DPP v Pace

(b) $225,000.00 in Australian currency from various locations in the address, including in bags, wallets and handbags and a safe. (Charge 3 - Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime)

(d) A zip-lock bag which contained seven (7) individually packaged brown coloured bags from a black satchel located in the lounge room. Contained within each of these bags was a zip-lock bag containing methylamphetamine. These packages contained 195.2 grams of methylamphetamine at 85% purity in total. (Charge 1 - Trafficking in a drug of dependence)

(e) Empty brown and black coloured deal bags located in the lounge room.

(f) A zip-lock bag containing 35 pink MDMA tablets weighing a total of 17.1grams located in a jewellery box found in the coffee table in the lounge room. (Charge 2 - Possession of a Drug of Dependence)

(g) Multiple mobile phones, electronic devices, jewellery and gold bullion were also seized.

(h) A hydraulic press and other surveillance camera and electronic items, and weights were located and seized from the storage cage attached to the apartment.

1. The total amount of drugs of dependence located at this property were:

195.2g (165.92g pure) (Charge 1 - Trafficking in a drug of dependence)

17.1g (Charge 2 - Possession of a Drug of Dependence)

1. Police conducted a record of interview with you on both the 24 February and 17 August 2023.
2. You gave a no comment record of interview on both occasions.

1. As part of the investigation into Mr Hung, you were observed assisting Mr Hung with his Trafficking Operation. You assisted his Trafficking Operation by:

(a) Possessing drugs and cash on behalf of the syndicate (as per the items located during the search warrant).

(i) In relation to the drugs located in your apartment. You possessed those drugs for the purpose of sale. Due to the nature of the operation, it is the prosecution case that you knew there was a traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine and MDMA in your apartment and intended to possess a traffickable quantity of those drugs.

(ii) In relation to the $225,000 cash located, you were aware of a substantial risk that those monies were the proceeds of crime, and, secondly, having regard to the circumstances known to you in relation to the syndicate, it was unjustifiable for you to take that risk.

(b) Moving and possessing drug related items on behalf of the syndicate.

(i) On 12 December 2022 at 7:51AM, observations from the City Road apartments identified you and an associate exit an apartment with a large black wrapped item in a trolley. You convey this item to the storage cage attached to the apartment on Level 7 via the lifts. This item was a 'Middlemaster' Hydraulic Press located by investigators during the search warrant.

(ii) From the storage cage, you removed a black plastic container/box with a yellow lid which you took with you back to the apartment approximately ten minutes later. This container/box was found to contain weights, surveillance cameras, gas bottles and metal plates during the search warrant.

(iii) At 10:31PM you took a safe and other boxes from your vehicle to your apartment.

(iv) On 22 December 2022 and 9 and 10 January 2023 you, along with Mr Hung and another associate, moved large luggage bags and large boxes in and out of your apartment.

(c) Collecting and moving money on behalf of the syndicate.

(i) At 6:38PM on 21 December 2023, you were intercepted in Deer Park while riding a motorcycle. During the intercept you admitted to using drugs and consented to a search where you were found in possession of approximately $10,000 in Australian currency and three mobile phones.

(ii) Between 30 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 you and Mr Hung travelled to Sydney and attended Star Casino. Over two days (the 3rd and 4th of January 2023), you made seven (7) chip exchanges for cash, which totalled $144,450.00.

(iii) On the 10th of February 2023, you remained out in the western suburbs (travelling in and around the Braybrook and Maidstone areas) until approximately 4:15AM. During this time, you made several calls which identified that you were attempting to recover debts in the area.

(d) Assisting with sales of Drugs of Dependence on behalf of the syndicate.

(i) On 7 February 2023 you had a conversation with a Alex Gibbons[3] during which Mr Gibbons complained about drugs he had purchased previously being poor quality (bad gear). He then sought to purchase different gear from you, that being heroin (hot) and/or methylamphetamine (cold) and attended your apartment that day.

(ii) On 13 February 2023 you had a conversation with a Alex Gibbons in relation to a sale of Heroin and Methylamphetamine. You spoke to Mr Hung about this sale and Mr Hung agreed to facilitate the sale to Gibbons from your apartment.

(iii) On 21 February 2023 you had a conversation with another associate about the sale of Heroin.

1. The threshold for trafficking CQ of methylamphetamine is 50 grams (pure) and 250 grams (mixed). The threshold for trafficking (simpliciter) methylamphetamine is 3 grams. The threshold for trafficking (simpliciter) 3,4 methylenedioxy-NMethylamphetamine (MDMA) is 3 grams.
2. I note that Mr Hung passed away while in custody on remand for these matters and at the hearing on 24 July 2025 the prosecutor outlined the outcome for others who had been charged in respect of this syndicate.

1. Your offending is serious as reflected by the maximum penalties. On charge 1 the maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment.
2. In Brian Gregory (a pseudonym) v. R[4] the Court of Appeal set out the manner in which trafficking charges should be approached by a sentencing judge. The sentencing regime for trafficking offences is quantity-based. While quantum is an important factor it is of course not the sole, determinative factor and there are other relevant considerations.
3. In your case, the mixed quantity of methylamphetamine was 78 percent of the threshold for a commercial quantity of that drug in a mixed form. The pure quantity of methylamphetamine involved was 3.3 times the threshold for a commercial quantity of that drug in a pure form. While your charge is put on a simpliciter basis and it is not suggested by the charge that you were aware of the purity of the drug, the actual weight of the drug involved and the purity levels are relevant to an assessment of the objective gravity of the offending.
4. The evidence before the Court clearly indicates that this was a large and extensive enterprise. Importantly, your charge is limited to one day. You are to be sentenced for possession for sale of the drug on a single date. However, the surrounding facts are relevant to your intention on the date of the charge and provide a relevant context to assess the nature of the offending and your role in it. Your offending was part of a larger, sophisticated criminal enterprise. Also, while the trafficking is confined to a day, it could not be said, nor is it put on your behalf, that your offending was an isolated incident or an aberration.
5. The prosecution submit, and I accept, that you did not maintain a 'lowly or minor role' in the trafficking operation. You dealt directly with the principal, Mr Hung. You were vested with a considerable degree of trust and your role was an active one. Also, your offending was not spontaneous or unplanned; you possessed the methylamphetamine, with the intention of selling it, as part of a broader, organised criminal activity.
6. On your behalf, your counsel submits, and I accept, that you were not in charge of this enterprise and that you were directed by Mr Hung. This does not appear to be in dispute between the parties. Also, you did not direct any others to traffick on your behalf.
7. As for your moral culpability for the offending the prosecution submit that your only motive for the offending was financial gain. Your Counsel did not dispute that your offending involved financial gain.
8. In respect of charge 2, you were in possession of 17.1 grams of MDMA which is 5.6 times the traffickable quantity. The prosecution accept that you were using MDMA at the time of your offending. However, they submit, and I accept, that having regard to the quantity of MDMA found and circumstances in which it was found, that, on balance, the Court cannot be satisfied that it was possessed solely for personal use or for some other purpose unrelated to trafficking[5].
9. On charge 3, the prosecution accept that the circumstances of the offence do not enable it to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that all of the funds belonged to you. Nor do the circumstances permit a finding of how or when all of the cash was deposited with you or what you knew, or did not know, about its origins. The prosecution concede that it cannot exclude the possibility that you were holding, at least part of the cash for, or on behalf of, Mr Hung or as part of the drug trafficking operation more broadly.
10. In those circumstances, the prosecution put charge 3 on the basis that:

(a) the cash was in fact the proceeds of crime, namely, drug trafficking; and

(b) you were reckless as to whether the cash was proceeds of crime, having regard to your involvement in, and knowledge of, the drug trafficking operation conducted by Mr Hung.

1. As clarified by the prosecution, the charge is founded on your possession of the cash. It is not alleged that you were engaged in 'money laundering.' Other than it being stored in your home there is no evidence that you concealed or disposed of proceeds of crime. There is no evidence that the dealing caused loss to another.
2. In assessing the gravity of the offence, quantum is a relevant, though not a determinative factor. Plainly $250,000 in cash derived from criminal activity is a significant amount of money. Your offending on this charge is confined to one day. The prosecution contend that your recklessness was of a 'high degree' and that it can be inferred from the quantum of the cash that a considerable degree of trust was placed in you. Your Counsel highlights that the charge is of recklessly dealing with the proceeds on one day and that you are not asserted to be the person who would benefit from the entire amount of the proceeds. That is, it is not itself evidence of enrichment in the same quantum as the cash.
3. Both Counsel have cautioned the Court as to the need to avoid the risk of double punishment, which arises with respect to charges 1 and 3. While it is not suggested that charge 3 is subsumed by the trafficking covered by charge 1, the prosecution relies on your possession of the cash as evidence of your financial motive and the scope of the drug trafficking enterprise, which bears upon the objective seriousness of charge 1.
4. At the time of your offending your Counsel submits that you were using multiple drugs daily. You had easy access to them as part of your trafficking activities and you were selling drugs to be able to fund your own use and also make money to live a lifestyle that matched your drug use. I will return to these matters shortly.

1. I take into account the history of the resolution of your matter, as outlined by Counsel. In all the circumstances, I consider that your plea, while not entered at the earliest opportunity, is a relatively early one. It entitles you to an important sentencing discount. Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value and indicates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice. I also accept that, coupled with other material before the Court, it is indicative of some remorse and developing insight on your part.

1. Your personal circumstances were canvassed by your Counsel and are outlined in the report of Dr Paul Grech of 4 April 2025. You were born in 1995 in Vietnam. You were 27 at the time of the offences and you are now 29 years of age. You migrated to Australia when you were approximately 12. By this stage your parents had separated so your father did not travel with the family. Your father had been abusive and physically violent towards you and your mother, although he apparently was not abusive towards your older brother, which was a source of considerable confusion for you growing up. Your father arrived later to Australia in 2015 on the sponsorship of your older brother.
2. The family first settled in Kensington before moving to the Western Suburbs. Your mother continues to work and currently works at a poultry factory as a machine operator. Growing up you lived with your mother and her new partner and his two children. This relationship ended approximately three years ago and your mother has remained single. Your older brother works as a carpenter and is married with two children.
3. You were initially enrolled in English school and then attended high school in Footscray. You entered High School at year 9 and found it very difficult to integrate given your lack of English and small social group. Recently you have been diagnosed with ADHD and it is suspected that this would have also played a role in the earlier difficulties you experienced in school.
4. Upon leaving school you stayed home a lot and you were not productively engaged. You have only had some brief and sporadic work including at a Chicken shop and in a farm. You ended up gravitating towards others with little direction and from there were introduced to drugs.
5. You first used methamphetamine when you were about 15 and used this sporadically on a social only basis for the next couple of years. You also first used cannabis around this time and you were also regularly drinking socially.
6. From the age of 18, you began using multiple drugs more regularly. You would use methamphetamine often, as well as cocaine and other 'party drugs.' Within a couple years, your methamphetamine use was most days. You tried to stop, including successfully during trips home to Vietnam, but you had never sought out proper treatment until after your remand in this matter.
7. You met your wife Susanna Huffman[6] in 2021. You have been together since and have one daughter aged 2.5 years old. You all live together with your mother who supports you by providing free accommodation.
8. In 2025, your daughter became unwell, and this has yet to be properly diagnosed. It has been a source of ongoing stress for you and your family.
9. You have been on bail now for over two years. Within this time you have had some periods of remaining drug free. You were abstinent at The Cottage and you were providing urine screens to show continued abstinence with Bail Safe. However, you continue to struggle with ongoing drug use. For most of your time on bail you have worked for your brother in a Joinery workshop which has allowed you to financially support your family.
10. In February of 2025 you contacted Dr Grech of your own accord, for assistance with low mood and anxiety. You had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and personality disorder and your GP commenced you on a Mental Health Care Plan. Dr Grech notes that there is a significant family medical and mental health history. Dr Grech states that you have been making progress in treatment, gradually opening up about your life, the precursors to your substance abuse and that plans are underway to trial you on medication in relation to your longstanding mood disorder. You have struggled to remain drug-free but have been attending regularly for appointments and availing yourself to cognitive behaviour therapy. Dr Grech considers that your history of trauma, mood disorder and most likely undiagnosed ADHD have been factors in relation to your gravitation towards substances and associated errant and criminal behaviours. He opines that you present with improving prospects of rehabilitation.
11. I take into account your personal circumstances and your history of struggle, abuse and dislocation (your counsel quoted Marrah v The Queen and accepted that these matters did not reach a point where Bugmy is enlivened).[7]
12. You have a relevant criminal history including for trafficking methylamphetamine and dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. Your prior history is relevant in particular to the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence however I do take into account that the most relevant entries are now somewhat dated.

1. Your Counsel also relied upon other factors in mitigation including the two month period you had spent at the Cottage residential facility. You were discharged early however all reports prior to that time had been supportive. As submitted by your Counsel I take this period into account and I assess it against what is known about the structure and limitations of the program. You will be credited for it consistent with the approach outlined in the case of Akoka v The Queen[8] .
2. Your Counsel also relied upon the prospect of deportation in your case. You are a permanent resident of Australia and not an Australian citizen. As already noted, you migrated to Australia when you were 12 years of age and all of your immediate family and connections are here in Australia. Your counsel relies on both limbs of deportation, namely:

(a) The prospect of deportation renders imprisonment and delay more onerous because the offender faces the prospect of deportation. This in turn may render their time in custody more difficult, and

(b) The deportation, should it occur, would constitute an additional (extra-curial) punishment because it destroys the opportunity to settle permanently in this country.

1. Your Counsel submits that the risk of deportation has been present in your mind for the entire duration of this matter, making your remand and delay more onerous than for an offender who is an Australian citizen. This hardship is increased by the fact that the loss of opportunity to settle for you would be harsh. If you were deported, you would lose the opportunity to settle in the only country you have ever called home as an adult. This is a substantial additional punishment. The prosecution accepts that these principles are engaged if a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more is within range.
2. I take these matters into account and I will return to them in a moment.
3. Your Counsel also relies on the delay in your case and I take this into account. The matter was very complex, with a voluminous brief, with multiple 'parts' within the brief and various accused charged. Your case has also taken some time to progress through the relevant Court processes.
4. Your Counsel submits, and I accept, that this matter has been hanging over your head for a considerable time, causing you stress. In particular, you fear imprisonment because it will remove him from your wife and young, unwell child, as well as potentially your home country.

Matters relevant to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Determination Hearing

1. On your behalf your Counsel submits that the Court should impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order ('DATO'). The prosecution submit that it is not open to the Court to sentence you to a DATO and in particular contend that the Court cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that your drug dependency 'contributed to the commission of the offence.'
2. The purposes of a DATO are outlined in s.18X of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act') and are to facilitate your rehabilitation, to take account of your drug or alcohol dependency and to reduce the level of criminality and health risks associated with this dependency. In considering whether to make such an Order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of the community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence. Given the nature of the offending, general deterrence and denunciation in particular, remain important considerations.
3. The criteria for the making of a DATO are set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991.
4. It is not disputed and I accept on the balance of probabilities that you were dependent on drugs at the time. I take into account your reported extensive history of drug use and also recent engagement in treatment, including residential treatment. I take into account the opinion of the Clinical Advisor (report of Krishna Jones, dated 3 July 2025) that you have satisfied diagnostic criteria for diagnoses of Substance Use Disorder at the time of your initial offending, which was severe in nature and not currently in remission given your reported ongoing use.
5. The letter of Ms Maria Hutchison (addiction counsellor) of 30 Mach 2023 states that given your history and pattern of drug use you would appear to meet the criteria for substance use disorder (poly-substance) as detailed in the Diagnostic and Statistical manual for Mental Health Disorders (DSM-5).
6. The dispute between the parties centres on whether the court can be satisfied, on balance, that your drug dependency 'contributed to the commission of the offence.'
7. The prosecution submit that while the words 'contributed to' are not defined, taking into account the ordinary meaning of the words and the policy underlying the DATO regime, the term imports notions of causation. They submit that while there is ample evidence of your dependency, the evidence of contribution, is lacking. The fact that you were dependent on drugs at the time is not sufficient to establish contribution. They also suggest that your history of gambling raises serious doubt about the proposition that you were involved in the offending for the purpose of feeding a drug addiction. They submit that other 'cogent and objective evidence' in the case points 'in the direction of a person who was motivated by profit and the accumulation of wealth, with drug use being a background or contextual factor.'
8. Your Counsel submits that the Court can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your drug dependency contributed to the commission of the offending. The offending is plainly related to drugs and drug use. You were working in a syndicate that trafficked the drug you used. You explained that your offending was to make money to fund your own habit. Your Counsel also notes that, while not binding or determinative, no issue was taken by the prosecution with this criteria at the earlier eligibility hearing.
9. I have had regard to all the submissions made by Counsel including the extensive submissions on this point made at the determination hearing on 24 July 2025.
10. In assessing the contribution criteria I take into account the policy objective of the DATO and the words of the relevant provision. The section does not qualify the level of 'contribution' and does not require the drug dependence to be the sole or dominant cause to the commission of the offence.
11. While you may have not provided a 'complete' or particularly detailed narrative of your offending you told the Case Manager during your assessment that you felt 'uncomfortable and ashamed', that you had coordinated everything by getting 'help from friends', that you 'did what [your] friend wanted [you] to do' and that you were trying to fund your 'drug habit.' On my assessment, other statements that you have made, as raised by the prosecution, do not contradict or sufficiently 'muddy' these representations, such that I cannot rely upon them.
12. In my assessment, I also take into account the nature of your offending, as already canvassed. While this was a large and extensive operation and you were clearly entrusted, you acted on direction. I again note that the proceeds charge is of recklessly dealing with the money and it is not asserted that you would benefit from its entire amounts. While it was not disputed, and it is an irresistible inference, that you acted for some financial gain, your offending is also consistent with funding your drug addiction, notwithstanding that it may not have been the sole cause, or that the financial rewards may have exceeded the financial burden of your dependence. I note that your dependence and addiction is an entrenched one that has also contributed to your prior offending. As you told the case manager, your criminal history is because of your 'drug habit' and finding means of funding it. In my view, a proper and common-sense analysis of your offending, having regard to your history, along with the statements you have made as to why you offended, leads me to the conclusion that your drug dependency contributed to your offending conduct, such that on the balance of probabilities, the contribution criteria is met in your case.
13. I accept, and there was no dispute between the parties, that there is adequate sentencing scope; that is, that a total effective sentence of 4 years or less is appropriate.
14. Pursuant to s.18Z(3) of the Act I must not make a DATO unless satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so. This involves a consideration of your suitability for an intensive order such as a DATO.
15. Initially, the prosecution submitted that a DATO was an inappropriate sentencing disposition in circumstances where you are liable to deportation. After further reflection and instructions, this position was not maintained. The prosecution referred to advice received by the Department of Home Affairs confirming that a drug and alcohol treatment order will not, in and of itself, trigger the mandatory visa cancellation provisions of the Migration Act. However, if the custodial component of the order is activated, or if sanctions requiring you to spend time in custody are imposed, you will or may be liable to mandatory cancellation under s.501(3A) of the Migration Act. If you remain in the community, you will not be liable to mandatory cancellation. As discussed at the hearings, there is a degree of speculation that remains. I have taken this factor into account in my instinctive synthesis and my assessment of suitability, particularly as it may be something that continues to weigh on you, but I do not consider that it renders you unsuitable for an order.
16. In my assessment as to whether an order is appropriate I have also considered the clinical advisor assessment and the case management assessment reports, both dated 3 July 2025.
17. You told the clinical advisor that you were motivated to undertake this order because you wanted an order to help keep you focused. The Clinical Advisor was satisfied that the treatment and supervision component of a DATO would be an appropriate intervention to address your substance use disorder however noting some concern relating to capacity issues and English not being your first language and that there may need to be some adaptations in the delivery of services. You told the case manager that you want to lead a life outside of the criminal justice system by 'trying to improve [yourself], get a job, not committing crime again because committing crime doesn't help [you].' You identified your main motivation as your young daughter, who is unwell. She confirmed that you lived with your mother and family in Derrimut and that this accommodation remains available, suitable and protective (footnote outside of the gazetted postcodes for a DATO). The worker spoke with your mother who also expressed no concern speaking with your team or the police should any concern arise and discussed her belief that you require support to address your ongoing substance use, stating 'please just help him in some way so he stops using.' You reported a willingness to engage in the DATO, and engaged with the assessor to implement an appropriate case and treatment plan. You were forthcoming with information, when speaking about your current situation and the need and want for treatment and addressing his criminogenic factors. The case manager ultimately found you suitable for a DATO with reservations, due to intensity of supervision and treatment required.
18. I have also had regard to the Individual Treatment Plan dated 2 July 2025 that was devised by the assessment team, in consultation with you.
19. While I consider that the only just and appropriate sentence in your case is a substantial term of imprisonment, a term of no more than four years can adequately reflect the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence, community protection and denunciation.
20. Relevant also to this issue is a broader consideration of your rehabilitative prospects**.** In this respect I have taken into account your relevant prior criminal history and the nature and extent of this offending. I also take into account the protective factors that weigh in your favour and also the real sustained efforts that you have made during your period on bail, including your engagement with Ms Hutchison, Dr Grech and your participation in the Cottage program and other programs, including BailSafe and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). I consider that you are motivated to make real life changes and to address your long-standing drug addiction. You told Ms Hutchison during your assessment, and before your admission to the Cottage, that you want to do things differently and want to quit drugs so you can be there for your daughter, in particular. You have attempted to stop using in the past but this has only been short-lived and you know you need more help to stop. The resources, supports, structure and specialist and targeted interventions offered on a DATO, I am satisfied, can help you achieve your long-term goal of abstinence and life change. The order will also help you take personal responsibility for your self-management and control.

1. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the only just and appropriate sentence in your case is a term of imprisonment. I also take into account the principles of parsimony, proportionality and, given the overlap between some of the offending, as already canvassed, totality.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. I have also considered the comparable cases referred to by the parties. These have offered guidance but of course each case needs to be determined on its own facts and circumstances.
3. Synthesising all relevant matters**,** you are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). This order commences today.
4. A DATO has two parts: the treatment and supervision part and the custodial part. The treatment and supervision part itself has two parts which are as follows:
5. The core conditions, which are that you (s.18ZF):

(a) must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment; and

(b) must attend the Drug Court when required by the Drug Court to do so; and

(c) must report to a Melbourne Drug Court House or other specified place within 2 clear working days after the order is made; and

(d) must undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court.

(e) report to an accept visits from a member(s) of the Drug Court.

(f) must give notice of any change of address within 2 clear working days before the change to a specified Drug Court officer,

(g) must not leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court.

(h) must obey all lawful instructions from the Drug Court Team.

1. The core conditions will operate for 2 years and 8 months or until further order.
2. The program conditions, are as follows:

(a) comply with the individualised treatment plan dated 2 July 2025 and signed by you on 8 September 2025.

(b) submit to drug or alcohol testing specified in the order as directed; and

(c) submit to detoxification or other treatment specified in the order (whether or not residential in nature) as directed; and

(d) attend vocational, educational, employment or other programs as directed; and

(e) submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed;

(f) participate in a neuropsychological assessment to assess for any cognitive issues, as directed; and

(g) reside at 43 Pembroke Crescent, Derrimut until further order or as directed otherwise;

(h) comply with a curfew that you remain at the nominated address between 9:00PM and 6:00AM. This curfew is required until further order.

(i) do or not do anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning:

(ii) the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.

(j) Not use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation.

(k) Abstain from alcohol.

(l) Not to drive or operate a motor vehicle.

(m) Also, you must not attend gaming venues, including but not limited to Crown, TAB venues, RSLs or any other venue with slot machines.

(n) You must not gamble online or via any smart device.

(o) You must not access any online gaming platforms.

1. These program conditions will operate for two years or until further Order.
2. The custodial part of the DATO is the term of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I not placed on an order, and it is a term of imprisonment of 32 months. This is not to be served unless the Court orders this to occur.

1. This term is comprised of the following individual sentences:
2. Charge 1 - traffick methylamphetamine on 24 February 2023,2 years, 3 months' imprisonment.
3. Charge 2 - possess 3,4-methylenedioxy-NMethylamphetamine (MDMA) on 24 February 2023,9 months' imprisonment.
4. Charge 3 - recklessly deal with proceeds of crime,$225,000 on 24 February 2023, 15 months' imprisonment.
5. Charge 1 is the base sentence and I cumulate 2 months on charge 2 and 3 months on charge 3, arriving at a total effective sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment.
6. Pursuant to s.18 I declare that you have served 49 days as pre-sentence detention.
7. Pursuant to s.6AAA but for your plea I would have sentenced you to 4 years imprisonment and imposed a NPP of 2 years and 7 months imprisonment.
8. I am deferring the making of any ancillary orders. In other words, there will be some other orders that attach but Counsel want an opportunity to discuss it.
9. Now if you can just take a seat, please. Actually, what I might have you do, you are on bail so there are no clearance forms required here. I might actually now, officer, I am going to have Mr Pace just come out of the dock and for him to take a seat at the Bar table. Okay, just take a seat next to your lawyer, please.
10. Now, the individual treatment plan, can we have that provided to counsel. You have a copy of it, I presume. You have had it probably for some time, haven't you.
11. COUNSEL: Yes, yes.
12. HER HONOUR: All right. Now, Mr Pace, tell me this, have you gone through this in recent days, this plan? Has anybody gone through it with you? Yes? All right, just one moment, sorry. Have you gone through the plan? Have you read through it or been reminded of the conditions recently?
13. OFFENDER: (Indistinct words.)
14. HER HONOUR: What is that?
15. MR BARKER: I think the answer is, not in the last few days. His answer was he's gone through it one time and I'm just, I'm telling you I haven't taken him through it in the last few days...
16. MR BARKER: I have taken him through it. I can also confirm my instructor took him through it last week as well. I just didn't know that until he reminded me of it.
17. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. All right, I will have that document please. While I am signing that, if we could provide copies to both counsel, please and the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order itself, a copy to be signed but also a copy to Mr Russell. Have a look at it, counsel.
18. MR RUSSELL: Thank you.
19. MR BARKER: I have no issue with that, Your Honour.
20. HER HONOUR: All right. Mr Russell.
21. MR RUSSELL: No, as a matter of practicality and I don't know if this is standard in this court, just the second last condition 'must not access any online gaming platforms'.
22. HER HONOUR: Yes.
23. MR RUSSELL: I don't know if that would apply to PlayStation, Xbox, I don't know if that's Your Honour's intention.
24. HER HONOUR: No.
25. MR RUSSELL: (Indistinct words) can be access online.
26. HER HONOUR: No, no, no, gaming.
27. MR RUSSELL: Your Honour means as in gambling, betting?
28. HER HONOUR: Yes. Yes, absolutely.
29. MR RUSSELL: I just want to make sure we're on the same page about what's intended by that
30. HER HONOUR: No, it's not, it's not gaming.
31. MR RUSSELL: No, (indistinct words)
32. HER HONOUR: No, no. No, no, and I'm not actually - I'm sorry. I'm not suggesting that it's not a proper matter to raise.
33. MR RUSSELL: Yes.
34. HER HONOUR: But to be very clear it's gambling
35. MR RUSSELL: Yes.
36. HER HONOUR: gaming venue or platform rather. I don't consider I need to change that, given its context. I'm really clear about that. It is not that this man can't game should he be so inclined.
37. MR RUSSELL: Yes. (Indistinct words.) Thank you for clarifying that.
38. HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. I must say with those provisions I am really always mindful, some of them, you have got to be as clear as you possibly can.
39. MR RUSSELL: Yes.
40. HER HONOUR: I absolutely accept that, and some can be quite far reaching, but I consider these terms are relatively confined and are clear.
41. MR RUSSELL: Yes, and read in context it makes perfect sense, yes.
42. HER HONOUR: Yes, that's right, that's right, thank you. Mr Barker, do you want to be heard in relation to that? I mean if there's a real importance
43. MR BARKER: No, it's an interesting point to raise.
44. HER HONOUR: It is, yes...
45. HER HONOUR: All right, and if we could have Mr Pace sign the document please. Thanks, all right now I have signed that document...
46. HER HONOUR: Thank you everybody.
47. MR BARKER: As Your Honour pleases.
48. OFFENDER: Thank you.

[4] [2017] VSCA 151.

[5] s.73(1) Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

[7] Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

[8] [2017] VSCA 214.