DPP v Maamary [2026] VCC 52

1. Mr Maamary rented premises at 73 Westgarth Street, Northcote. At the front was a small business, called Westgarth Convenience. Behind the business was the residential section of the building, and several storage areas. There was also large backyard which was accessible via the shop, the residence, a side gate, and a rear roller door.
2. Mr Maamary took over the business at that location in 2019. With the onset of the pandemic and the lockdowns in 2020, his business suffered a significant downturn. Many of his customers had been travellers, who were no longer present in Melbourne, and furthermore, people were feeling the pinch financially and chose to shop at less expensive locations.
3. Mr Maamary gave evidence that he felt he pressure to earn money to support himself, his ageing mother who lived with him, and to provide for his two children.
4. He said in evidence he thus succumbed when some unnamed Chinese people in 2020 suggested to him that he stock and sell illicit tobacco. He sold it from that time forward. He said, in his evidence, that this enabled him to make enough money to provide for his family.
5. At the same time, Mr Maamary developed an addiction to cocaine. By 2022 or 2023, he was using that drug regularly, perhaps every second day. Due to developing a tolerance to the drug, he was using more and more. He was also gambling at Pokies venues on a regular basis.
6. Mr Maamary's evidence was that in approximately April or May 2023, two men of Middle Eastern appearance and speaking Iraqi accented Arabic, came to his store. They told him that if he did not pay them protection money $500 per week, he knew what would happen. The names he had for these men were Sam and Adam.
7. Mr Maamary believed the two men were associated with organised crime. At that time, the so-called tobacco war had commenced, and there was evidence that by October 2023, some 32 businesses engaged in selling illicit tobacco had been targeted with arson or fire bombing. Mr Maamary said he believed that these people were connected, that they were serious, and he had no other choice but to pay the protection money. He arranged with these two men that he would be at his store each Sunday and would pay them on Sundays. He said he arranged that day so he could be sure to be there when the men came.
8. His evidence was that he paid them and no trouble ensued for him. He did not report them to the police as he believed that their associates would take punitive action against him if Sam and Adam were arrested or investigated by police. He believed his only safe option was to pay the protection money.
9. Mr Maamary's evidence was that some five to six weeks after he started paying protection money, Sam and Adam brought a blue coloured metal lockbox to the store. He said they showed him that it contained a white powder, which they told him was cocaine. He said what he saw took up most of the box. He said that the men told him that he needed to store it for them, and that they would be accessing it when they came each Sunday. His evidence was that they directed him to store the box in the hallway of the residence, so they would have easy access to it when they came to the shop. He said that he did not know the code to the box, which had a three-digit combination lock, and never opened it himself.
10. Mr Maamary said that the conduct of the two men which had led him to pay the protection money was why he felt forced to take possession of the box of cocaine, and why he did not call the police about that.
11. Whether these men existed at all, and whether they gave him the blue box containing cocaine, were live issues in the trial.

1. On 18 October 2023, officers from the Viper Task Force of Victoria Police executed search warrants at a number of businesses, which were believed to be engaged in selling illicit tobacco. Mr Maamary's shop was one of the businesses targeted by the police that day.
2. In the course of the search, the police did find illicit tobacco products in numerous locations in the shop and storage areas.[1] Charge 1 on the plea indictment relates to cigarettes and tobacco which were not in plain packaging, and which had been imported unlawfully, with the intention of defrauding the revenue. Mr Maamary was in possession of 3,240 cigarettes and 500 grams of loose tobacco so imported.
3. Tobacco imported into Australia is taxed at the following rates:
   • When sold as cigarettes - $1.24335 per stick.
   • When sold in another form - $1,842 per kilogram.
4. The total amount of duty not paid on the items the subject of Charge 1 was $4,028.45 on the cigarettes and $921 on the loose tobacco. The total duty was therefore $4,949.45.
5. Also located were a variety of documents showing Mr Maamary was engaged in selling tobacco for much less than would have been charged for lawfully imported tobacco products. Summary Charge 2 is a charge of carrying on a tobacco retailing business whilst having illicit tobacco in his control.
6. Summary Charge 4 relates to possession of 847 vape devices containing nicotine.
7. As I have indicated, Mr Maamary entered pleas of guilty in relation to those products.

1. Inside the residential part of the building, the searchers found the blue metal lockbox, containing cocaine. This was on the top of a wardrobe, in the hallway of the residence, outside Mr Maamary's bedroom door.
2. This box contained 621.1 grams of cocaine, bundled as follows:

(a) A small zip lock bag containing 9.4 grams of cocaine at 76% purity.

(b) Four vacuum sealed bags containing pressed cocaine, of which:

(i) two bags weighed 28 grams each, one being 82% and the other 81% purity;

(ii) one bag weighed 27.8 grams, and was 81% pure; and

(iii) one bag weighed 27.9 grams and was 82% pure.

(c) The final item in the box was a vacuum sealed bag containing a compressed block of cocaine weighing 500 grams at 80% purity. This drug was packaged in one clear sealed bag, and then a second clear vacuum sealed bag. This sealed bag of cocaine was then inside another black plastic bag of the same type used by Mr Maamary in his store.

1. DNA testing of swabs from the inner of the two vacuum sealed bags around the 500-gram block showed a mixed profile with three contributors. Mr Maamary was the major contributor - 65% of the sample - with a likelihood ratio that he was a contributor rather than someone unknown, of 100 billion.
2. When Mr Maamary was shown the blue metal box by investigators at the scene, he said he could not remember the code to the lock. He said that he was tired, having only woken up recently, and could not remember the number. When asked what was in the box, he said he thought papers were in the box.
3. He said in his evidence that he did know there was cocaine in the box, because Sam and Adam had told him and showed him there was cocaine in it.
4. The jury found Mr Maamary guilty of Charge 4, trafficking cocaine in not less than a commercial quantity. The prosecution had put the charge on the basis that Mr Maamary was in possession of the cocaine, for sale by himself or some other person.
5. Charge 3 on the trial indictment related to a small amount - 0.3 grams - of cocaine found in Mr Maamary's pocket after his arrest. It was agreed that this was for personal use. As I indicated, Mr Maamary pleaded guilty to that charge.

1. One of the rooms searched was a small room off the storage area behind the shop. This room had a couch and chairs in it. Mr Maamary said in his evidence that he and his friends would sit and party in that room, drinking alcohol and using cocaine.
2. In a small cupboard in that room the police located a shoebox in a large plastic bag. Within the shoebox was 420 grams of cannabis, wrapped in multiple plastic bags. This cannabis was the subject of Charges 1 and 2 on the trial indictment.
3. When he was shown the box of cannabis, at the search, Mr Maamary asked where they had found it, and then provided a number of explanations or answers in respect to it, ranging from denials to admissions.
4. At his trial Mr Maamary's evidence was that he did not know the cannabis was there, had no idea how it got there, and he had nothing to do with it. He said he used to smoke cannabis but since he started using cocaine, he did not like cannabis. He said, of the admissions at the time of the search, that he only said it was his to ensure that the police did not think it belonged to his mother or his sister.

1. Mr Maamary is presently 42 years old. He has no criminal history.
2. He was born in Lebanon in a sibship of eight. Two of his brothers passed away shortly after birth. He grew up in a positive family environment and had a warm and loving relationship with his parents. He says he felt well cared for, both materially and emotionally.
3. His mother was a stay-at-home parent and focused her time on the needs of the family, for which he has significant respect and gratitude. His father was a priest and was a prominent member of the community, involved in politics. Due to the religious tensions at the time, and his high profile, Mr Maamary's father was the victim of assassination attempts and required bodyguards for protection. His father's career inspired Mr Maamary to pursue a university degree in political science.
4. When he was 16 years old, his father passed away from a suspected sudden heart attack.
5. Mr Maamary reports he first used cannabis when he was 19 years old on several occasions, with minimal further use due to disinterest and dislike of the effects. He said he used cannabis occasionally as an adult but denied seeking or using it regularly.[2]
6. When Mr Maamary was 23 years old, he was working as a volunteer paramedic when his brother and a close friend were both tragically killed in an ISIS terrorist attack. Mr Maamary was also exposed to the bomb attack and attended the hospital soon after, only to realise the extent of his brother's injuries. To this day, he continues to revisit this event, and experience grief and loss regarding their deaths. He describes this experience to be life-altering. Afterwards, he dropped out of studying political science, having completed three years of the four-year degree.
7. A year later when he was 24 years old, Mr Maamary married an Australian woman and migrated to Australia. He has never returned to Lebanon due to ongoing distress and grief from the terrorist attack.
8. In Australia, he was consistently employed until his arrest. Between the ages of 24 and 30, he worked as a pick-packer at various warehouses. He built a home, developed stability and opened his first business. He has since operated several businesses, primarily convenience stores.
9. When he was about 30 years old, his relationship with his first wife ended. During this period, he experienced financial difficulties and symptoms of depression. He developed maladaptive coping strategies, including alcohol and cocaine use, and gambling.[3] He has custody on weekends of the two children from that relationship, who are now aged 14 and 16 years old.
10. Between the ages of 36 and 39, during the COVID-19 lockdowns, he was consuming up to one bottle of spirits nightly, along with up to 2 grams of cocaine per day. The lockdowns made him feel isolated, lonely without a partner and sad. His substance use escalated. He would attend gambling venues when lockdowns were lifted and could gamble up to $5,000 a night.[4]
11. In the weeks prior to his arrest, Mr Maamary met his current partner and commenced a relationship with her. They now have a son who is 18 months old.
12. In November 2023, some weeks after the search by police, unknown offenders broke the front windows of the shop in the early hours of the morning. Mr Maamary says he believed that this was retribution for losing the cocaine. He decided to move out and start a new business. He and his partner had trouble renting a new property due to media articles about his arrest.
13. In April 2025, Mr Maamary's last surviving brother unexpectedly passed away in Lebanon, leaving Mr Maamary as the only living adult male in his family. This was highly distressing to the whole family, and his mother and sister continue to rely on him for support.
14. In October 2025, he was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. He is prescribed medicated for hypertension and has a high-risk profile for cardiac disease.[5]

1. I must sentence in accordance with the verdicts of the jury. As their reasoning is necessarily opaque, this requires some consideration of the bases upon which they found Mr Maamary guilty and on the facts that I can find on this plea.

1. The factual basis upon which the jury concluded that Mr Maamary was guilty of trafficking in a commercial quantity is not known. It is possible that the jury did not accept Mr Maamary's account of having been given the blue box by Sam and Adam. It is also possible that the jury accepted Mr Maamary had been given the box by Sam and Adam, but rejected his evidence that he did not know how much cocaine was in the box, and/or limbs 3 and 4 of the defence of duress.

1. The prosecution submitted that I should conclude that no aspect of duress was operating. It was argued Mr Maamary was not a credible witness and that his evidence was crafted to exculpate himself. He did not make sensible concessions and persisted in demonstrably wrong statements, such as believing that it was legal to possess cannabis for personal use. It was also noted that Mr Maamary gave different versions to the police at the scene in respect to the cannabis, and that he did not deny ownership of the blue box at the time of the search.
2. Furthermore, the prosecutor argued that Mr Maamary's conduct after the search and seizure of the cocaine was inconsistent with his evidence about his fear of Sam and Adam and potential reprisals. He did not move his aged mother out of the premises, continued to have his children visit on the weekend, and stayed there with his partner.
3. The prosecutor also relied on the DNA evidence. It was argued that the presence of Mr Maamary's DNA, as the major contributor, was strong evidence of him being present or involved in the packaging of the 500 gram block.
4. The prosecutor argued, therefore, that I should not accept, on balance of probabilities, that any aspect of duress was operating, and that I should sentence on the basic facts that:

(a) Mr Maamary was in possession of the blue box of cocaine;

(b) that cocaine was packaged in quantities in which the drug is usually sold; and

(c) that Mr Maamary knew or believed that the drug was to be sold.

1. Defence counsel submitted that I should be satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that Sam and Adam had directed Mr Maamary to keep the box for them, as he had described in his evidence. She argued that in light of Mr Maamary's concessions about possible other courses of action, the jury may well have accepted Sam and Adam existed, but not that Mr Maamary's actions in keeping the box were the only reasonable way that the threatened harm could be avoided or were a reasonable response to the threat.
2. It was argued that the differences between Mr Maamary's conduct when shown the box at the time of the search, and his evidence, were explicable by his shock and fear at the time. It was noted that there was no evidence of large-scale trafficking, only of 'sharing' small amounts of cocaine amongst Mr Maamary and his gambling associates. Reliance was placed on the breaking of the shop windows some weeks after the search, as evidence that Mr Maamary had been stood over, and that the incident of damage was retribution for losing the cocaine.
3. As to the DNA, defence counsel pointed to the evidence of the expert about the low levels of DNA which could lead to a result, and the possibilities of secondary transfer, even to the point of DNA in the air transferring to an object.
4. Finally, it was submitted that if I did not find in Mr Maamary's favour, regarding aspects of duress, no adverse finding about Mr Maamary could be found beyond the bare facts.

1. I do not accept, on balance of probabilities, that Mr Maamary was required to store the cocaine for others, in the way he described.
2. First, I found that story to be unconvincing on its face. I find it quite unbelievable that two men, with limited acquaintance with Mr Maamary and limited control over him, would require him to store such a valuable item, in the way he described. His evidence that they effectively treated his shop and premises as their own, and that they would get the box and deal with it when they came on Sundays, was equally unlikely.
3. Secondly, I found Mr Maamary to be an unconvincing witness. His attempts to explain away his behaviour and statements on other occasions had a significant negative impact on my assessment of his credibility and reliability generally.
4. Thirdly, the DNA evidence and location of the blue box were strongly supportive of that box and its contents being his. The DNA sample was taken from an area inside the outer vacuum sealed bag. Mr Maamary was the major contributor to that sample. I do not disregard the evidence about secondary transfer, but even accepting that, it does not 'explain away' the presence of his DNA in that area on the inner bag of cocaine. I consider the DNA evidence is strongly probative of him being involved in the packaging of that block of cocaine.
5. The box was found by police on the top of a wardrobe directly outside Mr Maamary's bedroom door. Mr Maamary is a tall man. The images of his mother were of her seated, but she did not appear tall. His children were still young or young teenagers. The box was locked. The location of the box, in plain sight, is not inconsistent with it being his, rather than belonging to Sam and Adam.
6. I also do not accept that there is a link between the cocaine being seized and the damage to the windows some weeks later. The evidence in the trial was that in the 'tobacco wars', arson was the tool of choice for retribution.[6] Furthermore, there was a temporal disconnect between the search in October and the damage.
7. Thus, I reject the submissions of defence counsel that I should find, on balance, that Mr Maamary felt compelled to retain the box of cocaine, at the direction of Sam and Adam.
8. I will sentence Mr Maamary on this charge on the basis that he possessed that cocaine, knowing how much of that drug was in the box, and that he did so knowing that the drug would be sold by some person, whether himself or another.

1. By reason of s73(1)(a)(i) and s73(1)(c) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act the penalty which applies to Charge 2 is five years, unless I am satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the offence was not committed for any purpose relating to trafficking that drug.

1. The prosecutor noted that the verdict on Charge 2 shows the jury did not accept, on balance of probabilities, Mr Maamary's evidence that he did not know the cannabis was there. At the same time, they were not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that he intended to traffick that drug, hence the verdict of not guilty on Charge 1.
2. The prosecutor submitted that I should not be satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the possession was not for the purposes of trafficking. He noted the substantial amount of cannabis, 420 grams, Mr Maamary's own evidence that he did not smoke that drug anymore, and his varying versions given to the police on the day of the search.
3. Defence counsel noted the absence of any evidence of trafficking cannabis. There were no scales, deal bags, tick books or messages showing any involvement with cannabis. She argued that absent actual evidence of trafficking I should find, on balance, that he was not in possession of that drug for the purposes of trafficking.

1. On the whole of the evidence I am not persuaded, on balance of probabilities, that the possession of cannabis was for a purpose other than trafficking. Mr Maamary's own evidence was that he did not use cannabis at all, anymore. His possession, therefore, cannot have been for personal use. Whilst there was no evidence of trafficking that drug, this is insufficient, in the face of Mr Maamary's evidence about not using that drug, and the quantity found, to persuade me on balance that the offence was not committed for any purpose related to trafficking in cannabis.

1. Defence counsel raised a number of matters in mitigation, at the plea hearing, which I will now address.

1. Ms Mildenhall submitted that Mr Maamary should be afforded the benefit of his early pleas of guilty on four charges prior to trial. She also submitted that the trial was run as expeditiously as possible on confined issues.
2. The prosecutor accepted that Mr Maamary is entitled to a discount for the utilitarian value of his guilty pleas to the tobacco charges and the possession of cocaine.
3. The prosecutor submitted that the guilty pleas were not indicative of remorse. He referred to Mr Maamary's trial evidence that he engaged in the tobacco offending due to financial need, and that he had no plans to stop that offending prior to the search.[7]
4. The prosecutor also referred to Mr Maamary's letter of apology to the court and noted that whilst it laments the consequences of his offending it shows little or no appreciation of the impact of such offending on society.
5. I agree that Mr Maamary's pleas of guilty are an acceptance of responsibility for those charges, and that the resolution of those charges has led to a saving of court time and public expense. I accept the submissions of the prosecutor that whilst Mr Maamary may regret the situation in which he finds himself now, he still feels justified in having committed the tobacco offences.

1. Mr Maamary was psychologically assessed by Ms McNeil who diagnosed him as having an adjustment disorder with anxiety and a Major Depressive Disorder (recurrent and moderate).[8] Mr Maamary also has mild symptoms of PTSD which fall short of a diagnosis. Ms McNeil opined that Mr Maamary's trauma history may be masked by avoidance behaviours.[9]
2. It was submitted on Mr Maamary's behalf that this enlivens Limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins,[10] in that imprisonment will weigh more heavily on him because of these diagnoses, and that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significantly adverse effect on his mental health.
3. The prosecution disputed Limb 6 and submitted there was insufficient evidence that his mental health is at serious risk of significant deterioration,[11] noting the high threshold. It was further submitted that even if such a risk were established, it would not justify a less severe sentence for this offending given the importance of general deterrence. The prosecutor submitted that Mr Maamary's mental health conditions were more appropriately considered under Limb 5, in that his experience of custody would be more difficult due to his diagnoses, than someone without those conditions.
4. I accept that Mr Maamary's mental health conditions, in combination with this being his first time in custody and his concerns about his family, will make his time in custody more onerous than for a person without such conditions. I will afford him a moderate degree of mitigation in this respect.
5. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that 'there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect' on Mr Maamary's mental health.[12] Ms McNeil opined that custody 'may intensify abandonment fears inherent in [his] subthreshold PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder symptoms, triggering extreme emotional distress and instability'.[13] I do not consider an opinion that custody might or may have a detrimental effect on a person's mental health conditions meets the threshold for the application of Limb 6 of Verdins.

1. I accept that Mr Maamary has good prospects for rehabilitation.
2. He has taken steps to address his addiction to drugs. He started counselling for his drug addiction not long after he was arrested in October 2023. Between then and the time of the latest report from Ms Doyle, Mr Maamary had attended 32 appointments for treatment with her. He says that he is determined to stay drug free and has provided numerous clear urine screens results.
3. Mr Maamary's offending means he will now spend a considerable amount of time away from his family, unable to support them. This causes him real distress and will be a deterrent upon him, as has the stressful and shaming process of going to court and through a trial.
4. Whilst Mr Maamary has limited insight and still must address some of his avoidant coping behaviours, I accept he is strongly motivated to stay out of trouble in the future.

1. Mr Maamary has had criminal proceedings hanging over his head for over two years. Ms Mildenhall submitted that both limbs of delay due to unfairness and rehabilitation apply.
2. Ms Mildenhall submitted that the unfairness limb has application owing to the anxiety he suffered in the two years since the charges. She did not submit that this was an undue or inordinate delay. She noted the evidence of Ms McNeil, including reports of excessive worrying and rumination, severe insomnia, low mood, flashbacks of his father, associated feelings of shame, unstable mood with sudden lows.[14] Similar reports were made to Ms Doyle. Mr Maamary is now taking anti-depressant medication.[15]
3. The period of delay since Mr Maamary was charged for this offending is not inordinate or unfair, and at least part of that delay was attributable to his decision to change solicitors, which resulted in vacating the first trial listing. Whilst Mr Maamary has clearly been worried about the charges and the outcome, this is not unusual for a first-time offender, or indeed any other offender.
4. I do accept that delay is relevant in the context of his rehabilitation, and that there has been a significant degree of rehabilitation since he was charged.

1. Defence counsel referred to the decisions of Okutgen and Jiang,[16] to pray in aid Mr Maamary's exemplary character as a 42-year-old man with no criminal history to date.
2. In support, she provided 23 character references from 24 people. Thirteen references are authored by people he has met through his new partner. Four are from people he has met through his ex-partner. The remaining six are from his sister, daughter, two neighbours, an old friend and the Reverend from his church.
3. They all speak of him as a kind, considerate, and a generous community member who is well regarded. He is repeatedly described as a selfless, deeply committed provider for his family. They note that he takes his role as father to his three children very seriously, and that he has also assumed carer responsibilities for his mother, who has struggled with grief since the loss of his brothers.
4. Father Mattar says that he has known Mr Maamary for the last 15 years from church. He says Mr Maamary is a longstanding and respected member of the church, well-known in the parish community. He says he is a caring, trustworthy, and generous individual, and has a strong sense of duty and sacrifice, always willing to assist others in any way possible.
5. Mr Abboud, who has known Mr Maamary since 2004, described him as a dear and trusted friend and a strongly family-oriented man, who has consistently demonstrated responsibility, care and commitment to those who depend on him.
6. The prosecutor referred me to the Court of Appeal decision of R v Thomas,[17] and submitted that for trafficking offences, courts have consistently held that general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration. As such, personal circumstances, including prior good character, do not carry as much weight as they might in other cases.
7. I do give weight in mitigation of Mr Maamary's sentence due to his previous good character.

1. In relation to the State offences, family hardship is relevant to Mr Maamary's personal circumstances and how it affects his state of mind, but not as a separate sentencing consideration, unless that family hardship is exceptional.[18] In relation to the Commonwealth offences, I must take into account the probable effect of any sentence on family members.[19]
2. Mr Maamary had been the primary carer for his elderly and unwell mother for some period of time. His mother lived with him for several years, including prior to the offending. She will live with his sister whilst he is incarcerated, and his current partner will assist in his mother's care. His mother is on a bridging visa and is not eligible for Centrelink or Medicare payments.
3. Evidence was put before me of Mrs Maamary's many and significant health concerns, both physical and mental. Her counsellor fears that the loss of her primary support figure is likely to precipitate a significant deterioration in her depressive and anxiety symptoms and exacerbate trauma-related distress.
4. Mr Maamary's sister also has a number of physical and mental health concerns, which will make caring for his mother very difficult.
5. Mr Maamary has an infant son in his full-time care with his current partner and two teenage children who he had custody of three nights a week. In addition to carer responsibilities, his partner also has physical health concerns which are painful and sometimes debilitating.
6. Mr Maamary's letter to the court indicated his distress as to what may occur, knowing of the difficulties his family will face without his support. Although his current partner is supportive of him, he fears losing this relationship and worries about her financial stability without his assistance.
7. I acknowledge that the very real hardship on Mr Maamary's family, as a result of his incarceration, will have a significant impact on him. All the evidence before me is that he is a caring and devoted family man, who supports those around him. His inability to do so, by reason of his own offending, will undoubtedly cause him considerable grief. This factor will moderate the State sentences and the Commonwealth sentences.
8. In respect to the Commonwealth offences, I also have regard to the probable impact of any sentence upon his family in mitigation of those sentences.

1. Mr Maamary said in his evidence, and I accept, that his business suffered a downturn once the lockdowns took effect in 2020. He says that this is what led him to start selling illicit tobacco. There is no evidence to contradict this.
2. There is, however, evidence of him gambling in the period leading to the search, and of using cocaine. Both would have been a significant drain on his financial resources.

1. Defence counsel described Mr Maamary's illicit tobacco business as small scale,[20] which I accept. The total duty defrauded was $4,949.45. Mr Maamary was not an importer, or a large distributor. He was a 'street level' seller. I accept that Charge 1 is at the lower end of gravity for this type of offending.
2. There is a factual overlap between all of the tobacco charges, although there is sufficient differentiation between the offence characterisation to warrant the separate charges.
3. I consider that each of these charges can be sufficiently dealt with by way of financial penalty.

1. Charge 3 is clearly a low-level offence. Charge 2 is, by reference to the quantity, in the low to mid-range.
2. Charge 4, the charge of trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of cocaine is harder to characterise. I will sentence Mr Maamary on the basis that he was in possession of 621 grams of cocaine, at varying purity, but mostly around 80%. There were four packets which weighed 28 grams, or close to that, one of which weighed 9.4 grams (approximately a third of an ounce), and one 500 gram block. The mixed large commercial quantity threshold for cocaine at the time was 1 kilogram. Thus the amount Mr Maamary had in his possession was more than fractionally above the commercial quantity threshold, but not close to the upper end of the commercial quantity range.
3. I consider that this was offending above the lowest end of the range. Furthermore, trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence is an inherently serious offence, so that even where offending is at the lower end of the range, as this is for that offence, it is still serious.

1. Both parties referred me to cases to assist in understanding current sentencing practice for Charge 4.
2. As was acknowledged at the plea hearing, each case was distinguishable for a range of reasons. I have found those case of some, but limited, assistance. Cases involving a different offence, or with a different maximum penalty, provide very limited guidance to a sentencing judge. In many of the cases to which I was referred the offender had pleaded guilty, which Mr Maamary had not.
3. The case which I found to be the most useful as a comparator, both by the result in the case and the reference to the comparable cases discussed in it, was Fernando v The Queen.[21] Even that case had significant differences, including the circumstances of the offender's arrest, and his criminal history.

1. The most serious charge is, of course, Charge 4. General deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation all have considerable weight in the sentencing exercise. I do not consider specific deterrence to carry significant weight, noting the efforts already made by Mr Maamary to address his offending, and the ongoing impact upon his family as a deterrent.

Possess tobacco products with knowledge that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue

Imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine of $24,747.25,1 or both

Carrying on a tobacco supply business with illicit tobacco in his control

Have in his possession a scheduled poison without authorisation

Trafficking in a commercial quantity of drug of dependence (cocaine)

1. These sentences result in total fines of $4,500 and a total prison term of four years' and three months.
2. I set a non-parole period of two years' and nine months.
3. I state that if Mr Maamary had not pleaded to the plea indictment offences, I would have imposed total fines of $6,000. If he had not pleaded guilty to Charge 3 on the trial indictment, I would have sentenced him to 14 days' imprisonment on that charge.
4. I declare 15 days of pre-sentence detention and I direct that that declaration be entered into the records of the court.
5. I will make the disposal order by consent.

[1] Summary of Prosecution Opening [6].

[2] Psychological report by Andrea McNeill dated 12 June 2025 ('McNeill'), [79].

[3] McNeill, [61]. I note that there is a difference between the evidence of Mr Maamary that he commenced using cocaine during the COVID-19 lockdowns (Transcript 212), and the report of Ms McNeill that he started using this drug after the breakdown of his marriage.

[5] Letter from Dr Daniel Cahill dated 19 January 2026, 1.

[10] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 ('Verdins').

[15] Letter by Ms Karly Doyle dated 15 January 2026, 1.

[16] R v Okutgen (1982) 8 A Crim R 262, 265-6; Jiang v The Queen [2019] VSCA 126, [33].

[17] R v Thomas [1999] VSCA 204, [16].

[18] Markovic v R [2010] VSCA 105.

[19] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(p); Rodgerson v R [2022] VSCA 82, [105]-[109].

[20] Defence Outline of Submissions [42].

[21] Fernando v The Queen [2017] VSCA 208.