DPP v Calleja

1. The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 29 October 2024,[2] Exhibit 1 at your Determination Hearing. Your Counsel confirmed that this document contains admitted facts with regard to your offending.
2. Your offending can now be briefly summarised.
3. All of your offending is limited to one day, 5 August 2022. As at that date, you were residing at an address in Maribyrnong (hereafter referred to as 'the Maribyrnong property'). A tenancy bond linked to this property had been lodged with the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority on 4 October 2019, with you listed as the only registered tenant.
4. On 4 August 2022, Victoria Police obtained a search warrant under the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 in relation to the Maribyrnong property.
5. The following morning, 5 August 2022, at about 9.20am, police executed the search warrant at the Maribyrnong property. Upon police gaining entry to the property, they found no-one present.
6. Upon executing the warrant, police located several items throughout the property including cash, drugs of dependence, firearms and drug-trafficking-related items. Some were located within a master bedroom, and others were located in other parts of the house including the living room and in the garage.
7. Charge 1 on the Indictment relates to trafficking methylamphetamine. In relation to this charge, police located a white crystal rock-like substance and two Ziploc bags of varying sizes containing a white crystal substance in the living room. Also located in the living room on the coffee table were a set of scales and several small Ziploc bags. In the closet of the master bedroom, police located a Ziploc bag containing a white crystal substance, a Ziploc bag of off-white crystals and a vacuum-sealed bag containing white powder. In the walk-in robe of the master bedroom, police located four Ziploc bags containing a white crystal substance. In the garage, in a black tin at the rear of the garage, police located several Ziploc bags containing assorted crystal substances. At this location, in a black fishing bag and another black bag, police located further Ziploc bags containing crystal substances. In a red tin at the rear of the garage, police located multiple small Ziploc bags containing methylamphetamine. Later analysis of these items confirmed a total net quantity of items containing methylamphetamine to be 208.5 grams mixed or approximately 177 grams pure.
8. Charge 2 on the Indictment relates to trafficking cannabis. In the closet of the master bedroom, police located two large bags containing green vegetable matter, which was later analysed to be Cannabis-L with a total weight of 903.2 grams.
9. Charge 3 relates to trafficking cocaine. In the master bedroom on the TV cabinet, police found a Ziploc bag with a white substance later found to be cocaine. In the closet of the master bedroom, police located a bag of white powder, later found to be cocaine. In a red tin at the rear of the garage, police located numerous Ziploc bags of white powder later found to be cocaine. The total net quantity of items containing cocaine was later found by police, upon analysis, to be 41.2 grams.
10. Charge 4 on the Indictment is a rolled-up charge relating to possession of ketamine and MDMA. In the master bedroom on the TV cabinet, police found two yellow pills in a Ziploc bag later analysed and found to contain MDMA. In the closet of the master bedroom, police found a Ziploc bag containing a white substance later analysed and found to contain ketamine. In a red tin at the rear of the garage, police found a Ziploc bag containing multiple small Ziploc bags with brown powder, later found to contain MDMA. Following subsequent analysis, the total net quantity of items containing MDMA was found to be five grams. The total net quantity of items found to contain ketamine was seven grams.
11. Charge 5 on the Indictment relates to knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. In the closet of the master bedroom, police found a red bag containing a plastic bag with an amount of cash, later determined to be $843,505 in Australian currency.
12. Charge 6 on the Indictment relates to prohibited person possess firearm. In the garage police, located a HK USP carbon dioxide, operated semi-automatic airsoft pistol.
13. Charge 7 on the Indictment is a rolled-up charge relating to being a prohibited person possessing three imitation firearms. In the garage of the residence, police located one plastic imitation firearm, one imitation silver handgun in a black case and one black imitation firearm in a black case.
14. In relation to the related Summary Offence of possess cartridge ammunition without a licence, police found one round of ammunition in the master bedroom on the TV cabinet and six rounds of ammunition in the garage.
15. In relation to the related Summary Offence of possess prohibited weapon, police located a taser in the closet of the master bedroom.
16. In relation to the firearms, you were not licensed to possess, carry or use a firearm. A Family Violence Intervention Order, to which you had been a party, expired on 2 January 2019. As the current offending took place within five years of this Intervention Order, you were, at the time, a prohibited person under the Firearms Act 1996.
17. Some days after the execution of the search warrant, by arrangement, you attended at a police station and were interviewed in relation to the items found at your property by police. Other than confirming your address, being the Maribyrnong property, you largely made a 'no-comment' interview.
18. You spent seven days in custody before being bailed on 18 August 2022. You have remained on bail since this time, a period in excess of three years.

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

1. Overall, your offending must be seen, in my view, as representing serious criminality. The relevant maximum penalties, in particular for the trafficking and proceeds' charges which carry a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, reflect, in a general sense, the seriousness of your offending. Your offending is, of course, limited to a single date, 5 August 2022, being the date upon which police executed the search warrant on the property where you had been residing. Collectively, police seized a concerning number of items - various drugs located throughout the property. together with a very significant quantity of cash. and various firearms, an imitation firearm, ammunition and a taser.
2. You have pleaded guilty to three charges of trafficking. As indicated by the Prosecution in written submissions,[3] as a starting point, courts have long recognised the significant inherent seriousness of trafficking in drugs of dependence.[4] This court, in particular, is familiar with the catastrophic societal impacts of the pernicious activity of drug trafficking. Those involved in such activities can rightfully expect significant adverse consequences upon detection. Quantity is an important factor when considering the seriousness of drug offences - all other things being equal, the greater the quantity trafficked, the more serious the offence. It must be borne in mind that, in your case, the offending does not rise to the level of commercial quantity trafficking. Nevertheless, the quantities involved in the trafficking offences, particularly Charge 1 on the Indictment, trafficking methylamphetamine, are relatively significant. In particular, trafficking methylamphetamine in a quantity of 208.5 grams mixed, must, in my view, be seen as a concerning example of trafficking simpliciter. As set out in the Prosecution's Written Submissions on Determination and Sentence dated 27 November 2024,[5] all quantities referable to the trafficking charges well exceed the statutory trafficable quantities for the substances in question. As appropriately identified by the Prosecution, there are relevant indicia surrounding the trafficking-related offending which are of concern. The methylamphetamine was found throughout the house in multiple different locations and in various packages ranging from small Ziploc bags to a vacuum-sealed package. Some of the methylamphetamine was found in the living room, along with a set of scales and several small Ziploc bags. While generally not located in the direct vicinity of the drugs, the fact that various firearms, an imitation firearm, and ammunition and a taser, were also located at the property, is suggestive, in my view, of these concerning accoutrements of trafficking with the well-known safety risks of the drug trade.[6] Furthermore, the significant quantity of cash in the master bedroom does raise questions, in my view, with regards to the extent and nature of the trafficking activities.
3. However, as I have stated, the trafficking and possession charges, like all charges before me, are limited to a single date. There are no other indicia commonly seen in these cases which would reflect an ongoing trafficking enterprise, such as lists of names and/or transactions, and telephone records reflecting ongoing activities.
4. As I have indicated repeatedly in oral argument, in my view, the most serious charge to which you have pleaded guilty is the proceeds charge, given the amount of cash located. I accept that there is no direct evidence of a connection between the cash located and the trafficking charges. However, $843,505 must be seen as an extraordinary amount of cash to be located in a property where the other items were found by police. You have indicated that you were essentially minding the cash for others. There was no evidence before me as to the circumstances in which the cash came into your possession, nor is there any evidence as to the duration. However, through your plea of guilty to this charge, you have acknowledged criminal responsibility for dealing with the cash, knowing that it was proceeds of crime. Your culpability for this particular crime is enhanced by virtue of your multiple prior convictions for proceeds of crime.
5. The firearms and related offences, while in and of themselves represent concerning criminality, only serve to increase the overall seriousness of your offending given they were located at a property where various illicit substances were located in the context of trafficking-related activities. The pistol which forms the basis of Charge 6 was, according to the Prosecution, both operable and loaded. While the firearms forming the basis of Charge 7 were imitation, your possession of them remains inexplicable, and in combination with the ammunition and taser charges, does, in my view, enhance the overall criminality of your conduct. However, save for two prior convictions for possession of prohibited weapon from 2012 and 2018, your criminal history does not include firearm offences.
6. Overall, your offending must be seen as representing serious criminality for the reasons I have articulated. In terms of your culpability for the offending, your Counsel did not submit that your moral culpability was decreased due to disadvantaged background or mental impairment. Your rather concerning criminal history enhances your moral culpability for the offending, as you must have known of the significant adverse consequences of such offending by virtue of your criminal history, and your decision therefore to involve yourself in such serious criminality is concerning. As indicated by the Prosecution, you are the sole offender in this matter,[7] and you therefore bear exclusive culpability for the current offences. Notwithstanding the seriousness of your misconduct, in my view, your offending was not particularly sophisticated. The property was unoccupied at the time of the police execution of the search warrant. There does not appear to have been any sophisticated endeavours to conceal the illicit items found at the property. The property was rented in your own name. A fixed telephone service was registered in your own name at the address. During the search, police found a box of prescription medication in your own name. In relation to the weapons-related offending, while, as I have stated they are self-evidently concerning, I note that your classification as a prohibited person stems from the fact that this offending occurred some three years after the expiration of a Family Violence Intervention Order which expired on 2 January 2019. While, as I have stated, your criminal history is rather concerning, it does not reflect a history of possession or use of firearms. Nevertheless, overall, I regard your level of culpability for this serious offending as significant.

1. I turn now to your personal circumstances. Your background and personal circumstances have been extensively canvassed in written submissions from your Counsel,[8] together with the extensive material tendered on your behalf throughout the hearings before me in November last year, and May and September this year, including the four psychological reports from consultant psychologist, Luke Armstrong,[9] and the two treatment reports from psychologist, Tracey Allen.[10] I have read and considered all of this material carefully.
2. You are now 48 years of age. I have already referred to your criminal history, which dates back to 1995. Significantly, while you did not comply with a community correction order from 2005, you have subsequently complied with three community correction orders. You have never received by way of sentence, a term of imprisonment to be actually served.
3. You were born in Melbourne and grew up living in a suburb North-west of Melbourne. You are the youngest of five children to your parents. Your parents are both of Maltese heritage, immigrating to Australia after World War 2. There is no family history of criminal offending. You lost your mother suddenly to pancreatic cancer in 2016. Your father, at age 84, is significantly hearing impaired and is otherwise in ill health. He lives on his own in East Keilor but otherwise requires significant assistance from the family.
4. Your oldest brother is married and works full-time in the construction industry. Your older sister, Michelle,[11] is a qualified accountant. Your sister, Rachel,[12] who has been present at all of your prior court hearings before me, as well as being present today, works as a psychologist and runs her own business, which is involved in disability support. Your other sister, Sally,[13] lives with Rachel. Sally requires 24-hour assistance with regards to living activities due to both physical and intellectual disabilities.
5. According to Psychologist, Luke Armstrong, there were early indicators of problems in emotional dysregulation on your part during your schooling years. You apparently started binge drinking alcohol and using cannabis from the age of 15. You later began experimenting with ecstasy and amphetamines from about the age of 18 on most weekends. You also engaged in cannabis use daily after work. Indeed, you appear to have a very productive work history after you commenced work as an apprentice motor mechanic in about 1993, with this job remaining for some 16 years. From your early twenties, despite maintaining full employment, you were smoking cannabis daily with heavy binge use of ecstasy, amphetamines and cocaine on the weekends. From about the age of 25, your use increased in relation to methamphetamines when you began using this drug throughout the week, particularly from Thursday night onwards.
6. In the main, your prior offending dates from your late twenties in 2005. You have indicated to Mr Armstrong that your offending since 2005 was entwined within a previously stable relationship unravelling.[14] Indeed, it appears that a significant proportion of your prior offending occurs in the context of substance use, emotional dysregulation in the context of problematic relationship behaviour on your part, and then criminality. By way of example, your 2005 prior conviction involves drug-related offending, threatening behaviour and misconduct in relation to police, resulting in a Community Correction Order.
7. You have reported to Mr Armstrong, that in the aftermath of a relationship breaking down from 2005 you reported that your drug use escalated to daily use.[15] By the age of 33 you reported to Mr Armstrong that you were using before and after work. It was at around this time that you lost your sixteen-year employment as a mechanic. You reported using ice before work and that you were sacked after verbally abusing another mechanic. According to Mr Armstrong your drug dependency was most certainly biological and psychological at this time.
8. You informed Mr Armstrong that you did not return to regular full-time work for several years, although you did manage to get employment in the markets and obtained work casually as a labourer.[16] Your heavy daily use of ice continued.
9. In 2014, you received a suspended sentence for offending that included family violence. You informed Mr Armstrong that there was a remand period in May of that year following the breakdown of another domestic relationship, which led to contravention of an intervention order.[17]
10. You reported to Mr Armstrong the difficult impacts of the sudden passing of your mother in 2016 to pancreatic cancer.[18] She apparently died within two weeks of being diagnosed. You reported to Mr Armstrong that following her death until your arrest on these matters in 2022, you became estranged from your family.
11. You reported to Mr Armstrong that, notwithstanding ongoing daily use of ice, you managed to secure more stable forms of labouring work towards the end of your thirties.[19] You have a prior conviction from 2018, which includes trafficking methylamphetamines. You received a Community Correction Order for that offending and you informed Mr Armstrong that following your arrest you remained clean for some seven months. You obtained full-time work in a panel-beating shop. However, you relapsed again in 2019, with your use escalating to daily use until your arrest for the current matters in 2022.
12. Having considered all of the materials tendered on your behalf,[20] it is clear to me that since being bailed some seven days after your arrest in August 2022, you have made significant strides with regards to your rehabilitation. You initially completed about three months of residential treatment at the Hader Clinic, completing the residential treatment in November 2022. You maintained your contact with the Hader Clinic after you completed residential treatment providing ongoing urine screens and engaging in peer-related activities on a voluntary basis until late 2023. The large volume of materials tendered on your behalf from the Hader Clinic certainly reflects positive progress in this regard.[21]
13. I have already mentioned your productive work history. You are currently employed at a motor repair business. Your employer has provided two character references confirming your employment with him[22] and he gave evidence on 29 November 2024, providing further details in that regard. He has known you for some ten years. For at least four years, he has employed you in his motor repair business. He is aware of your offending and personal issues. Clearly, he is very supportive of you, with that support extending to the provision of accommodation for you in the community rent free. According to your employer, you are remorseful for your offending, and you are motivated with regards to your rehabilitation.
14. I have referred to the consistent presence of your sister, Rachel, throughout these proceedings. In addition to providing a character reference,[23] Rachel gave evidence on 29 November 2024. She confirmed the precarious health situation of your 84-year-old father, who apparently has cardiomyopathy and Type 2 diabetes. She also confirmed the care arrangements with regards to your sister Sally. She referred to your positive progress at the Hader Clinic and indicated that since your return to the broader community she feels like she has her brother back. Clearly your family are extremely supportive of you, and in combination with your employer, you have very significant supports in the community to assist you in regards to your rehabilitation.
15. I turn now to the psychological assessments and interventions over the past 12 months. As indicated in Mr Armstrong's various reports, you have seen him on numerous occasions since your first assessment appointment on 23 September 2024. In that first assessment, you referred to a recent relapse with regards to methamphetamine, in the context of relationship instability. You referred to using at least once per week for the preceding one or two months. Mr Armstrong referred to you having an Entrenched Personality Disorder, namely, Borderline Personality Disorder, in addition to a Stimulant Use Disorder, with your drug addiction defining you over the preceding three decades.[24] According to Mr Armstrong you are therefore a dual-diagnosis client with your drug addiction entwined with your entrenched personality disorder. According to Mr Armstrong, at that first assessment, without psychological or dual-based treatment, your untreated mental health profile will continue to unravel you toward drug abuse.[25] Mr Armstrong referred to the problematic relationships as being a significant aspect to your relapse behaviour, though he commented that your recent relapse, as you then described it, did not define your rehabilitation attempts as a failure, and commented that you remained motivated to regain control of your rehabilitation and that your rehabilitation prognosis remained promising, providing there were appropriate interventions.
16. In Mr Armstrong's second report dated 2 May 2025,[26] he referred to your self-report of continuing drug use until the end of January 2025, in the context of a hospital admission in November 2024 and indications of a long-term heart condition which you described as 'swelling of the heart' due to the long-term effects of drug use.[27] I note that medical material from the Royal Melbourne Hospital was tendered at your Determination Hearing, dating from this period of time.[28] At the second assessment referable to Mr Armstrong's second report, you reported the end of your relationship with your ex-partner. Following the re-administering of psychological testing, notwithstanding a degree of minimising, if not denying, problematic psychological symptomology, given the cessation of illicit drug use, your underlying psychopathology was coming to the fore, and to use Mr Armstrong's terminology, you are 'within a treatment window', which is a good sign for your prognosis.[29] Mr Armstrong recommended intensive dual-diagnosis treatment.
17. By the time of your third assessment with Mr Armstrong,[30] you were, it seems, making good progress with regards to that intensive dual-diagnosis treatment, namely, your undertaking of the 'Motivating Affect Self Control' ('MASC') program under the auspices of psychologist Tracey Allen. This program had been recommended by Mr Armstrong following his second assessment. Mr Armstrong gave evidence before me on 19 May 2025, where he explained the rigours of this program in some detail. According to Mr Armstrong's report dated 17 July 2025,[31] you had been compliant with your MASC treatment obligations, seeing Ms Allen regularly and continuing to provide twice-weekly urine screens with no drug detection identified. According to Mr Armstrong your mental state was stable, and you had responded very well to the interventions designed to assist you regulate your emotions and behaviour in the absence of self-medicating use of substances, though your treatment needs were described as complex and ongoing. There was, according to Mr Armstrong, a definite improvement in your mental state, consistent with a man who, corroborated with urine screens, has desisted from illicit substances.
18. According to Mr Armstrong's fourth and final Report dated 2 September 2025,[32] he assessed you again face-to-face on 27 August 2025. By this time, you had completed three rounds of the MASC outpatient program with Ms Allen. You had progressed well with that program and continued to return clear urine screens as directed. You were, according to Mr Armstrong, clear with regards to the triggers for drug use, detailing instances where you had experienced cravings, but desisted from previous problematic behaviour as a result of the treatment interventions. You reported to Mr Armstrong a degree of contact with your ex-partner, in the context of joint ownership of two pets, which had proceeded without incident. According to Mr Armstrong your mental state then reflected a man who is genuinely stable and drug free. A re-administering of the relevant psychological tests revealed you now to sit within normal limits, so to speak. According to Mr Armstrong, this is a significant and stable shift. According to Mr Armstrong in his final Psychological Report dated 2 September 2025:

"[Your] profile is consistent with [your] self reports, presentation, and would describe, probably for the first time in his life, a man whose dual diagnoses have entered early remission status."[33]

19. Importantly, according to Mr Armstrong, your treatment is not over, it is the end of the beginning, a status which you yourself recognise.[34] Mr Armstrong recommends continued treatment engagement with the likes of Ms Allen.
20. The two reports from MASC treating psychologist,[35] Tracey Allen, confirm the completion by you of three rounds of the MASC program, which you commenced on 26 May 2025. You have completed some 19 hours of treatment through weekly appointments, and you have completed twice-weekly urine screens, all of which have been negative for illicit substances. According to Ms Allen, you have been an active and engaged participant in the program, and you have demonstrated your capacity to participate and benefit from community-based intervention. Throughout treatment you have been respectful and compliant. You have reported occasions where you have been tempted to lapse, but you have chosen not to. You have also described potentially high-risk situations involving your ex-partner which have not been problematic. Your mental health has continued to be stable. Ms Allen has noted your strengthened willingness and motivation to abstain from drug use. Overall, the reports from Ms Allen are extremely positive with regards to your rehabilitative progress, notwithstanding your complex treatment needs. I indicated during the course of the proceedings before me that I remained concerned with regards to your family violence risk profile, having regard in particular to the report from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Family Violence Social Support Worker, Erica Beard, dated 17 January 2025.[36] In that regard, I note that you commenced contact with an organisation known as 'Speak Up Against Family Violence' and described by the program manager, Frank Halabi, as a Men's Behaviour Change Group. According to Mr Halabi's letter dated 17 February 2025,[37] you had been accepted into this program and had attended three preliminary sessions with him. As at 8 September 2025, your Counsel confirmed that Mr Halabi had suffered a heart-related incident which required hospitalisation and informed the Court that the program is no longer being run. Since this time, it seems that you have not engaged in any alternative Men's Behaviour Change Program, certainly not one that is appropriately accredited. However, I accept that for the last few months you have been engaged in what can only be described as comprehensive and intensive psychological treatment with regards to your dual-diagnosis issues and it is also clear to me that during the course of this treatment your problematic relationship behaviours have been discussed.

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.[38] 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 punishment, deterrence and denunciation as set out in s5(1)[39] of the Sentencing Act 1991.
2. For the purposes of the consideration of whether or not to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, I have, of course, considered the various Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court assessment reports. According to the Clinical Advisor Assessment Report from Mr Sequeira dated 20 November 2024,[40] having regard to your lengthy history of alcohol and drug related issues, you would have satisfied the diagnostic criteria for a stimulant use disorder at the time of the offending which was severe in nature, and according to Mr Sequeira the treatment and supervision component of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order would be an appropriate intervention to address your Substance Use Disorder. According to Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Case Management Assessor, Mr Suidgeest, in his Report dated 19 November 2024[41] you were ultimately deemed suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. Mr Suidgeest's report, which necessarily predates the psychological interventions to which I have referred, does raise issues with regard to your family violence history. Mr Suidgeest refers to your strong family and social support network and the presence, therefore, of significant protective factors and your demonstrated capacity for rehabilitation. I have already referred to the Family Violence Assessment Report from Ms Beard dated 17 January 2025.[42] Ms Beard's Assessment Report also predates the psychological interventions under the auspices of Mr Armstrong and Ms Allen and occurs in the context of your then ongoing illicit substance use. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that Ms Beard's Report is extremely concerning with regard to your family violence history and your then cavalier attitude towards it. Having regard to your now clear diagnosis of a Borderline Personality Disorder and its attendant symptomology, I do treat with a degree of caution Ms Beard's observations with regard to your detached demeanour and concerning manner of speaking about family violence-related issues. As at January 2025, in the context of your problematic demeanour and continued use of methylamphetamine, your risk of family violence was considered to be increased, your capacity to engage in appropriate men's behaviour change was considered problematic. Accordingly, Ms Beard considered you unsuitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. In Ms Beard's Addendum Report dated 18 May 2025,[43] whilst noting some concerns with regard to the Speak Up Program and whether or not it was appropriately accredited, according to Ms Beard your engagement in this program:

May serve as a starting point for him to identify, understand and take responsibility for abusive behaviour he has perpetrated towards former partners. The writer accepts this program can be used as an opportunity to stabilise Mr [Calleja's] family violence risk with the view to future engagement in an accredited Men's Behaviour Change Program.[44]

3. 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 matter, I may only make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order if 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 before me. Furthermore, I may only make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order if I consider that otherwise it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years. Finally, I must not make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order unless satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so. These matters can be described in shorthand form as the dependency criteria, the contribution criteria, the four-year criteria and the residual discretion.
4. In relation to the dependency criteria, the Prosecution conceded that it was open to the Court to find that you are dependent on drugs, namely, methylamphetamine. Having regard to your lengthy AOD history, the psychological reports tendered on your behalf and the opinions of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Clinical Advisor Terrence Sequeira, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on at least methylamphetamine, and accordingly, the dependency criteria is met.
5. In relation to the contribution criteria, the Prosecution maintained that I could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your drug dependency contributed to the offending now before me, having regard to the overall circumstances of your offending. The Prosecution relied upon the sizeable amount of cash referable to the proceeds charge, $843,505, in combination with your assertion to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Case Manager that your offending was essentially financially motivated. The Prosecution also relied upon the existence of the weapons at the property, essentially giving flavour to the nature of your offending overall. At the Further Determination Hearing before me on 8 September 2025, Mr Tamburro, who appeared to prosecute, provided further detail with regard to the challenge to the contribution criteria. Mr Tamburro referred to the extraordinary sum of cash and that in all the circumstances this could not be viewed as subsistence trafficking as this was no doubt an extremely profitable enterprise with regards to the full circumstances.[45] At the time, whilst you may have had a drug dependency, you were also working with a stable income, and the presence of almost $850,000 in cash points essentially to offending that is not connected to your drug dependency. In reply, Mr Hill who appeared on your behalf at that hearing, submitted that there was no evidence before me that the $843,505 found in a bag in the wardrobe was part of any enterprise that you were engaging in, noting that you were then absent from the premises when the police executed the search warrant.[46] This was, according to your counsel, a case of a man, despite the fact that he was working who was heavily addicted and had been for a very long period of time, which caused him to engage in other criminal behaviour. According to your counsel, if you had not been using drugs and engaged in the drug world, the likelihood is that the money would not have been there, noting your instructions that you were minding most of it for someone else. According to Mr Hill, your drug addiction caused you to make decisions that were clearly wrong and inappropriate. According to the wording of s18Z(1)(c)(ii) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I may only make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending before me. The word 'contributed' is not further defined in the legislation or the supporting materials.
6. Having regard to the Court in which this application is made and the overarching purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order as set out in s18X of the Sentencing Act 1991, which includes taking account of an offender's drug dependency and reducing the level of criminal activity associated with drug dependency, in my view I may only make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order if I am satisfied to the requisite level that your drug dependency was realistically connected in some way, or associated with your offending; no more, no less. Importantly, the level of satisfaction is not the criminal standard, rather, I must be satisfied that your drug dependency was more likely than not a contributor to your offending. In my view, this is not necessarily a linear analysis. It is certainly not a 'but for' test. In your case, using the terminology of Mr Armstrong, your drug dependency has defined you for the last 30 years. At the time of your offending, you were in the grips, to use Mr Sequeira's terminology, of a Severe Substance Use Disorder. Various exhibits are referenced in the Summary of Prosecution Opening, and I have had regard to those exhibits, including photographs of your offending at the property in question. You informed Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Case Manager Mr Suidgeest that at the time of the offending your drug use was 'pretty much out of control, it was very heavy. ... I was doing whatever and anything I could to support my drug use.'[47] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your severe methylamphetamine Substance Use Disorder contributed overall to the offending now before me by motivating you to become involved in the offending and do whatever you could to support your drug use. In that regard, whilst in and of itself very serious, the proceeds offending can be viewed in a similar vein to the firearms offending as representing associated indicia of trafficking related offending to which you have pleaded guilty. Furthermore, I agree with Mr Hill that there is no evidence before me of any connection between the proceeds cash and the offending enterprise itself. On balance, therefore, I am satisfied that the contribution criteria is met.
7. I turn now to a consideration of the four-year criteria. Significantly, in a concession made on 29 November 2024 and subsequently confirmed in later hearings, the Prosecution did not take issue with the four-year criteria, or to use the words of Mr Tamburro in oral argument, 'the Prosecution doesn't submit that a four-year sentence will be manifestly inadequate'.[48] 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. Ultimately, whilst this criteria was not in dispute from the Prosecution perspective, ultimately this is a matter for me, of course, having regard to orthodox sentencing principles and the purposes set out in s5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, noting the priority to be accorded to your rehabilitation, and the protection of the community achieved through your rehabilitation, pursuant to the mandatory requirements set out in s18X(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991. I have already referred to the nature and gravity of your offending, your level of culpability for it and your personal circumstances. Notwithstanding s18X(2),[49] there is a need in my view to give appropriate weight to the important sentencing purposes of denunciation and general deterrence given the nature of your offending. Your criminal history also brings into focus the need for specific deterrence in the sentencing calculus. Bearing in mind the overarching principle of totality, there is a need in my view for a measure of appropriate cumulation between the proceeds offence, the trafficking offending and the firearms-related offending.
8. In conducting my own assessment with regard to the four-year criteria, I have had regard to the various mitigatory factors applicable in your case. Whilst this cannot be considered an early plea having regard to the chronology of this matter, and the fact that this matter ultimately resolved only a few days prior to trial following a contested committal hearing. The fact remains that through your pleas of guilty, a trial has been avoided, which has saved the Court and the community the time and expense associated with contested proceedings and witnesses have been spared cross-examination. A utilitarian benefit is therefore applicable. At least one of your character references refers to your remorse for your offending. Your remorse, coupled with your acceptance of wrongdoing, bodes well for your prospects for rehabilitation, warranting a further mitigatory allowance. You have been on bail for in excess of three years. I have no doubt that given the potential consequences this extended period has weighed heavily upon you.
9. Significantly, during this period of time you have taken significant steps towards your rehabilitation. You spent some period of time pursuant to bail conditions at a residential rehabilitation facility, the Hader Clinic, and given the no doubt restrictive environment, a mitigatory allowance pursuant to the Akoka principles is warranted.[50] Your good progress through the Hader Clinic has, it seems, been continued in the broader community. Significantly, you have embarked upon a no doubt intense and challenging psychological treatment dosage during which time you have provided clear urine screens. Accordingly, mitigatory allowances are warranted by virtue of the delay on the basis of understandable anxiety during this period and your positive rehabilitative progress during this period. Having regard to the sentiments expressed by psychologist Luke Armstrong in his report dated 2 May 2025,[51] I am also satisfied that a further mitigatory allowance is warranted by virtue of the hardship that you would likely endure in custody having regard to your particular psychological makeup, otherwise known as Verdins Principle 5.[52] Whilst, given the nature of your offending, your extensive criminal history and your dual diagnosis profile, an assessment with regard to your prospects of rehabilitation is not straightforward, having regard in particular to your recent progress with Mr Armstrong and Ms Allen and your successful compliance with bail for a period exceeding three years, I have concluded that your prospects for rehabilitation are challenging but at least reasonable provided you wholeheartedly embrace the specialist interventions which will be central to the sentence I am soon to impose.
10. Finally, I have had regard to current sentencing practices for the offending to which you have pleaded guilty. In that regard, I note the table of cases provided by the Prosecution involving cases relating to trafficking operations where large amounts of cash are seized by way of proceeds.[53] I have, of course, had regard to those decisions, together with the broader issue of current sentencing practices in relation to offending of this type. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that I would otherwise impose a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding four years in your case.
11. I turn finally now to a consideration of the residual discretion contained in s18Z(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act 1991. Having regard in particular to the Family Violence Assessment Report of Ms Beard, to which I have referred,[54] the Prosecution submitted in your case that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was not appropriate in all the circumstances. When considering making a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, I must, of course, consider the criteria as set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991. Central to the analysis is a consideration of the various assessment reports commissioned by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court. As I have stated, significant concerns have been raised by the Family Violence Social Support Worker with regard to your family violence risk profile. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order is necessarily a comprehensive Order which involves the targeting of all problematic behaviours relevant to your drug dependency. The undertaking of an Order requires participants to attend court initially on a weekly basis and to attend for the various components of the Order at Drug Court House. This necessarily brings participants into contact with other vulnerable participants, including both perpetrators of family violence and survivors of family violence.
12. In considering whether it is appropriate to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, I must consider, in the context of all material tendered, the ability of the Court to appropriately manage the family violence risk and the ability of the Court to appropriately target and intervene with regard to your problematic family violence profile. Whilst the report of Ms Beard is concerning,[55] it was written in January this year when you were still using illicit substances. It was written prior to the significant psychological interventions under the auspices of Mr Armstrong and Ms Allen. Having regard to the reports tendered, I am satisfied that your progress has been extremely significant since January 2025 and that the risk can be appropriately managed on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, particularly with appropriate family violence interventions under the auspices of Ms Beard or her nominees. Put simply, I am of the view that now is the appropriate time for you to be sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in order to continue the psychological interventions that you have already commenced, which appear to have been productive, and in order to appropriately intervene to reduce your risk of family violence whilst you are in the community, noting that you first entered your pleas of guilty before me almost 12 months ago and there have been several intensive hearings since your Determination Hearing. Accordingly, I am satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case.
13. Mr Calleja, would you please stand.

1. In relation to the related Summary Offence of possession of ammunition, you are convicted and fined the sum of $500.
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 the 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.

5. These core conditions will operate for three years and ten months, or until further order.
6. The program conditions, which are that:

a) you must comply with the Individual Treatment Plan dated 2 October 2025, which you will sign 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 [address omitted] Seaholme, Victoria, 3018; > > g) you must not have any contact with or associate with [your ex-partner]; > > h) you must comply with a curfew that you remain at your address between the hours of 9.00 pm and 6.00 am;

1. you are not to use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;

j) you are to abstain from alcohol; > > k) you must not drive a motor vehicle;

1. you must engage with the Family Violence Social Support Worker as directed to understand the impact of violence upon partners and children, take responsibility for behaviour and develop safe and appropriate communication skills; and

m) 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.

7. These program conditions will operate for two years or until further order.
8. 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 three years and ten months. That is made up as follows:

(a) On Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the Indictment, trafficking methylamphetamine, cannabis and cocaine, an aggregate term of two years and six months' imprisonment.

(b) On Charge 4 on the Indictment, possession of MDMA and ketamine, five months' imprisonment.

(c) On Charge 5 on the Indictment, knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, three years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

(d) On Charges 6 and 7 on the Indictment and on related Summary Offence 15, prohibited person possess firearm, prohibited person possess imitation firearm and possess prohibited weapon, an aggregate term of two years and three months' imprisonment.

1. I order that five months on the sentence imposed for the trafficking offending and five months of the sentence imposed for the firearm related offending, be cumulative upon each other and upon the three-year term for the proceeds offending, making a total term, representing the custodial portion of this order, of three years and ten months' imprisonment.
2. In relation to the offences I have just articulated, I declare that you have served seven days of presentence detention.
3. 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 five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months.
4. I grant the forfeiture and disposal orders sought, these applications not being opposed by you.
5. Do you have those orders ready for signing, Mr Tamburro.
6. MR TAMBURRO: No, I don't, Your Honour, and I will be re-submitting the forfeiture order. Your Honour's question about the quantum prompted me that I was supposed to re-submit them after the last occasion - - -
7. HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes - - -
8. MR TAMBURRO: The particular quantities for the cash, and I haven't done that - - -
9. HIS HONOUR: So, you'll do that in due course - - -
10. MR TAMBURRO: So those will be re-submitted by email - apologies.
11. HIS HONOUR: All right, no problem. Just take a seat for a moment Mr Calleja. Any issues - firstly, there's a couple of alterations I've made in the running. Mr Tamburro.
12. MR TAMBURRO: No issues, Your Honour, thank you.
13. HIS HONOUR: Thanks. The same question.
14. MS SEOUD: No issues, Your Honour.

[4] See for example, R v Berisha [1999] VSCA 112 at paragraph [39]

[6] R v Falzon (2018) 264 CLR 361; see also R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289

[38] Section 18X(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991

[39] See Makrogiannis [2021] VSC 190 at paragraph [13]

[45] Transcript of Proceedings on 8 September 2025, page [8], lines [11-13]

[46] Transcript of Proceedings on 8 September 2025, pages [22-23]

[48] Transcript of Proceedings on 29 November 2024, page [11], line [4]

[49] Sentencing Act 1991

[50] Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214

[52] R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269