DPP v Li [2025] VCC 1692

(b) Charge 2 - trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine).

DPP v Li [2025] VCC 1692 | Case summary | Zoe

[8]

(a) On 20 April 2023 the CO sent a message to Ms Ong asking if she could purchase 28 grams of heroin for $11,500 and for her friend to accompany her so as to discuss the purchase of a 'block' (350 grams) of heroin. Ms Ong responded confirming a meeting time. On 21 April 2023 there was some further messages between the CO and Ms Ong rescheduling the time.

(b) Both CO's subsequently attended the Bundoora address and were welcomed by Ms Ong. You were inside the property and there was another woman present, who appeared to be purchasing drugs in the nature of a pink substance. Ms Ong and the CO had a conversation about this with the CO asking why the substance was pink and the CO overheard Ms Ong ask you the same question in Mandarin. You responded to Ms Ong in Mandarin that the imported powder used to make methylamphetamine makes in a pink colour. The CO said she wanted to purchase the same heroin they got last time but wanted to try the pink ice as well. Ms Ong asked you and you said they could purchase some. You took out an ice pipe and offered for the CO to try it and the CO stated that they only wanted to purchase that day.

(c) The CO said she would like to purchase an ounce of the usual powdered heroin and also wanted to try the rock heroin. You explained to Ms Ong that there was not enough powdered heroin to form an ounce and that you would have to 'go home' to get more of the powdered heroin to make up the ounce. Ms Ong told the CO's that you would have to 'go to another place to pick up.' The CO told Ms Ong that they would purchase half an ounce of the powdered heroin and half an ounce of the rock heroin. You reminded Ms Ong that the CO's wanted the 'powder'. You also told her that you have four bags, if they buy two bags now it wasn't certain that you would have any left when the CO's returned on the next occasion. The CO asked about the quality of the powdered and rock heroin and Ms Ong asked you which one was better and you responded the powder was worth buying. You also told Ms Ong that the 'pink block' is home-made and not stock ordered. Ms Ong explained that she had the 'pink ice' before and only uses methylamphetamines. You told Ms Ong to tell the CO's that you had some at home that was in the process of crystallisation but was not done yet.

(d) You left the room and the CO asked if you were making ice in the property and Ms Ong explained that a little bit was being made and that 'everything is done by them.' You returned with a square glass dish containing a pink crystalised substance that you were stirring with chopsticks. Ms Ong explained that you made it for fun if you weren't busy and had nothing to do. While doing this, you showed both COs images on your phone of a wok, pan, and glass beaker filled with a crystal substance. The images were not from the kitchen of the Bundoora property.

(e) Ms Ong finished weighing the heroin and handed it to the CO in two separate bags. The CO then handed you $11,500 in cash and you began to count it. During a further discussion with the CO, you told Ms Ong that everyone preferred the rocks, but that your stuff is better because you ensure the quality of the powder. The CO asked if there was a lot of powdered heroin available to purchase and you said there was. On being asked about the potential for purchasing larger amounts Ms Ong translated for you and you stated that the market price had increased and that you would not raise the price. You would charge for a 'pair' (two blocks or 700 grams) $235,000 and the other suppliers would charge $245,000. Ms Ong also explained the price of one block (350 grams) was now $125,000 and not the $120,000 which had been quoted to CO on the previous occasion she had attended. You responded, that is the price now. Ms Ong explained that if the parties brought the money to the address and it was correct, they could leave with the blocks; there would be no wait time. You re-iterated to Ms Ong that if there was any issue with the stock it would be refunded.

(f) After you finished counting the money Ms Ong placed a small amount (0.4 grams) of the 'pink ice' into a zip lock bag, and handed it to the CO describing it as a gift and that you had told her it was a treat for them. The CO asked about the usual price for 1 kilogram of the 'pink ice' and was told it would cost $140,000 and Ms Ong advised the more they bought the cheaper it is. The CO asked to buy 1 gram of the 'pink ice' and paid $200 after Ms Ong had weighed and supplied the drug. Further discussion included you indicating that powdered heroin could be obtained immediately and that you'd just 'have to go home to get it' but that the rock could take a couple of hours as you would have to get it from storage.

[10]

(a) On 11 May 2023 the CO messaged Ms Ong asking to purchase 28 grams of heroin for $11,500 the following day. During these calls she said that her friend wanted to speak to her 'brother' referring to you but Ms Ong advised that you were not available until later. Ms Ong arranged with the CO to meet at Plenty Road in Bundoora. The CO attended as arranged and Ms Ong advised that the property also 'belonged to them'.

(b) Ms Ong handed the CO the bag of heroin they had attended to purchase and the CO handed Ms Ong $11,500 cash in return. The CO asked several times if she could call you. The CO told Ms Ong that he was looking to purchase a pair of 'hard' or 'rock' heroin like they had received in the last occasion. During conversations about the powdered heroin previously purchased, Ms Ong said that 'the boss had compressed it himself' and explained that he - alleged to be you - had a device for compressing heroin and that people preferred it compressed. They discussed that the sizes of bricks of heroin are set. The CO also enquired about purchasing 'pink ice' and Ms Ong gave me a zip lock bag containing a white coloured methylamphetamine and told him he could take it for free. Ms Ong indicated that she had called you a number of times but didn't get a response. The CO and Ms Ong exchanged contact details on the telephone application 'Signal.' The CO asked if Ms Ong could find the price of the heroin and of half a kilogram of methylamphetamine and Ms Ong said she would need to ask her boss - alleged to be you - as the price of methylamphetamine was fluctuating. She confirmed that the price of a pair and single block of heroin (700 grams and 350 grams respectively) was $235,000 and $125,000 respectively.

(c) Later there were further discussions about the purchase of heroin over signal, with the CO inquiring as to whether they can get the pair (referring to 2 blocks or 700 grams of heroin). Ms Ong responded that it should be the same (as that previously purchased) but they should test it first. The CO also asked about purchasing half a kilogram of methylamphetamine and Ms Ong stated that it was a different product but the quality was just as good. Later contact was made by Ms Ong indicating that the heroin needed more time to arrive but that she would definitely get it tonight. When the CO asked if it was the same as previously purchased she confirmed that her 'boss' - alleged to be you - said it was the same. She also told the CO that you were trying your best to come back and that it would take you 40-50 minutes to get the product ready. They agreed by text message to meet by 7pm to purchase the drugs (heroin and methylamphetamine) for $310,000.

[16]

The charges that you have pleaded guilty are serious. Charge 1 is punishable by a maximum term of 25 years imprisonment and is also a category 2 offence which mandates a term of imprisonment, subject to some exceptions which are not advanced in your case. Charge 2 is punishable by 15 years imprisonment.
In an assessment of the gravity of your offending a range of considerations are relevant. The sentencing regime for trafficking offences is quantity-based and therefore quantum, while not a determinative factor, is an important one. On charge 1 you trafficked in a total of 754.1 grams of heroin with a purity of 549.027 grams. A commercial quantity of heroin is 250 grams mixed or 50 grams pure. A large commercial quantity is 750g mixed. You trafficked in 3.016 x the commercial quantity when regard is had to the mixed amount or 15.082 x commercial quantity when regard is had to the pure amount. On charge 2 you trafficked a total of 1.4 grams of methylamphetamine. A traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine is 3 grams. A small quantity is 0.75 grams.
The period of trafficking involved was between 3 April and 12 May 2023 and involved specifically 3 transactions with covert operatives, on the 3 April 2023, 21 April 2023 and on the day of your arrest, on 12 May 2023. I take into account that there is some overlap between the offending. Charge 2 was committed on the 21 April 2023, which is also relevant to charge 1 as both heroin and methylamphetamine were sold that day.
The cash seized, that is 1,949.90 (see paragraph 62) is not charged but relevant to context.
As for your role, there was some dispute between Counsel as to how your role should properly be characterised. The prosecution submit that you were present with Ms Ong during the sales of heroin on 3 April, 21 April and were integrally involved in the offer for sale on 12 May 2023. They submit, you had an organisational role. You were clearly trusted. On occasions Ms Ong would defer to you for advice or to confirm a transaction. The prosecution submit that your role can be distilled by what you did, and your interactions with Ms Ong and the CO's:

[21]

In my assessment of your role, I have considered what you did.
Your activities, and the principal charge, are confined to your involvement in three transactions. During the first transaction you were responsible for counting money, which suggests a degree of responsibility and trust. In the second you provided prices, indicated you had access to various quantities of the drugs being discussed and you were able to speak of the availability and quality of the relevant drugs, indicating an active and important role. In the third transaction, you were not involved in the direct discussions with the coverts and I accept your Counsel's submissions that the Court cannot be satisfied that the reference to 'boss' is necessarily a reference to you. Nor am I satisfied that the word 'boss' carries its literal meaning. However, through your plea and on an acceptance of the prosecution opening, while your precise role and activities in this transaction or in sourcing the drugs are not entirely clear and I am not in a position to make any confident findings, you were involved in an offer to transact a substantial amount of drugs on this occasion.
As for your role in comparison to that of Ms Ong I accept that in the first and third transactions Ms Ong had a more active and prominent role then you did and that in the second transaction she appeared to defer to you and you provided her with relevant information about the drugs. Overall and on the face of it, Ms Ong's involvement in drug trafficking enterprise was on a greater scale then yours. In brief, she was involved in 10 transactions, compared to your 3, and her charges involved a longer period of offending and trafficking in greater amounts and in multiple drugs. Her additional offending is overall relevant to an assessment of her role and culpability and you are not charged in respect of this.
Turning to your motive, your Counsel submits that Ms Ong was a significant influence on your drug use. Initially you were unaware that she was using drugs and over time, she began bringing drugs into the home and within this context you decided to try them. You were earning very little at the time and would not have bene able to independently afford them. Your Counsel submits, consistent with the commencement date of 14 February 2023 for Ms Ong's offending, that your own involvement commenced after her 'enterprise was well under way.' You told psychologist Ms Rebecca Fakhri that at the time of your offending you had been using both methamphetamine and cannabis consistently since beginning regular use in 2022. You told her that your involvement in trafficking heroin stemmed from your relationship with your girlfriend and that you were involved in supporting her activities (at [70]). You told her that part of your motivation was to obtain access to drugs without having to purchase them directly (at [72]) and that you were largely 'motivated by [your] own drug use and the influence of the relationship' (at [73]). The prosecution submit that this explanation cannot be accepted. On any view, the offending was engaged in for 'serious financial profit' and, they submit, the scale of the offending 'far exceeded offending to support a drug addiction.'
Ms Ong's offending commenced before the period for which you are charged, which is consistent with this enterprise being 'under way' before your offending commenced. I am also prepared to accept that you may have partly been motivated in your offending to support Ms Ong and support your own drug use. However, the substantial quantum of drugs involved also supports an inference of financial motivation, which in turn is relevant to an assessment of your moral culpability.

[23]

Your personal circumstances were thoroughly canvassed by your Counsel and are outlined in the report of Ms Fakhri.
You are 42 years of age and you were born in China. You were primarily raised by your grandparents, largely due to the dysfunction in the family home. Your father was frequently absent and involved with another woman and your mother experienced depression. Your grandmother was your primary caregiver until she passed away when you were 5 years of age and you then returned to live with your parents. You report that your relationship with your mother was a good one but your relationship with your father was strained. He continued to be regularly absent from the home and was often drunk and violent towards you. You also experienced significant poverty growing up. Your father subsequently passed away in a motor vehicle accident.
In 2007 your mother migrated to Australia. From that time onwards you lived independently, often with friends or extended family, and you continued to struggle financially.
In terms of your education, in China you progressed through primary and high school though had to work part time in order to afford the school fees. You describe your performance as 'average.' You left school around the age of 18 and soon after you began training under a teacher who worked as a chef. On a minimal income you trained under this chef for some two years. Following this training you began working in restaurants as a chef, earning more money. During this time, you also undertook formal related studies and gained qualifications which allowed you to work across a range of establishments.
In 2016 you moved to Australia and you were granted permanent residency. Your aim was to continue working as a chef though you report finding it difficult to adapt your style of cooking to Australian tastes. Consequently, you transitioned into physical labour roles, including truck driving, assisting with house moves, rubbish removal and delivery work.
In approximately 2021 you sustained a lower back injury while helping someone move house. This significantly affected your ability to continue working in physically demanding roles. You returned to work in a restaurant in a helper role, which you maintained for about one year. Your last paid employment was as a spray painter on trains, a position you held for several months.
On migrating to Australia, you reunited with your mother and you both settled, living together at an aunt's home in Epping. Your relationship with your mother remained close and you describe her as having been the main source of emotional and practical support throughout your life.
As already noted, in 2022 you commenced a relationship with your co-accused. Prior to this time you had a limited relationship history, with your last significant relationship being at the age of around 18 years and lasting a decade.
In May 2023 both you and your mother were arrested in relation to the current matter and remanded in custody. During her time in custody, your mother was diagnosed with brain tumours. She was released from custody at a later point but passed away shortly after in January 2025. You were not able to be present at the time of her death. You report that your final visit was in July 2024 when you were informed by prison and hospital staff that she was nearing the end of her life. This loss has been deeply traumatic for you and you have expressed significant guilt. She was over 70 at the time and you believe that the stress of imprisonment and the charges contributed to her decline. You report ongoing grief and a sense that you have 'nothing to live for' following her death.
You do not have a psychiatric history and you first sought mental health support while in custody in December 2023. At that time you were struggling and requested to see a psychiatrist due to experiencing auditory hallucinations and psychological distress. You feel that your ability to access adequate support in custody has been impacted by communication barriers.
In terms of your physical health you report several issues, though formal documentation is limited. You report a history of diabetes, heart disease and pancreatitis. You also report a history of head trauma from childhood physical abuse and you believe that your memory has been affected.
Turning to your drug and alcohol use, your first experience with illicit substances occurred in your early twenties. At around 20 years of age you began using ecstasy occasionally when attending clubs with friends. In 2020 you began using nitrous oxide, a substance introduced to you by friends who used it recreationally via balloons. From around 2019 to 2020 you began using cannabis daily. Your regular use of methamphetamine began in 2022 with you reporting use most days of the week. Your last reported use was the day before your arrest. You have no history of engagement with alcohol or other drug treatment services.

[24]

On assessment, Ms Fakhri opined that the following diagnoses are indicated in accordance with the DSM-5-TR: post traumatic stress disorder; uncomplicated bereavement disorder; and stimulant use disorder. Ms Fakhri concludes that you have 'endured longstanding adversity marked by early trauma, chronic neglect, socio-economic disadvantage, and disrupted attachments (at [97]). You were also regularly exposed to violence at a time that was critical to your development and these experiences appear to have 'laid the foundation for chronic emotional dysregulation, anxiety and vulnerability to later psychopathology' (at [97]). She opines that your trauma is 'rooted in chronic exposure to childhood' abuse and has rendered you more vulnerable to substance abuse (art [101]). Your substance use partly began, she opines further, as a means of coping with these trauma-related symptoms (at [102]), with drug use relieving your anxiety and enabling you to avoid distressing thoughts.
She also opines at paragraph [103] that your trauma appears to have impaired your judgement and increase your dependency on others for emotional regulation.
Ms Fakhri states that your psychological functioning further deteriorated following the death of your mother while in custody. Your symptoms, including self-blame, pervasive sadness and intense guilt are consistent with uncomplicated bereavement disorder, which involves persistent and disabling grief that exceeds cultural or normative expectations (at [104]). Your belief that your actions led to your mothers death, combined with your inability to say goodbye or attend her funeral, have compounded the psychological impact (at [105]).
In terms of your stimulant use disorder she opines that both methylamphetamine and cannabis were used to relieve stress, assist with sleep and manage emotional pain and was further reinforced by your partners influence and access to drugs (at [107]).
Ms Fakhri regards your offending as occurring with the ''context of psychological distress, substance dependence, and an emotionally enmeshed relationship with a co-offending partner' (at [99]). She concludes that in particular your longstanding PTSD and stimulant use which escalated in the context of emotional dysregulation and relationship vulnerability indicate a 'significant degree of psychological impairment at the time of the offence' (at [110]).
Ms Fakhri also opines that imprisonment 'would likely weigh more heavily on [you] than someone without [your] conditions (namely PTSD). [Your] conditions make [you] particularly more prone to emotional dysregulation which can result in disproportionate, impulsive, reactive behaviours which are heightened under stress and within the volatile prison environment' (at [121]). In turn, this may result in unintentional sanctions or conflict with others. She also regards you as a 'vulnerable offender' as you have no experience with criminality or prison and limited communication skills (at [122]).
Your Counsel submits that Verdins[8] principles 1, 3 and 4 all have a role to play in the sentence and that as a result of your psychological impairments, moral culpability and general and specific deterrence should be reduced in weight. He also submits that imprisonment will likely weight more heavily on you than others. The prosecution do not accept any causal nexus between your diagnosis of PTSD and your offending, particularly in context where it is not accepted that you were simply assisting your girlfriend and your offending occurred over a period of a month. They accept that there is some application of limb 5.
On my assessment I accept that you may have been more susceptible to drug use because of your trauma related symptoms and that it may have increased your dependency on others. However, I do not accept that there is a causal nexus or relationship between your offending, as contended by your Counsel. Given the repeated and protracted nature of the offending, the contribution of drug use, the nature and extent of your symptoms as outlined and also the likely financial motive, I do not accept that these conditions impaired your ability to exercise appropriate judgments or otherwise relevantly impacted you at the time of the offending. I accept that limb 5 of Verdins[9] has application, noting that your psychological functioning has further deteriorated with the onset of your bereavement disorder. More generally, I take into account the conditions assessed by Ms Fakhri and the contents of her report.
In addition, given your history of trauma and adversity during your developmental years I accept that Bugmy[10] in a general sense has application in your case. In all the circumstances, I also accept that it has some limited relevance to an assessment of your moral culpability.

[30]

Charge 2, trafficking, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Charge 1 is the base sentence and I cumulate one month of charge 2 on the base sentence. This results in a total effective sentence of four years and three months imprisonment.
Taking into account all relevant factors, including the need to reflect general deterrence and denunciation and the mitigating factors advanced on your behalf, including your relatively mature age and lack of prior criminal history I fix a non-parole of 2 years and 9 months.
S.18 I declare that you have served 914 days in custody.
S.6AAA but for your plea I would have sentenced you to six years imprisonment with a non-parole of four years.
HER HONOUR: Counsel, were there ancillary orders.
MS PICONE: Your Honour, I believe there was a forfeiture for the outstanding money.
HER HONOUR: Forfeiture for the outstanding money, though it doesn't pertain to charge - perhaps I should quickly check that. Let me just have a look. I can't see it. I might just see if my associates can quickly bring it up for me. Thank you. Yes, I see. Do you have that before you Mr Barker.
MR BARKER: I don't, Your Honour, but I can't have - I make no objection to it.
HER HONOUR: Yes, it relates to - the schedule is - it's the money located at the various properties. So related, one can appreciate but not charged, but $60,000 located in a shopping bag under the bed in Bedroom 3 of 11 Spring Street, Thomastown. $12,950 located in gold pouch in chest of drawers in Bedroom 3 of 11 Spring Street, Thomastown. $380.05 located in black purse in chest of drawers in Bedroom 3 of 11 Spring Street, Thomastown. That's the schedule, I don't know if that's triggered something for you.
MR BARKER: No, Your Honour, other than to say that the argument was always that it's not ours, so that we have no basis to make any complaints, so no objection to that.
HER HONOUR: Yes, all right. So, I make the forfeiture order then in the terms sought. Thank you. Is there anything further.
MS PICONE: Nothing further, Your Honour.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (37 paragraphs)

Parties