Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court - exposing an emergency worker to risk - trafficking in a drug of dependence
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court - exposing an emergency worker to risk - trafficking in a drug of dependence
Judgment (10 paragraphs)
[1]
Sentence: 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
[2]
Mr Najib,[1] you have pleaded guilty to charges of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving (charge 1), damaging an emergency service vehicle (charge 2), prohibited person possess firearm (charge 3), trafficking in a drug of dependence (charge 4) and two charges of possession of a drug of dependence (charges 5 and 6).
You have also agreed to this Court hearing, and have pleaded guilty, to the summary charges of fail to stop on police direction (related summary offence ('RSO') charge 1), deal with proceeds of crime (RSO charge 10), possess prohibited weapon without exemption/approval (RSO charge 16) and unlicenced driving (SO charge 18).
[3]
The full circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution opening, marked as Exhibit A. This constitutes the factual basis upon which I sentence you.
All charges arise from events on 8 March 2024. You were 31 years of age at the time and had no fixed residential address.
At the time of the offending you were classified as a prohibited person pursuant to the Firearms Act 1996, by virtue of being subject to a community corrections order imposed in October 2022. Also, you were not licenced to drive a motor vehicle and had not held a valid license since 2 September 2022 (RSO 18 - unlicenced driving). In addition, you were subject to a grant of bail imposed on 3 January 2024.
Turning to the events of 8 March 2024, members of Victoria Police were patrolling Gibbs Road in Ferntree Gully and observed a blue Volkswagen sedan parked on the nature strip of an address on Gibbs Road Ferntree Gully. Police conducted a check of the registration plates which showed the vehicle had previously been identified as bearing false registration.
Police observed you exit the rear gates of an address on Gibbs Road and enter the driver's seat of the vehicle. The Police vehicle, ending in '209, activated its red and blue lights in an attempt to intercept you and followed in pursuit of the vehicle (RSO 1 - fail to stop on police direction).
The vehicle drove off at a fast speed west along Gibbs Road towards Bourke Road before turning west bound onto Burwood Highway weaving in and out of traffic. Police radio was utilised to notify additional units of the pursuit. This police vehicle terminated its pursuit of you.
Two unmarked highway patrol vehicles then located your vehicle and followed in pursuit on the Eastlink travelling northbound. You exited the Eastlink at Springvale Road, Nunawading and you pulled into the driveway at an address on Mount Pleasant Road.
Police observed your vehicle park in an allocated unit carpark. You began to exit the vehicle, however upon sighting police you re-entered it. You reversed and drove forward hitting the right front side of police vehicle ending in 'KT, knocking it onto a slight angle across the driveway. You proceeded to drive up the driveway, scraping the side of the police vehicle and reversed into the left side of the police vehicle. The impact caused it to move backwards and collide its rear into a tree. You drove forward and reversed again, scraping along the police vehicle and pushing it further into the tree (charge 1 - recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving).
You reversed down the driveway at a fast speed and collided with a tree and the boundary fence located on the nature strip at the opening of the driveway, resulting in your vehicle becoming stuck in a garden bed. Police attempted to follow in their car however their vehicle was too damaged and they exited and approached your vehicle on foot (charge 2 - damaging an emergency service vehicle).
You exited the vehicle and fled on foot.
You were observed on East India Avenue jumping over neighbouring fences and running toward Mt Pleasant Road. You sighted police and ran into the driveway of a property where you were physically apprehended by Police. Police located and removed a loaded revolver from the back of your pants before forcibly placing you on the ground and in handcuffs (charge 3 - prohibited person possess firearm).
You were placed under arrest for possessing a firearm and given your caution and rights.
Police located a black bag on your person. Several items were seized, including Australian currency in the sum of $5000.00 (related summary offence 10 - deal with suspected proceeds of crime). The vehicle was subsequently searched, and police located and seized additional items, including Australian currency in the sum of $15,000.00 (related summary offence 10 - deal with suspected proceeds of crime); 113.5 grams of methamphetamine (charge 4 - traffick a drug of dependence); 1 x silver knuckle duster (related summary offence 16 - possess prohibited weapon); 1 x vile of 1,4 butanediol (charge 6 - possess a drug of dependence); and 12 MDMA tablets (charge 5 - possess a drug of dependence).
The drugs were subsequently analysed and the total quantity of drugs found was as follows -
[4]
You were taken to Box Hill Hospital for examination, and a blood sample was taken. The sample was analysed and returned a positive reading for methamphetamine (context only). You were subsequently interviewed and provided no comment in relation to the allegations.
You were remanded at the Filing Hearing on 9 March 2024 and have remained on remand since this date. You have a total of 732 days in presentence detention.
[5]
Your offending both collectively and individually is serious and general deterrence, denunciation and community protection are important sentencing considerations.
Turning to the drug offences, drug trafficking is an inherently serious offence, as indicated by the maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment. Sentences must reflect 'the serious harm that drug trafficking causes within the community and the high maximum sentences that parliaments across Australia have set' (Topal v The Queen[2019] VSCA 289).
Relevant to the assessment of gravity are a range of considerations, including the type, quantity and purity of the drug. As the higher courts have stated, 'other things being equal, the greater the quantity the more serious the offence.' Here, you possessed 113.5 grams with 95 grams being pure methamphetamine. This is 37.8 times the traffickable quantity and 1.9 times the commercial threshold for purity. Of course , you are only charged with, and are only to be sentenced for, trafficking simpliciter.
As to your motive, I accept that, at least in part, your offending was driven by your own drug addiction. I accept that your offending was not borne out of greed and that there is no evidence of meaningful enrichment gained from your drug trafficking. I accept the submission that the connection between your offending and your dependency means that you cannot be likened to an offender who was profiteering from the sale of drugs for purely commercial reasons (see prosecution submissions).
On the evidence you appear to have been operating alone, rather than as part of a wider network. Also, while likely not an 'aberration or an isolated incident' your offending is confined to possession for the purposes of trafficking a single date.
I also accept that the offending was not sophisticated. As fairly characterised by the prosecution, 'it was relatively undisciplined and lacking in any real methodology.'
In terms of the possession charges, you were found in possession of 17.6 grams of 1,4 butanediol and 5.8 grams of MDMA. The prosecution conceded that this is 'not a serious example of the offence' though submit that the higher maximum penalty should apply. Your Counsel submits that the Court should be satisfied that, on balance, you possessed these drugs not for the purpose of trafficking. While clearly your methylamphetamine and heroin use were substantial, the clinical reports also refer to your occasional use of MDMA and 1,4 butanediol. Coupled with the relatively small quantities found, on balance, I am relevantly satisfied and proceed on the basis that the lower penalty applies.
Turing to the firearm related offences, firearm possession offences are also very serious, as reflected by the maximum penalty (see also Berichon v The Queen[2013] VSCA 319; Young v The King[2024] VSCA 179). While it is not alleged that you possessed the firearm for any ongoing criminal activity or purpose - which can perhaps be contrasted to your 2017 offending - the current offence still raises obvious risks and concerns for public safety. In all the circumstances, possessing a loaded firearm, concealed in the back of your pants is clearly serious offending which must be denounced and deterred. You also have a relevant prior criminal history for such offending, increasing the weight to be given to specific deterrence.
As for the driving related offences, the community will not tolerate driving of this nature or reckless driving to escape police, that exposes police officers to a risk of safety (Nguyen v The King[2024] VSCA 290.)
As relevant to the failing to stop vehicle on police direction, you drove through main roads and residential streets during the middle of the day, intermittently at a high speed when the roads would have been populated.
Charge 1 is a rolled up count, involving two victims, and I take into account all of the relevant circumstances. You entered into a residential allotment and twice rammed a police vehicle, placing police officers at risk. The second impact occurred after you had, for a second time, driven forward away from police and reversed, causing a second collision. The prosecution submit that while not at the most serious end of the spectrum of objective gravity, it is still serious given your purpose was to evade police and the repetitive nature of your conduct.
Your Counsel submits that the offending should be viewed as at the lower end of seriousness; it was not premediated or sophisticated, it occurred within a driveway of a residential property when no one else was present; it was relatively confined; and police remained in their vehicle and were uninjured.
I accept that your offending was not premeditated or sophisticated. However, having watched the footage it is apparent that, in that moment, your conduct was purposeful and that your vehicle appeared to collide with some force; twice.
Charge 2 is offending that arises out of the same conduct of charge 1. Referring to the second reading speech, the prosecution submit that parliament had intended both charges be laid for offending of this nature and be separately recognised. The offending on charges 1 and 2 does, I accept, represent distinct criminality that needs to be separately reflected. However, given it arises from the same conduct, totality remains an important consideration, requiring a degree of concurrency.
I also take into account that you were unlicenced at the time of this offending.
Related summary offence 10 concerns proceeds of crime of $20,000 in Australian currency. The money was located both on your person and in your vehicle. Your Counsel attributes the money to gambling wins though accepts that you have pleaded guilty to the charge. It is a relatively large amount of currency located both on your person and in your car.
I also take into account that you offended while on bail and the presumption of cumulation applies, unless otherwise directed (see s.16(3C)).
On the day of the offending you instruct your Counsel that you were leaving your ex-partners home, saw the police and panicked, knowing that you were in possession of illicit drugs and a firearm. You fled and attempted to evade police until you were eventually arrested. During this period you were struggling with severe psychological and physiological deterioration from prolonged drug use, compounded by escalating paranoia and exhaustion. At the time of the offending you were acutely intoxicated on both methamphetamine and heroin. Consultant psychologist Ms Gina Cidoni considers that your actions reflected 'disorganised, reactive behaviour rather than purposeful evasion or planned resistance.' None of this excuses your offending or moderates your moral culpability but it is relevant context that I take into account.
[6]
Your plea of guilty was entered at a relatively early stage and entitles you to an important sentencing discount. Your plea has utilitarian value and indicates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Your plea also represents an acceptance of responsibility. The prosecution do not accept that your plea is evidence of genuine remorse. Your Counsel relies on the understanding you have been able to demonstrate between your substance use, unresolved trauma and offending. On the basis of Ms Cidoni's assessment, it appears that there is scope for you to develop further insights and meaningful reflections.
I also have had regard to the relevant chronology of your case and take into account the delay in the matter finalising. There has been a substantial delay and as of today you have spent a total of 732 days on remand. I accept, as advanced on your behalf, that you have experienced anxiety as to the proceedings and the uncertainty of outcome.
[7]
Your personal circumstances were outlined by your Counsel and are canvassed in the report of Ms Cidoni, of 3 October 2025.
Your background is one marked by social and cultural disadvantage, behavioural problems and early peer influence that exposed you to antisocial environments. You were born in Dandenong and raised there with your older sister. Your family is Vietnamese. During your childhood, your father spent long periods overseas in Vietnam, where extended family continue to reside.
You describe that there were periods of time during your childhood where your family struggled to manage your behaviour. You were influenced by peers at school and in the neighbourhood and you felt that as the only Asian child in the area you were targeted which caused you to gravitate towards certain groups. Your family sent you overseas for three months in an attempt to curb your behaviours.
You ended up leaving home at the age of 16, when your mother arranged for you to stay with a cousin in Geelong. You lived there for approximately eight months. You then left your cousins home and moved around frequently. From the age of 18 you have spent lengthy periods in custody.
You completed year 11 through a TAFE based program. You describe yourself as academically capable but reported frequent absences, behavioural problems and expulsion from your first high school following fights and conflict with teachers.
You commenced an automotive spray-painting apprenticeship but left after 6 months, before working as a plasterer for one year. You then worked in construction across labouring and roof tiling roles before starting in marble benchtops, which you report doing for several years. You were employed at a Stone Masons for four years with a friend. In custody you report working in textiles and hospital cleaning.
Over the years you have had several short-term relationships. Recently you were in a relationship that bore a son, who is now approximately four years of age. You have not had contact with your son since separating with your partner. You then had a casual relationship with a woman that bore a daughter, who was born about one month following your present remand. The mother sought you out and provided you with photographs of your daughter. You have stated that you feel guilty for missing the pregnancy and birth but remain in contact with the mother and you are hopeful that there is a future for you. Since your remand in March 2024 you have had monthly video calls with your daughter and have seen her in person. Your sister also visits you once a month.
As for your health you report being diagnosed with anxiety and depression by your GP at the age of 16. You were prescribed antidepressants. You describe your mental health as fluctuating over the years, with periods of increased distress, usually in the context of relationship breakdowns.
You have a lengthy and entrenched history of drug use, dating back to when you were young. You started using cannabis at the age of 15 and methamphetamine from the age of 16. At 18 you started using cocaine and MDMA and at 20 you began daily methamphetamine use, which you continued until your remand. You have tried GHB in the past but have not used it regularly. In more recent times you have also used heroin.
You also have an extensive and relevant criminal history and you have spent a number of years in prison. Of note, in 2011 you appeared in the County Court for charges including armed robbery and were sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. In 2015 you were placed on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order ('DATO') for offences including possessing amphetamine, trafficking amphetamine and posing a firearm. In 2017 you were again before this Court on charges of prohibited person possess firearm and intentionally cause injury and were sentenced to 3 years and 6-month imprisonment. You report that most of your offending has been related to drugs and that the various gun possession charges were for 'protection because of threats over [your] head.'
You were last released in June 2023 and you report having done well with parole in the past. Your counsel submits that on your release you resumed working as a stonemason. You were still without stable accommodation and living between friends' homes and AirBnBs but remained abstinent. In the following six months, two of your close friends died, one in a motor vehicle accident and the other from cancer. You also endured a relationship breakup. The trauma and distress contributed to your relapse into substance use. You recommenced using methamphetamine daily and also heroin intermittently until your remand. You lost your job and also started to gamble at the pokies, which escalated after winning a large sum. You instruct your counsel that others soon become aware of your frequent gambling and that you would often carry significant amounts of cash. You had become the target of several attempted robberies and had become fearful of further incidents and wanted to protect yourself. No doubt this paranoia was heightened by your acute substance use and sleep deprivation at the time.
Since your remand you have been prescribed mirtazapine (anti-depressant) which you have found helpful. You also have received counselling once a month which has also been useful.
You told Ms Cidoni that you have not used illicit drugs since entering custody in March 2024 and that you are treated with methadone currently with an interest in switching to buprenorphine upon release.
On formal testing, your personality profile showed a pattern of instability in self-image and emotions. You experience rapid shifts in mood, in relationships tend to alternate between periods of closeness and withdrawal and at times you take risks impulsively. The results also suggested a pattern of disregard for conventional rules and expectations. On the clinical scales your results indicated significant difficulties with the use of substances. The clinical evaluation indicated diagnosis consistent with stimulant use disorder and opioid use disorder, both in remission in a controlled environment.
As for the custodial environment, it has had both stabilising and detrimental effects. Long-term imprisonment is unlikely to promote genuine rehabilitation and may entrench dependency on external control rather than strengthening internal self-regulation.
[8]
Ms Cidoni assessed your insight as 'fair', with you demonstrating an awareness of the connection between your substance use, unresolved trauma and offending and an acknowledgment that relapses have occurred at times of stress or loss. You also expressed a willingness to participate in treatment and recognised the role of your daughter as a protective factor. However, Ms Cidoni also states 'his limited emotional expression when discussing traumatic events suggests that while insight is developing, his capacity to process and integrate these experiences into change remains partial.'
Ms Cidoni assesses your overall risk of reoffending as moderate. She canvasses a range of static features which indicate a continuing vulnerability to relapse and impulsive conduct without structured intervention and close supervision. Although you have achieved stability and abstinence during remand, this is largely attributable to the containment and predictability of prison. She states, 'the transition back into the community will present substantial challenges, and without coordinated treatment, his risk of relapse and further offending would remain significant.' Protective factors include your current abstinence and ongoing family support. Ms Cidoni considers that your risk can be effectively managed with appropriate supervision and support, recommending the structure and oversight provide through a DATO. She recommends that ongoing counselling focus on trauma recovery, emotional regulation, and relapse prevention, supported by continued pharmacotherapy and participation in AOD services. With such measures in place, Ms Cidoni states that there is a reasonable prospect of long-term improvement and reduced risk of reoffending.
While you are not to be doubly punished for your prior criminal history, it is clearly relevant and does enhance the role of community protection and specific deterrence in the sentencing process. Your history also does suggest, as submitted by the prosecution, that you have not been deterred from criminal offending in the past.
The prosecution submit that your prospects are 'difficult to assess.' While there is evidence that you are developing insight into your personal circumstances demonstrated by your successful completion of courses during your period on remand, you also have a lengthy criminal history and have breached a number of previous court orders.
[9]
Both parties submit that a term of imprisonment is warranted for your offending and that it is open to the Court to find that such a term can be served by way of a DATO. Understandably the prosecution express some reservations.
Your Counsel submits that you are now 34 years of age and you are motivated to rehabilitate for your two young children, aged one and four. A DATO is an opportunity for you to have comprehensive treatment at a time where you are well positioned to benefit and commit to change. You have used your time in custody productively, having completed a number of course and monthly psychological appointments and also maintaining contact with your family.
In considering whether to impose a DATO, the Court must treat rehabilitation and community protection through rehabilitation as having greater importance than other sentencing considerations.
I have considered both the case management assessment report of 3 February 2026 and the clinical advisor report of 4 February 2026.
Both the case manager and clinical adviser were of the opinion that you would have satisfied diagnostic criteria for diagnoses of Substance Use Disorder (DSM-V) at the time of the initial offending, which was severe in nature and currently in sustained remission in a controlled environment. The case management report canvasses incidents in custody, which include a positive urine sample in March 2024 and June 2025. When discussing the prison incidents you were a poor historian and in relation to this screens stated that they were at the beginning of your remand and that there had not been any recent occurrences. The case manager expresses 'some reservations regarding [your] ability to engage and complete a DATO' given your history. She also notes your previous successful period of parole, 'which highlights [your] potential and capacity to engage in a DATO', and the protective factors of your family, including your sister, parents and 5 nephews.
During your assessment with the clinical adviser you discussed your previous DATO and stated that on that occasion you were only in the community for three weeks and 'didn't get a chance to benefit from it.' As for your most recent parole success you attributed this to ;'having had enough, had started working, moved areas and spent four years in prison.' You also explained that the gaps in your offending reflected periods of stable housing and employment. You reported wanting to be substance fee for yourself and your family and stated, 'I'm over it and I'm done and I need to do better.'
Both case manager and clinical adviser were satisfied that the treatment and supervision component of a DATO would be an appropriate intervention to address your substance use disorder.
Turning to s18Z criteria, there is no dispute, and on the material I am satisfied, that you have a drug dependency that contributed to the offending, a sentence not exceeding 4 years is open and a drug and alcohol treatment order is appropriate.
[10]
The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.
I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. I have taken into account the relevant sentencing landscape for offending of this nature, along with available sentencing statistics, noting their inherent limitations. I also take into account the principles of parsimony, proportionality and totality. Taking into account all the factors, including the temporal connection between the charges, I propose to make appropriate orders for concurrency. The sentence I impose must also ensure that the overall total sentence is a just and appropriate one.
You are convicted and you are placed on a drug and alcohol treatment order. The order commences today. The order has two parts to it, the treatment and supervision part and the custodial part.
The treatment and supervision part itself has two parts and they are as follows - the core conditions which are that:
You must not commit, whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment during the time that the order is in force.
You must attend the Drug Court when required by the Drug Court to do so.
You must report to Melbourne Drug Court House within two clear working days after the order is made. The requirement is that from here you will go straight to Drug Court House, and I will return to that in a moment.
You must undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependence as specified in the order or by the Drug Court.
You must report to and accept visits from members of the Drug Court.
You must give notice of any change of address within two clear working days before the change to a specified Drug Court officer.
You must not leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court.
You must obey all lawful instructions from the Drug Court team.
These core conditions will operate for 45 months, which is three years and nine months, or until further order.
The program conditions are as follows -
You must comply with the individualised treatment plan dated 2 March 2026 and which you will sign today.
You must submit to drug or alcohol testing specified in the order as directed.
You must submit to detoxification or other treatment specified in the order, whether or not residential in nature, as directed.
You must attend vocational, educational, employment or other programs as directed.
You must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed.
You must not cease prescribed pharmacotherapy without prior consultation with the Drug Court team.
You must not seek prescribed medications without prior consultation with the Drug Court team.
You must reside as directed by the Drug Court team or until further order.
You must comply with the curfew that you remain at the nominated address between 9.00 pm and 6.00 am. That curfew is required until further order.
You must do, or not do, anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning your drug and alcohol dependence and the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.
You must not use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation.
You must abstain from alcohol.
You must not drive a motor vehicle. I do not believe that you are licensed in any event, but it is also a condition of your order.
You must not attend gaming venues, including but not limited to Crown, TAB venues, RSLs or any other venue with slot machines.
You must not gamble online or via any smart device.
You must not access any online gaming platforms.
These program conditions will operate for two years or until further order.
Now, Mr Najib, you are familiar with drug and alcohol treatment orders having been on one, so you are familiar with how it works, yes.
ACCUSED: Yep.
HER HONOUR: And you understand the conditions that I have just read out. You are going to be given a document in a moment, you can read those, and I am going to ask you to sign it as well.
The conditions are many and they are also - that last one that I read out is quite broad, it allows us, that is the Drug Court, to adapt and change the conditions as perhaps your treatment needs and requirements might adapt and change as well. Do you understand.
ACCUSED: Yep.
HER HONOUR: On this document you will see that you sign to waving your rights of confidentiality of communication between the Drug Court and other treatment providers and government agencies. So that is you basically agreeing to information sharing between Drug Court and all of those agencies.
Usually, you would be able to say, no, it is my private business, on this order you are not entitled to say that. Information sharing is really important. Do you understand that.
ACCUSED: Yep.
HER HONOUR: So, I will have you sign that in a moment but while you are standing I will just complete the sentence.
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 the order, and as I have indicated, it is a period of 45 months, three years and nine months' imprisonment. This is not to be served unless the court orders this to occur.
The term is comprised of the following individual sentences:
Charge 1, which is the charge of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to a risk by driving, the rolled-up charge, you are convicted and sentenced to one year and 10 months' imprisonment.
Charge 2, damaging an emergency service vehicle, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
Charge 3, prohibited person possess firearm, convicted and sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment.
Charge 4, trafficking in a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment.
Charge 5, which is the possess drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
And Charge 6, which is also a possess drug of dependence, you are also convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
On the summary charges:
Charge 1, the related summary offence, failing to stop on police direction, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Related summary offence, Charge 10, deal with proceeds of crime, convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Charge 16, possess prohibited weapon, convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
And Charge 18, unlicensed driving, convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
They are all the summary offences, aren't they - thank you.
Now, orders for cumulation are as follows:
Charge 1 on the indictment is the base. On Charge 2, cumulation of five months. On Charge 3, cumulation of eight months. On Charge 4, cumulation of eight months. On summary offence Charge 1, cumulation of one month. And Charge 10, cumulation of one month.
The other sentences are to be served concurrently.
HER HONOUR: All right. I make the disposal - so that's a total of three years and nine months' imprisonment, 45 months. I make the disposal orders - there were two of them sought - in their terms unopposed.
I declare pursuant to s18 that Mr Najib has served 733 days as pre-sentence detention.
I indicate pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act that, but for his plea of guilty, I would have sentenced him to some five years and four months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and seven months.
Now, Mr Najib, can you stand again.
Have you had an opportunity to go through the individual treatment plan - have you looked at it with anybody or has anybody taken you through it on the telephone ‑ ‑ ‑
ACCUSED: Yeah, yeah.
HER HONOUR: So, first of all I'm going to have you look at this document again. If you have any questions, by all means ask, but what will be required of you is that you sign this document first - I'll place a tab where you need to sign it - and next that you sign the drug and alcohol treatment order. Can we have copies of that order provided to counsel, please. You will both be able to check it to ensure that it reflects what I have ordered.
So individualised treatment plan first requires a signature, second to that, the actual treatment order, but we will give counsel a moment to consider it.
MISS ERWIN: Just whilst that's being done, Your Honour, if I may raise the matter of licence disqualification.
MISS ERWIN: For Charge 1 and for Summary Charge 1, those attach mandatory licence disqualifications.
MISS ERWIN: Section 89(1) of the Sentencing Act in relation to Charge 1. Section 64A(3) of the Road Safety Act in relation to related summary Charge 1.
HER HONOUR: All right, what are the minimum terms - or there is no minimum term, it's just mandatory.
MISS ERWIN: Minimum term of Charge 1 is 24 months.
HER HONOUR: Okay.
MISS ERWIN: Minimum term for summary Charge 1 is six months. My understanding is that those mandatory terms can run concurrently to each other.
HER HONOUR: Yes, yes, that's right. Thank you, just give me one moment. I'm sorry, I overlooked that. While I'm doing that, do you agree ‑ ‑ ‑
MISS GRANT: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Any issue with that.
MISS GRANT: No.
HER HONOUR: No, okay. Do you have a copy of the documents. While I'm just checking this, could you approach Mr Najib so that he can sign first the individualised treatment plan and then next the order itself. Thank you.
Further, you seek a declaration that the offence was committed whilst under the influence of drugs, is that right.
MISS ERWIN: That's so, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Do you wish to be heard in relation to that, Miss Grant.
MISS GRANT: Your Honour, at this stage I'm not in a position to make any further submissions in relation to that.
HER HONOUR: Okay. Why don't I do this, just on that basis, wanting to ensure that you have had opportunity - I appreciate that you've really stepped into this at the last moment - I am inclined to make that, it seems to me that there is more than adequate factual foundation ‑ ‑ ‑
MISS GRANT: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: For me to be so satisfied. I'll defer though doing that, you can have an opportunity to reflect on your position, and I will give you until, I don't know, tomorrow ‑ ‑ ‑
MISS GRANT: Yes.
HER HONOUR: That can be added to the order perhaps at a later stage and made administratively. Do either of you have any issue with that - it's effectively a declaration pursuant to that section, but I'd be prepared to make it, I just want to ensure that fairness is provided.
MISS GRANT: Thank you, Your Honour, I appreciate that.
HER HONOUR: Any issue with that.
MISS ERWIN: No issue with that course, Your Honour. And just briefly while I'm on my feet, I'll just confirm, Your Honour should have two forfeiture orders and one disposal order.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MISS ERWIN: There was a separate forfeiture order for the firearm.
HER HONOUR: Yes, yes, I do have all of those. I'll make all of those orders. All of them were unopposed on the last occasion.
MISS ERWIN: That's so, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you. So Miss Grant if I leave that with you, by end of business tomorrow if you could please just convey by email what your position is in respect of that issue. So you understand what I'm saying, that is in relation to 89C(1), that is that the court should find on Charge 1 that it was committed while Mr Najib was under the influence of alcohol or a drug of dependence which contributed to the offending.
MISS GRANT: Yes, Your Honour, I'll send that correspondence.
HER HONOUR: Thank you. I propose, counsel, to interfere and that is disqualify Mr Najib from driving on Charge 1 for - I'm not going to exceed particularly given - there are no notices that were served or were there - any notices served or is the disqualification to commence as of today.
MISS ERWIN: As of today, Your Honour, I don't understand ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Bearing in mind that he's been on remand for a very substantial period of time, I'm not proposing to exceed the minimum terms. Do either of you wish to be heard.
MISS ERWIN: No, Your Honour.
MISS GRANT: No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: So it will be 24 months and six months. They will both operate today, they both operate concurrently. Mr Najib, that really means the following:
Number 1, the order itself says you cannot drive, but No.2, I have also disqualified you from driving for a total period - two periods, they operate together as of today, 24 months. You must not drive a vehicle, it's as simple as that, if you do you are going to be in breach of this order and committing a criminal offence - understood.