relevant to the sentencing exercise in your case. As conceded by the Prosecution, I accept that you indicated your intention to plead guilty early in these proceedings, warranting a sentencing discount. You have served 138 days in custody in relation to this matter, and I am satisfied, having regard to your personal circumstances, that this would have been a most difficult experience for you, and one which has left you intensely fearful of returning to custody. Having regard in particular to your heartfelt letter tendered at your Determination Hearing,[15] I am satisfied that you have insight into your problematic behaviours, and you are essentially remorseful for your offending. I am also satisfied, having regard to that letter, and the significant volume of plea material tendered on your behalf,[16] that you have used your subsequent time on bail productively, and you are making significant gains with regard to your rehabilitative journey. Notwithstanding your troubling criminal history and the gravity of your current offending, I do regard your prospects for rehabilitation as being relatively favourable, particularly if you wholeheartedly embrace the specialist interventions that will form the basis of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order that I will impose in this case. You have stable accommodation available to you, and the love and support of your partner, mother, and others. Whilst I understand your partner has his own challenges, I am satisfied overall that you have a supportive and relatively protective environment in the community, as evidenced by your positive progress over 10 months on bail, which will provide a good foundation for your ongoing rehabilitation.
6. Whilst, having regard to current sentencing practices, it is clear that relatively significant sentences of imprisonment have been imposed previously in relation to similar offending, I am satisfied in all the circumstances, having regard in particular to s18X(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years in your case.
7. Finally, pursuant to s18Z(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I must not make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order unless I am satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so. You have been found suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court assessors.[17] The prosecution have accepted that you are suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.[18] The decision as to whether to place someone upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order is always a nuanced one, having regard to often competing considerations, but ultimately making a determination with regard to an offender's preparedness and motivation to undertake the intensive rigours of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. In that regard, I agree with your Counsel that it is likely that those establishing the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order scheme had someone just like you in mind: a person who has struggled for a variety of reasons for many years with serious drug dependency, and who has committed crimes very much as a result of that drug dependency. I see no significant impediments to the imposition of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, and accordingly, I have determined that this is an appropriate disposition in this case.
8. Mr Barker, would you please stand.

1. In relation to related Summary Charges 10 and 11, you are convicted and fined an aggregate sum of $400.
2. In relation to all other charges**,** you are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). This order commences today.
3. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order has two parts: the treatment and supervision part, and the custodial part. The treatment and supervision part itself has two parts, which are as follows.
4. The core conditions, which are that:

(a) you must not commit, whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment during the time the order is in force;

(b) you must attend Drug Court when required by the Court to do so;

(c) you must report to the Melbourne Drug Court House within two clear working days after the order is imposed;

(d) you must report to and accept visits from members of the Drug Court;

(e) you must undergo treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court;

(f) you must give notice of any change of address at least two clear working days before the change, to a specified Drug Court officer;

(g) you are not to leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court; and

(h) you are to obey all lawful instructions and directions from the Drug Court team.

1. The core conditions will operate for two years and four months.
2. The program conditions, which are that:

(a) you comply with the Individual Treatment Plan dated 14 October 2025 and signed by you today;

(b) you must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed;

(c) you must submit to detoxification or other treatments specified in the order as directed;

(d) you must attend vocational, educational, and employment programs as directed;

(e) you must submit to medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment as directed;

(f) you must reside at [omitted], Richmond, VIC, 3121;

(g) you must comply with a curfew that you remain at your address between the hours of 9.00 pm and 6.00 am;

(h) you are not to use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;

(i) you are to abstain from alcohol;

(j) you must not drive a motor vehicle;

(k) you are to do, or not do, anything else that the Drug Court considers:

• necessary or appropriate concerning your drug and alcohol dependency; and
• the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.

1. These program conditions will operate for two years, or until further order.
2. The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order is the term of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I not placed you on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, and it is a term of imprisonment of two years and four months. That is made up as follows:

(a) On Charge 1 on the Indictment, trafficking 1,4-Butanediol, and on Charge 2 on the Indictment, trafficking methylamphetamine, an aggregate term of two years and two months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

(b) On related Summary Offence 9, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, six months' imprisonment, with two months cumulative upon the base sentence, making a total effective term of two years and four months' imprisonment.

1. I declare that you have served 138 days of presentence detention.
2. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and four months' imprisonment.
3. I grant the forfeiture orders and disposal orders sought. These applications not being opposed by you.
4. You can take a seat, Mr Barker.
5. Mr Kominakis first, any issues or ambiguities with the sentence I have just announced?
6. MR KOMINAKIS: No, Your Honour.
7. HIS HONOUR: Same question to you, Mr Slucki.
8. MR SLUCKI: No, Your Honour.
9. HIS HONOUR: All right.

[3] Pursuant to Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s82

[8] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; [2007] 16 VR 269

[12] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s18X(1)