DPP v Omer [2026] VCC 285

1. The summary of prosecution opening dated 19 December 2025 was tendered on your plea. The agreed factual basis upon which you are to be sentenced can be summarised as follows.
2. At the time of the offending you were aged 44, you were unemployed and you were living temporarily at 204/102 Stanley Street, West Melbourne.
3. At 4:37am on 3 August 2024, police were tasked to conduct a welfare check on an unknown male who had been heard screaming and groaning from your apartment. On their arrival, police were met by the male who had called Triple 0 and he let police into the building and informed the officers that he lived a couple of doors down and had called police out of concern given the noises he had heard from your apartment.
4. Police knocked on your door several times using a baton, without response.
5. Police asked the male for the building manager's name and phone number, which were provided. The police called two times, but the calls went unanswered. Police were able to discern that the lights in your apartment were on and held concerns for the welfare of the occupant. A further attempt to call the building manager was successful and police were provided the details of the person who would be able to allow them access to the apartment.
6. Remote access was eventually granted. Upon entry to your apartment, they eventually located you, unconscious on the floor in the bedroom at the rear of the apartment. Police spoke to you announcing their presence. You appeared drug effected and began to thrash and groan while on the floor. Victoria Ambulance presence was requested along with the assistance of further police members.
7. At 5:13am, further police officers were dispatched to attend the address. Police members observed various substances which appeared to be drugs, along with drug related paraphernalia around the apartment. Police continued to speak with you as you regained levels of consciousness, and you informed police that you had ingested an unknown quantity of GHB.
8. By the time ambulance officers arrived you had become more alert and coherent. They observed you to be drug effected, fidgety and restless. You refused treatment and refused transport to hospital. You were advised by the paramedics of risk of denying treatment following drug use. You continued to refuse medical assessment. Victoria Ambulance departed the scene, at which time you were arrested by the police.
9. At 10:17am on 3 August 2024, search warrants were obtained and executed at your address. A search of the premises took place, and various exhibits were photographed, located and seized. These items included numerous Ziploc bags of methylamphetamine, heroin, ketamine, prescriptions medications, a bottle of 1,4‑Butanediol, nine bottles of testosterone, three iPhones, an Apple watch, a notebook and cash totalling $24,395
10. You were taken to the Melbourne North police station for interview. You were charged and remanded.
11. On 27 February 2025, the drugs were analysed with the following results.

(a) The exhibits lodged containing crystalline substances tested positive for methylamphetamine with a weight of 444.7 grams;

(b) The exhibits lodged containing compressed white powder tested positive for diacetylmorphine (heroin) with a weight of 402.1 grams;

(c) The exhibits lodged containing viscous liquid tested positive for 1,4‑Butanediol with a weight of 604.9 grams; and

(d) The exhibit containing a Ziploc bag containing a white crystalline substance tested positive for ketamine with a weight of 15.9 grams.

1. Mr Omer, the offending you have pleaded guilty to is inherently serious, as indicated by the maximum penalties. Charges 1 and 2 are relevantly Category 2 offences, which mandate a term of imprisonment unless an offender falls within certain exceptions. No submission was made on your behalf that any exceptions apply.
2. The Court of Appeal has consistently stated that the sentencing regime for drug trafficking offences is quantity based and while the quantity trafficked is not determinative of the court's assessment of the objective gravity of the offence, it will always be of importance. All things being equal, the greater the quantity trafficked, cultivated, imported or attempted to be possessed, the more serious the offence. However, there are other important indicators of offence seriousness, such as the role of the offender, the duration of the offending and the motivation behind the offending.[1]
3. The Prosecutor submitted that the trafficking charges are objectively and profoundly serious. She argued that the multi‑drug inventory demonstrates large‑scale trafficking rather than personal use. In support of this, she pointed to the presence of drugs, proceeds, and paraphernalia throughout the premises, the pre‑packaging of drugs for distribution, and the existence of a tick‑book recording transactions in the thousands of dollars. She further noted that the quantities of methylamphetamine and heroin seized were substantial and far exceeded commercial‑quantity thresholds. In addition, more than $24,000 in cash was in a suitcase alongside a container of snap‑lock bags.
4. Your counsel, Mr Hall, acknowledged the seriousness of your offending, noting the well‑recognised harm that drug trafficking inflicts on the Victorian community. He submitted, however, that your trafficking activity was driven by your significant drug addiction rather than commercial motivation. He emphasised that the operation was conducted solely by you, without employees or associates, and that there were no additional or surrounding offences. He argued that you purchased large quantities of drugs because it was cheaper to do so, that your personal use was substantial, and that although you did on‑sell drugs, the enterprise was not ongoing. The scale of the trafficking, he submitted, was a function of the quantities you were consuming and acquiring, rather than a structured commercial venture.
5. I accept that your motivation was substantially driven by your need to fuel what can only be described as a ferocious drug addiction. However, you were found in possession of 444.7 grams of methylamphetamine being approximately 362 grams pure and 402.1 grams of heroin being approximately 285.4 grams pure. These amounts are several times the commercial quantity threshold and indicate serious trafficking on your part. In addition, you possessed 604 grams of 1,4-Butanediol and trafficked 15.9 grams of ketamine which you possessed for sale.
6. Although you are to be sentenced for trafficking on a single day and there is no evidence of a broader network, the cash located and the notebook entries clearly show that you were dealing in substantial quantities and operating a profitable trafficking enterprise. Your offending is therefore serious, your moral culpability is high. In matters of this kind, general deterrence and denunciation carry significant weight. Sentencing must reflect the grave harm these drugs inflict on the community and send a clear message to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

1. You were born in Melbourne and raised in Lalor. You are now 46 years old and have an older brother and sister. Your parents worked hard through their lives, they remain married, and they have been consistently supportive of you, attending court on several occasions and they are here against today. You enjoyed a stable and comfortable upbringing in a loving home.
2. You attended Lalor West Primary School and Epping Secondary College, completing Year 10. You began an electrical pre‑apprenticeship before specialising in heating and cooling installation, later working for an air‑conditioning supplier.
3. At 21, you moved out of your parents' home, built your own home, and established your first business, in heating and cooling. In 2005, you and your brother expanded into property development through Northern Carrington Developments. Although initially successful, the company was liquidated in 2014.
4. After around a decade of successful trading, your first business also entered financial decline in 2013 and was fully wound up by early 2016. You lost your property and eventually returned to your parents' home before intermittently staying with acquaintances and in an Airbnb, where you were living at the time of your arrest.
5. You have not married but have had several long relationships and you currently have a partner of four years, and although you have no children, you intend to start a family.
6. You have a long history of substance use beginning in your early teens. During your adolescence and early adulthood, when you were otherwise successful, your drug use was limited to occasional recreational use of cocaine and MDMA. Although not a full addiction at that stage, your use gradually escalated.
7. The collapse of your businesses was profoundly shameful for you and, in hindsight, the trigger for your methylamphetamine use in 2014. Your addiction to smoking methylamphetamine rapidly worsened your life and financial position, and you later incorporated GHB into your regular drug use.
8. Following the business failures, you attempted to secure work in the construction industry through professional contacts, but your addiction and drug‑testing requirements made steady employment unsustainable. To support yourself, you began trading drugs with acquaintances, eventually expanding the activity using your business skills to fund your addiction and lifestyle.
9. By the time of your arrest, your drug use had reached its peak. You were dependent on a dangerous combination of methylamphetamine and heavy GHB use, frequently overdosing - one such overdose leading to police involvement. You have remained abstinent since entering custody.

1. At your Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Determination Hearing, your counsel tendered a psychological report from Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 28 November 2025.
2. Dr Cunningham noted that you had a stable childhood with no history of abuse or trauma. You completed Year 10 without difficulty and entered the workforce, where you were regarded as capable and hardworking. You successfully operated your own heating and cooling business, and in 2010 you expanded into property development. However, both businesses struggled during difficult economic conditions and were ultimately liquidated in 2014.
3. In the context of the collapse of your businesses which was a devastating loss, you began using methylamphetamine as an escape. Dr Cunningham opined this history indicates an Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, a period marked by severe depressive symptoms and reckless, self‑destructive behaviour.
4. Dr Cunningham noted that you applied your business skills to your drug use, which deepened the difficulties from which you have since struggled to recover. In his view your drug abuse and association with drug‑using peers remain your primary offending risk factors. From a psychological perspective Dr Cunningham was of the opinion that you would benefit from a disposition that supports your rehabilitation. You demonstrated insight into the consequences of continued drug use and offending, and you acknowledged that, at 46, you cannot sustain such behaviour in the community. You expressed a desire for stability, a long‑term relationship and a family life. I accept the opinions of Dr Cunningham.

1. Your counsel, Mr Hall submitted that your early plea of guilty is of significant utilitarian value. You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity during the committal phase of proceedings. By doing so, you have spared the court the time and cost of a trial and have expedited the finalisation of this matter and so facilitated the course of justice. In the circumstances I have allowed a significant discount for your plea of guilty.

1. As to rehabilitation the Prosecution submitted that your prospects are guarded given your significant criminal history, previous community‑based orders, multiple periods of imprisonment, and prior driving and property offences.
2. Your counsel conceded your prospects were guarded but submitted that there were several factors that showed promise. These include: your early plea of guilty which indicates some remorse, abstinence from substances in custody and a reported desire to maintain sobriety. A long period in your early life that was not marred by excessive drug use or offending, the rehabilitative momentum you have accrued with the detox period remand has afforded you and the courses you have successfully completed whilst in custody.
3. I accept in circumstances where you have remained abstinent in custody, engaged in programs, maintained past employment, expressed a desire to stabilise your life upon release and enjoy the benefit of strong and ongoing family support, particularly from your parents, your prospects of rehabilitation are far from extinguished.

1. The basic purpose for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, denunciation, deterrence both specific and general and protection of the community and rehabilitation. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors such as the objective seriousness of your offending, your role in the offending, your culpability, any mitigating factors and your personal circumstances.
2. As I have said general deterrence and denunciation are prominent sentencing considerations in drug-related offences of this type and the law aims to address the damage caused by illicit drugs in various ways, particularly by targeting those responsible for their creation and distribution, who usually benefit financially at the expense of the health and wellbeing of individual drug users and communities.
3. In my view, specific deterrence retains importance in this sentencing exercise given your considerable and relevant prior history. Protection of the community is a principal purpose of sentencing in your circumstances and that is particularly so in relation to Charge 2.
4. Totality is an important consideration, given the number of charges and the fact that you were found on a single day in possession of a large quantity of different drugs. In my view, the orders I propose regarding cumulation appropriately reflect this principle.
5. The principles of proportionality and parsimony are also important considerations. They require me to make sure the punishment imposed fit the crimes committed and that I do no more than is necessary to punish you for your role in the offending. I have taken these principles into consideration in fixing the sentences I will now impose.
6. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act where relevant in your case. I have considered the sentencing statistics referred to by both counsel and I have had regard to the comparable cases relied upon by both the prosecution and your counsel.[2] It is difficult to gauge more than the sentencing landscape from these cases as each case obviously turns on its own facts, but they have been useful as a measure of current sentencing practices for the offending before the court. Cases where longer terms of imprisonment were imposed usually involved the offender having some greater participation in the offending, greater quantities of drugs and usually involved the offender having relevant prior history. However, as I have said, each case must be dealt with according to the factors unique to it.

1. Mr Omer, after consideration of what is the right penalty and balancing as best I can the nature and gravity of the circumstances of your offending, your moral culpability, with your previous character and prior convictions and all the factors raised on your behalf, I have determined the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment.
2. You are convicted on each of the charges before the court and Mr Omer you are sentenced as follows:
3. Charge 1 trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine you are sentenced to four years.
4. Charge 2 trafficking in a commercial quantity of heroin you are sentenced to four years.
5. Charge 3 trafficking in ketamine you are sentenced to 12 months.
6. Charge 4 possession of a drug of dependence 1'4-butanediol you are sentenced to four months.
7. Charge 5 possession of a drug of dependence testosterone you are sentenced to two months.
8. Charge 6 knowingly deal with proceeds of crime you are sentenced to 12 months.
9. The sentence imposed on Charge 1 is the base sentence, I order that six months of the sentence on Charge 2, and one month of the sentence on Charges 3 and 6 be served cumulatively. The total effective sentence is therefore one of four years and eight months.
10. I now turn to the issue of parole. The purpose of parole is to provide for mitigation of punishment in favour of rehabilitation through conditional release where appropriate. The non-parole period is the minimum term that I determine justice requires you must serve having regard to all the circumstances and I set that at two years 10 months.
11. Pursuant s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that you have served 586 days of pre-sentence detention and that will be deducted as time served.[3]
12. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a term of six years with a non-parole period of three years and 10 months.[4]

1. Upon sentencing you to imprisonment on Charge 1 your status changes to be one of a serious drug offender. This means that community protection becomes the predominant sentencing purpose, which I indicated earlier, that is it is a principal sentencing purpose in your particular circumstances. It also has an impact on concurrency and cumulation.
2. Pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act, I cause to be entered into the records that for Charge 2 you are sentenced as a serious drug offender.[5] I note that every term of imprisonment imposed by a court on a serious drug offender for a relevant offence must, unless otherwise directed by the court, be served cumulatively on any sentence of imprisonment imposed on that offender, whether before or at the same time as that term.[6] That section must, however, give way to some extent to the principle of totality. The prosecutor I note did not seek a disproportionate sentence.
3. In relation to totality, I have had regard to the fact that this offending was over one day. The indictment relates to offences on 3 August 2024, where you had a significant amount of drugs in your possession for sale. That is what you are being dealt with for, there is a considerable overlap which is why I have determined the cumulation in the way that I have.
4. HER HONOUR: I make the orders for disposal and forfeiture sought by the Crown.

[1] Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151.

[2] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5.

[3] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 18.

[4] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.

[5] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6F.

[6] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6E.