DPP v Buzes [2025] VCC 1519

Charge 3 - Knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime pursuant to s194(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). That charge carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

1. You also pleaded guilty to three related summary charges:

Summary Charge 15 - dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime - that has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Summary Charge 16 - possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval which has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Summary charge 17 - failure to comply with a direction which has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

1. You admitted your criminal record.
2. The facts of your offending are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening (Exhibit A), and these were not in dispute. In summary, on 10 October 2023, Victoria Police attended your residential address, where you resided with your mother, to execute a search warrant. Police seized various drugs and other items from your bedroom and analysed the contents of electronic devices you possessed. In summary:

1. Covers your trafficking in 1,598.9 grams of methamphetamine comprising amounts you sold to others between 18 September and 4 October 2023 and the amounts found in your bedroom on 10 September 2023 (that was, in your bedroom was found 1,021.2 grams of methamphetamine).

1. Is a rolled-up charge covering your possession of drugs of dependence on 10 October, namely cocaine, butanediol, alprazolam, diazepam, oxycodone, buprenorphine. Specifically, you were found in possession of:

10 and a half Xanax tablets and a plastic clip seal bag containing two Xanax tablets

9 Valium tablets in a blister sheet and 25 Valium tablets in another blister sheet

8 Endone tablets in blister packs and another blister sheet containing 10 Endone tablets

2 plastic seal bags containing white powder, namely 0.1 grams and 0.2 grams of cocaine

'Mount Franklin' 600 mil bottle containing a liquid which was 244 grams of Butanediol

1. This is also a rolled-up charge comprising your possession of:

1. A quantity of identification cards in various names found in your bedroom. The licences located in your room had been reported as stolen.

1. A black Conductive Electronic Device (CED) in a pouch which was also found in your bedroom and you did not hold an approval or authorization to use a CED.

1. Several other items were also seized by police:

Apple MacBook with photos and videos of drugs of dependence, firearms and drug paraphernalia

There were items relating to packaging drugs of dependence for sale including a vacuum seal device; vacuum seal bags; black and clear plastic clip seal bags; scales covered in remnants of a white substance and drug paraphernalia including an 'ice' pipe

1. This relates to your refusal to provide PIN codes for the seized electronic devices.

1. During a record of interview with police you stated that:
   • You reside in Preston with only your mother
   • You take various medications but you would not comment on what these were and whether they had been prescribed
   • You had not been reporting daily to Preston police as required by your bail conditions

1. The contents of your electronic devices were subsequently downloaded and analysed by Cybercrime. Records of communications over the 'Signal' application were located on the devices seized. 'Signal' is an end-to-end encrypted messaging application. In all the Signal chats, you used the name 'm3dusa' and a mobile service which was subscribed to you.
2. When seized, your Apple MacBook was signed in and with your email details and that service was connected on 31 January 2023. The device contained videos of drugs of dependence containing a watermark with your 'Signal' username 'm3dusa'; photographs of drugs of dependence, your face and conversations in respect of drug trafficking and Google searches of 'multi denomination money counter Australia', 'concealment furniture Australia', 'Bunnings Acetone' and 'Xanax label'.
3. Analysis of your Black Apple iPhone revealed 'Signal' conversations between 'm3dusa', your username, and several associates. The conversations discuss the sale and trafficking of drugs of dependence by you to those associates.
4. Analysis of your Apple iPhone in the red case revealed

1. Notes containing a series of equations related to the trafficking in drugs of dependence
2. Signal conversations between 'm3dusa', and several associates. The conversations discuss the sale and trafficking of drugs of dependence by you to those associates.

1. An analysis of some of the conversations and communications over Signal was undertaken by Detective Sergeant Gurlay who provided his expert opinion, based on his experience and training that:
   1. You sold associate 'Olson' methamphetamine in several transactions between 24 September and 4 October, namely 7 grams on 29 September and 7 grams on 4 October.

b. You sold 'Greensy' 3.5 grams of methamphetamine on 27 September.

c. You sold 'Makeock' methamphetamine, between 19 and 28 September 2023.

d. You had further conversations where you offered to sell associates heroin, cocaine, butanediol, 'Dimethyltryptamine', 'Xanax', 'Endone', marijuana, MDMA and Ketamine.

e. The detective gave the opinion that you were either in the business or getting into business with 'Makeock'.'

1. He also said that analysis of the photographs, video files and 'notes' application was also performed and provided the expert opinions that:

a. The photographs of drugs of dependence are consistent with being 'verification photographs' showing the quality of drugs on sale.

b. The drugs appear to be Cocaine and Methamphetamine.

c. The screen shots of message chains reference commonly used drug terminology.

1. Detective Sergeant Gurlay provided further expert opinions in respect of you, based on the evidence as a whole. He said:

a. You appear to be operating in an amateur manner, conducting transactions that are mostly opportunistic in nature.

b. The knowledge you displayed in relation to various drug commodities and pricing was very good.

c. You appeared to be well connected and had access to unidentified persons that were moving larger quantities of methamphetamine.

d. He also said on your arrest you were in possession of 1,021.2 grams of methylamphetamine.

1. In sentencing you, I have had regard to the purposes for which a court may impose sentence set out in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (the Act), and to the matters outlined in s5(2), which include the maximum penalty for the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence, the offender's culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence, the impact of the offending on any victim, an offender's prior character, and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors or other relevant circumstances.
2. I have also had regard to the considerations which are ordinarily relevant to an assessment of the objective gravity of drug trafficking offences which include:[1]

a) General deterrence and denunciation assume substantial importance, and specific deterrence and protection of the community assume particular importance.

b) Where general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration, personal mitigatory factors such as prior good character, age, and prospects of rehabilitation must therefore be given less weight than might otherwise be given.[2]

c) It is necessary that the sentences imposed for such drug trafficking be sufficiently severe to offset the lure of the large and relatively easy profits, which can be derived from drug trafficking.[3]

d) Because the maximum penalties for trafficking offences vary according to the quantity of drugs trafficked, quantity is a significant and relevant factor in sentencing because generally the greater the quantity trafficked the more serious the offence.

e) The duration, intensity, volume and frequency of the trafficking, and the offender's role and motivation.

f) Drugs such as methamphetamine have very harmful and damaging impacts on the community, with society's most vulnerable citizens often most at risk.

a) The Charge 1 offence is punishable by life imprisonment and Charges 2 and 3 carry not insignificant penalties of five and-15 years respectively. > > b) The quantity of methamphetamine you trafficked was 1,598.9mgrams which was two times the large commercial quantity of 750 grams that applies to a mixed drug. This is a significant quantity.

1. You were clearly running a business in trafficking drugs where large amounts of drugs and money were exchanged. Whilst your offending does not cover a lengthy period, it was not isolated or sporadic and involved several transactions.

d) You benefitted financially from your offending and whilst the prosecution does not contend you were living a lavish lifestyle from your earnings there was profit made which you used for more drug purchases.

1. Charge 1 is also a category 1 offence[4] which means a court must impose a custodial order, which cannot be a combination sentence, unless there is a 'special reason'. In your case it was not contended that a special reason applies.
2. Charge 1 is also a standard sentence under the Act.[5] The standard sentence is sixteen (16) years' imprisonment.[6] The standard sentence for an offence is the sentence that, by reference only to the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle range of seriousness. When sentencing for a standard sentence offence, I must take the standard sentence into account only as one of the many factors relevant to sentencing. The standard sentence is therefore to be treated as a legislative guidepost, having the same function as the maximum penalty but it is not to be viewed as a starting point. I have taken the standard sentence for the offences into account as just one of many factors to consider in my instinctive synthesis of all the relevant subjective and objective features of your case.
3. In terms of Charge 1, your counsel argued that whilst it is accepted that yours is serious offending, it is at the very bottom level. It was put that you were trafficking only within a community of users when you were also a drug user yourself, the offending was committed from your own bedroom and as such was amateurish and opportunistic.

1. The prosecution contended however that yours cannot be considered offending at the very bottom level when you trafficked in a large commercial quantity twice the applicable large commercial quantity for methamphetamine and you did so over several transactions and for some financial gain or to purchase drugs. The prosecution categorised your overall offending as being offending at the low to mid-level.

1. I accept the prosecution submission. In my view, your offending cannot be placed at the very bottom or even the bottom level. You trafficked in twice the applicable large commercial quantity for some financial gain and to purchase more drugs. You received calls from people, and you would source the product and arrange its collection or delivery. You were conducting a business as was evident from the many accoutrements of drug trafficking you possessed.

1. In terms of Charge 2, this was a rolled-up charge covering your possession of several other types of drugs of dependence including a not insignificant quantity of 1,4-Butanediol. I accept that it does appear that most of these drugs were for your personal use.

1. In terms of Charge 3, this is a charge relating to $4,100 in cash that you had in bundles of $50 notes which you accept was the proceeds of crime, namely your drug trafficking business.

1. You were 24 years of age at the time of the offending and are now 26. You are presently unemployed and live with your mother.
2. You are an only child. Your father is of Greek heritage, and your mother is Serbian. Your parents separated when you were just two years old and the marriage breakdown was traumatic for you and impacted you throughout your formative years and into adulthood. After the breakup, you initially saw your father on weekends and in the holidays, but this decreased over time. You instructed Mr Luke Armstrong, psychologist, that you have not seen your father for seven years and now only communicate by text message. Your mother did her best to provide for you as a single parent.
3. You attended Preston West Primary School, and went to various High Schools, often moving because you had difficulty making friends. Around the age of 15 you were the victim of a protracted period of bullying at school. Despite these issues, you describe excelling in your schoolwork. You completed Year 11 and commenced a Diploma in Information Technology at NMIT in Preston.
4. Around the time you experienced the bullying at school and an assault, you began experimenting with cannabis. You fell pregnant at 15 and underwent a termination. Your partner at the time ended the relationship after discovering you were pregnant.
5. You told Mr Armstrong, about a psychologically abusive relationship you had with another man between the ages of 16-17 and how this man was deeply coercive, controlling and volatile. You also said you had been groomed by an elderly neighbour and sexually assaulted by him over a period of months that you disclosed to your mother. Mr Armstrong opined that in terms of your childhood it was in his view '...a confusing, unstable and deprived experience' and you were 'a vulnerable child'.
6. You have a very significant history of drug abuse including cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, GHB, Heroin, Amphetamines and various other substances. You were introduced to heavy drug use at aged 19 by new friends and social connections you had formed. It is at this time that you also detached almost entirely from your mother's care due to the restrictions she placed on you at home. You describe yourself as a severe drug addict by the age of 21.
7. You described being raped at age 21 and you were in another intimate relationship at the age of 22 which ended when your partner was imprisoned in November 2022. You and that partner had used large amounts of drugs daily. When he overdosed and was admitted to ICU in 2023, you decided to turn your life around. You handed yourself into the police after a card was left in your mailbox stating that a warrant had been issued for your arrest.

1. Your counsel submitted that you suffer significant mental health issues. Prior to being arrested for these offences, you had not been formally diagnosed with any mental health condition, nor had you received any treatment. You told Dr Cidoni, psychologist, that in the past you suffered periods of low mood, anger issues and often had trouble regulating your moods. Dr Cidoni ultimately diagnosed you as having a personality disorder with antisocial and borderline traits and severe polysubstance use disorders. Mr Armstrong opined that in the period leading up to and during your offending you were personality disordered.
2. You ultimately did not rely on the application of limbs 1 to 4 of R v Verdins; Buckley; Vo[7] to reduce your moral culpability for the offending or the weight to be given to the principles of general and specific deterrence. Your counsel did not argue that you did not understand the wrongfulness of your conduct.
3. As discussed below I will have regard to your mental health conditions in sentencing you, but I note that you were severely drug addicted when you offended. Your counsel submitted that one of your motives was to obtain 'G' which I understand to be GHB as this was a drug that kept you 'up' or high. You possessed other drugs that you used to take you 'down'. It was accepted by your counsel however that you sold drugs for financial gain and a 'decent amount of money' was going through your hands, despite your counsel's more recent submission that there was 'no enrichment'. You were running a serious business trafficking drugs, mostly methamphetamine. Clearly, offending when drug affected is not mitigating in circumstances where you were seriously trafficking in the drug and drug addiction at the time of the offending is not a unique or rare circumstance. It is often difficult to disentangle the effects of drug addiction and mental health issues on offending, and whilst I consider your drug addiction and desire to make money to be the central reason for your offending, I do give sensible weight to your mental health conditions at the time.
4. You rely, based on Mr Armstrong's assessment, on principles 5 and 6 of Verdins arguing that prison will be more onerous for you given your mental health issues, your history of being the victim of bullying and your vulnerability and your mental health would likely deteriorate in a prison environment. I accept that opinion, noting also that the prosecution did not argue otherwise.
5. After your arrest you spent 48 days in custody before being bailed to the Hader Clinic on 27 November 2023. The clinic has a registered withdrawal hospital with a 28-night detox program at a Geelong facility and a 20-24 bed rehabilitation facility at Essendon. You initially attended the Geelong facility.
6. Evidence was called on your behalf during the plea hearing. Jakline BARCO, the Program manager at the Hader Clinic, said she had come to know you well during your time at the clinic. She said the facility had strict rules in place and if a patient does not follow the rules, they can be optioned out or discharged from the program. Access to technology at the clinic is forbidden, there is a curfew, and visits are not permitted in the first week and thereafter only on Sundays with approved family or close friends.
7. Ms BARCO testified that clients are subject to weekly supervised drug screens and random urine drug screens are also conducted. She said you never refused a urine or blood test and you never tested positive for illicit substances during your 91-day stay and there were no breaches of your bail conditions.
8. After you left the Hader Clinic Geelong facility, Ms BARCO said that you and your treatment team decided you should enter the Essendon facility, and you remained there as an inpatient for another 90 or so days. She said this was because you were dedicated to wanting to achieve recovery and remain totally abstinent. She said further that when you were first at Essendon you did not trust your peers, did not integrate into the community and it took you a long time to form relationships.
9. She gave evidence that after completing the three months inpatient program at Essendon, you did a transitional program where you were living in a transitional house to start your integration back into society. You now do voluntary work for the Hader Clinic, supporting other people in their recovery and you are also in the intensive outpatient program where you still have counselling and undertake drug screens. Ms BARCO said you were someone she would hire as a recovery coach as you are responsible, trustworthy and reliable today. She said your story of progression is exceptional given what you have accomplished, and you are not the same woman as the woman who first entered the clinic. Ms BARCO indicated that in her view your progress would be considerably set back if you were to be returned to prison as drug addiction is a lifelong addiction and you would suddenly be put in a completely different and stressful culture.
10. Mr Richard CORBY, a psychotherapist and counsellor at the Hader Clinic also gave evidence at your plea and provided a report to the court. Mr CORBY said he is not a registered psychologist but provides counselling services about behavioural change at the clinic. He said he met you when you attended for counselling on 18 March 2024 after you had transferred from the private hospital in Geelong to the treatment facility in Essendon and he had been seeing you on a weekly basis since then.
11. Mr CORBY testified that through treatment you have formed some very healthy and mutually beneficial relationships based on values of honesty, compassion and resilience. He said you work voluntarily in a peer support role which gives you structure, and purpose and it is very important that people who have experienced drug addiction work as counsellors because of the insight they have gained. He said he had worked with 300-400 forensic clients, and you were one of the best examples he had seen of someone that shifted from self-centred fear-based thinking to thinking of others and supporting them in a practical way. He said that you still attend the 12-step program as a protective factor. In cross-examination he accepted that if you were imprisoned, the 12-step program would be available online to assist you should you need it.
12. Your mother Verika BUZES also gave evidence at your plea. She testified that during the offending period she had noticed something was going on and knew you were on a drug but did not know what drug it was. She said you did not confide in her about the nature of your drug problems and the difficulties you were having. Your mother gave evidence about an inappropriate incident with a neighbour when you were seven or eight years old and of how you were bullied at school when you were 15. Your mother said when you were around 15, she had many rules about people not coming in the house, and she just banned everybody and then you did not get on. She said that you are back living with her and that you are now a different person, you are not this volatile, irrational and out of control human being you were when you were using drugs and offending but a normal citizen that can be trusted.

1. Character references were also provided on your behalf by Maddison Brand, a friend who met you while you were both at the Hader Clinic. She witnessed your determination to turn your life around. She talks of you providing a tremendous source of support for her and many other women navigating their recovery from addiction.
2. James Dounis, a friend and lead tenant at the Hader Clinic also provided a character reference on your behalf in which he spoke about you being a valued member of Narcotics Anonymous, and a positive role model for other people in recovery. He said you show great initiative and are a natural helper, having supported numerous other clients struggling in their addiction recovery. You have openly discussed your offending with James, and he considers you to be deeply remorseful.
3. You were supported in court by several people including friends, colleagues from Hader, your mother and employees of the Essendon branch of Hader.
4. A letter was also provided by Ms Ruby Wyntjes who is employed at the Hader Clinic as a support worker. She detailed how she has known you since you entered the facility and you were a compliant patient who participated in all required activities and drug testing. She said she has seen a dramatic change in you because of your completion of the program and because you engaged fully with the 12-step narcotics anonymous program. She wrote that you expressed your remorse to her, and you have developed healthy friendships and a more positive attitude towards yourself.

1. I have had regard to all the matters, including those referred to earlier, that your counsel relied on as mitigating your offending.
2. You pleaded guilty to the charge at a relatively early stage. Your plea warrants a clear reduction in sentence to reflect its utilitarian value in saving the community the time and expense of a trial and witnesses from having to give evidence, and to reflect its demonstration of acceptance of responsibility, willingness to facilitate the course of justice and remorse.
3. In your case, I am also satisfied that you have demonstrated remorse for your offending over and above that reflected by your plea alone. Your contrition for the offending is evident from those who gave evidence on your behalf.
4. You have no prior convictions. Your record is not entirely unblemished though as on 29 August 2024 you were placed on an adjourned undertaking for 12 months without conviction after pleading guilty to trafficking cannabis and possessing heroin, methylamphetamine and another unnamed drug of dependence and failing to answer bail. You committed the present offending when you were on bail for those charges, and the offences were committed shortly before the offences for which you are now to be sentenced. You have no charges pending or any other convictions. You are not to be punished again for that offending, and it occurred prior to your engagement in rehabilitation.
5. You were relatively young when you offended at age 24 but you were not however a child or a youthful offender, and because your offending was organised and operated as a business it is not in my view the type of offending where youthful immaturity can be said to be a primary or central cause. So, whilst I do have regard to your age, I do not give it a great degree of weight. Having said that, I am mindful that you are at the time of sentencing a young person with a long future ahead so I will ensure the sentence I impose is not 'crushing'.
6. I accept your counsel's argument that there should be some moderation of your level of moral culpability for the offending based on several matters. First, whilst the circumstances of your upbringing which saw you exposed to substance abuse, family violence, sexual abuse and deprivation, did not quite reach the level of childhood deprivation required for the application of Bugmy principles - mostly because you had a very loving and caring mother and a stable place to live - it was still a matter that should be given weight in the sentencing synthesis. Essentially, your counsel characterised your childhood and upbringing as '...a sub-Bugmy level of chaos and difficulty'. The prosecution had argued that your childhood did not enliven Bugmy principles in the specific sense, although it was conceded that some, but not a lot, of weight could be given to your background in a general sense as you certainly had some difficulties.

1. Secondly, it was argued that your moral culpability is reduced because of your psychological conditions which were not argued to attract the operation of Verdins but are nevertheless relevant in explaining the context in which you offended. Finally, it was argued that your relative youth and the fact that you have generally experienced '...real life-shaping difficulties' in your adult life operate to reduce your moral culpability. Again, I accept these matters in combination are of sufficient gravity to permit a sensible reduction in your moral culpability for your offending.

1. You have completely ceased using drugs and your counsel argued you are rehabilitated. In my view, you undertook your rehabilitation very seriously and went beyond what you needed to do to make sure you succeeded. I accept you are not the same person you were when you offended. You perform voluntary work for the Hader Clinic, and it was abundantly clear that you are very valuable to that facility especially as your experience is of great importance when involved in the peer-to-peer type counselling role you have.

1. I accept there was some delay in the finalisation of your matter because of resolution discussions. You clearly used this time positively and it would also have caused you some anxiety having the matter hanging over your head not knowing what the outcome would be. The prosecution accepted that your rehabilitative efforts have been laudable but although your trajectory is looking positive, your rehabilitation is not fully guaranteed, and general deterrence and protection of the community loom large as sentencing principles in your case.

1. In my opinion, I must give weight to the need to promote your rehabilitation in view of everything you have done so far, the valuable contributions you are now making to society and the fact that imprisonment will be detrimental to your progress. Further, the community's interests will be best served by your continuing the path that you are now on.

1. In terms of your prospects of rehabilitation, I assess these as very good in view of your sustained period of drug abstinence, your commitment to remaining drug free, your improved mental health following your continued treatment and your willingness to continue with that treatment, the voluntary work you are doing at the Hader Clinic, your clear desire to contribute to society and the fact you have removed yourself from those you were associating with. You are also genuinely remorseful for your offending, have very good and positive peers and personal supports in the form of your mother, your friends and your colleagues and counsellors at the clinic. Of course, your prospects of rehabilitation are very contingent on you abstaining from drug use and staying removed from those in the drug milieu.
2. I give weight to the fact that apart from the 48 days you spent in pre-sentence detention, you have not been imprisoned before. Imprisonment will be difficult for you as you have made significant progress in your rehabilitation and started life afresh.
3. Finally, you are entitled to some reduction in sentence to reflect the time you spent at the Hader Clinic in 'quasi-custody' pursuant to the decision in Akoka v R[8]. You spent 20 months or 603 days in residential rehabilitation upon your release on bail on 27 November 2023. Your counsel submitted that whilst voluntary, your time in rehabilitation was quite restrictive, and you should be given the benefit of that. The prosecution accepted I can have regard to the lengthy rehabilitation you undertook but in determining the benefit you should get, it was noted that for a lot of the time you could leave the premises on the weekends and have day release, and it was quite a comfortable clinic, being private.
4. In Akoka, the court held that courts must consider the punitive element of residency in a rehabilitation facility, separately and in addition to the rehabilitation achieved during that residency. The amount of credit given will vary according to the circumstances of each case including how long the residency was for and the nature and severity of the restrictions to which an offender was subject. The court further held that irrespective of how restrictive a rehabilitation residency was, the time in residence is not equivalent to time spent in custody and will not ordinarily result in a deduction of the entire period of residency from a custodial sentence. As I said, I will make an allowance in sentencing you for the time you spent at the Hader Clinic although I note that you were not residing in an overly restrictive environment.

1. In my view and bearing in mind the principles of totality and proportionality, there should be a degree of cumulation between the three charges on the indictment to reflect what are different and discrete instances of offending each warranting separate punishment. As stated in in Mitchell v The Queen,[9] separate acts of trafficking - or possession - of different drugs must be treated as involving separate criminality, the seriousness of which much be assessed separately for each drug. Further Charge 3 is a very different offence involving your dealing with proceeds of crime.

1. I was provided with or referred to a variety of cases said to be relevant to sentencing for Charge 1. These sentences are of assistance in illustrating the relevant sentencing principles, but as is often the case, the facts and circumstances of those cases differ in many significant ways to yours, especially in terms of the mitigating factors present, role and quantity and each case must ultimately turn on its own facts.

1. Understandably there was much discussion as to the appropriate length of the overall term of imprisonment and non-parole period that should be imposed on you. Ultimately, your counsel accepted that a term of imprisonment was inevitable, and that this could not include a combination sentence on Charge 1 but submitted that I should impose either a) a 'lower than usual straight term of imprisonment with concurrency', and this was based on two previous sentences and the mitigating matters put on your behalf; or b) I could impose a term of imprisonment on Charge 1 and a community correction order on the remaining charges.
2. The prosecution argued that the only appropriate disposition is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The prosecution further distinguished the facts of sentences your counsel sought to rely on where significantly reduced terms of imprisonment and

non-parole periods were imposed from the facts and circumstances of your offending. 3. In terms of your counsel's second proposal, the prosecution noted that although it may be technically permissible to impose a sentence of imprisonment on Charge 1 and a CCO on the remaining charges, this would be manifestly inadequate and completely outside the range of sentences commonly imposed for this type of offending. In fact, it would be the lowest sentence ever imposed and would be a disposition that has never been applied in a case where trafficking a large commercial quantity is the head charge. I agree with that submission. Such a disposition is not supported by comparable cases but more importantly it would not give proper weight to the sentencing principles applicable in your case. Notwithstanding the need to promote your continued rehabilitation, general deterrence and protection of the community must be paramount and specific deterrence and punishment are also very important sentencing considerations that must be reflected in the sentence imposed.

1. I have had regard to all the matters relied on by your counsel which include your mental health and hard upbringing; delay; no subsequent offending; significant rehabilitation achieved and life changes made; time spent in rehabilitation; early plea of guilty; remorse; drug addiction at the time of the offending, ongoing support and your work at the Hader Clinic.
2. Mr Morrissey also asked that I exercise mercy, and I do so because as the courts have held, there must always be a place for the exercise of mercy where the circumstances warrant it and in your case they do given what you have achieved and the fact that you are not the same person you were when you offended. I must bear in mind though that the exercise of mercy cannot be a reason to impose a sentence that is manifestly or plainly inadequate because 'just' punishment and proportionality must also be reflected in the sentence imposed.
3. I have had regard to the matters put by the prosecution and importantly, to the sentencing principles that apply to your offending. General deterrence and protection of the community must be given significant weight. Denunciation and just punishment also require expression and, in your case, specific deterrence, is not an irrelevant consideration. You must be personally deterred from ever committing drug offences again.
4. Whilst you do present with some strong mitigating factors that I have given weight to, your rehabilitative efforts and success are perhaps the strongest, but this occurred after you were charged. You also do not present with mitigatory factors that are 'both unique and rare, warranting a greater than-usual reduction' in the term of imprisonment. You do not rely on Verdins limbs 1 to 4, you are not especially old or young, you do not have family members who will suffer hardship due to your incarceration, and you do not suffer any physical hardships or illnesses. As the Crown submitted you do not '...suffer any intellectual deficit or particular frailty which was causative of the offending (other than drug addiction which sadly is neither unique nor rare)'. Whilst your background was troubled and difficult, it does not rise to the level of deprivation or abuse such that Bugmy principles apply. You were not coerced or under duress when you offended.
5. Your offending was very serious. None of the matters relied upon by you prevented you from knowingly operating an organised drug trafficking business by yourself where you trafficked in a large commercial quantity of methamphetamine for some financial reward including to buy drugs. Your communications with others and the things you did demonstrate that you were clearly capable of undertaking the role you did. You possessed the accoutrements of a drug trafficking business and knowingly operated it from within the walls of your mother's home, when you knew what you were doing was the antithesis of her values.

1. It cannot be the case that a person who commits a very serious offence escapes just punishment because they have, however laudably, engaged in considerable rehabilitation after the offending. This would give little or no weight to the need for general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community in the first place.
2. Again, general deterrence and protection of the community must be reflected in the sentences I impose. While somewhat eclipsed by Charge 1, you were also in possession of a variety of other drugs including 244.0 grams of Butanediol and you dealt with 4,100 in proceeds of crime. I have done my best to synthesis the very high objective gravity of your offending with the mitigating factors you rely on and impose a sentence that reflects just punishment.
3. Section 5B(4) of the Act requires a court sentencing an offender for a standard sentence offence - and here the standard sentence is 16 years - to state the reasons for imposing that sentence and s5B(5) requires me to refer to the standard sentence for the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity and explain how the sentence I have imposed on you relates to the standard sentence. This requires me to identify the facts, the matters, the circumstances which bear upon the judgment I have reached as to the appropriate sentence for that crime.
4. In your case, the sentence I impose in relation to Charge 1 which is covered by the Sentencing Scheme is lower than the standard sentence specified of 16 years imprisonment because when viewed objectively, your offending is in the low to mid-range of offending. Further, the ultimate sentence imposed on Charge 1 does not just cover the objective seriousness of the offence but incorporates the many subjective matters in mitigation which have been raised. The existence of the Standard Sentence Scheme is just one of the factors I have had regard to.
5. On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
6. On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
7. On Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
8. I direct that three months of the sentence on Charge 2 and one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be served cumulatively on Charge 1 and on each other.
9. On summary Charge 15, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I direct that the sentence be served concurrently with the other sentences imposed on this day.
10. On summary Charge 16, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I direct that the sentence be served concurrently with the other sentences imposed on this day.
11. On Charge 17, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I direct that the sentence be served concurrently with the other sentences imposed on this day.
12. This makes a total effective head sentence of 10 years and four months' imprisonment.
13. Pursuant to s11A of the Sentencing Act 1991, the non-parole period imposed for a standard sentence offence must be at least 60 per cent of the total effective sentence unless I consider it is in the interests of justice to impose a lower non-parole period. In your case, the prosecution submitted that it would not attempt to persuade the court that it could not drop below the 60 per cent non-parole period. I agree. The non-parole period must reflect the minimum period justice requires you to serve and notwithstanding the severity of your offending, in my view I cannot ignore the efforts you have made to rehabilitate yourself. It is in the interest of society that your continued rehabilitation is facilitated as best as it can be whilst still giving appropriate weight to general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation.

90 I order that you serve a non-parole period of five years and two months' imprisonment.

91 I declare pursuant to s18E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that you have served 48 days in custody (excluding today).

1. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), but for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective head sentence of 13 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six and a half years' imprisonment.

93 Charge 1 is a serious drug offence for the purposes of the Confiscation Act 1997.

1. I make an order declaring you to be a serious drug offender under s89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

95 HER HONOUR: Yes. I make the orders for disposal and forfeiture.

[1] R v Pantsis [1998] VSCA 134; Nguyen v R [2011] VSCA 32; (2011) 31 VR 673; Gregory (a pseudonym) v R [2017] VSCA 151; (2017) 268 A Crim R 1

[2] Tran v The Queen [2021] VSCA 292, Dickinson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 50.

[3] Dawid v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] VSCA 64, [35].

[4] S 71(1) Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[5] S 71(1) Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)

[6] S 71(2) Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)

[7] [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

[8] [2017] VSCA 214

[9] [2016] VSCA 321 [27].