DPP v Phang & Anor [2026] VCC 347

County Court of Victoria|2026-03-10

Sentence (Phang): 13 years' imprisonment, non-parole period 9 years, s 6AAA 16 years non-parole 12 years, serious offender, serious drug offender

Sentence (Tautala): 5 years 9 months, non-parole period 3 years 6 months, s 6AAA 8 years, non-parole period 5 years

The basis of your plea is set out in the summary of prosecution opening dated 11 November 2025.
Fatusaele Tautala, you have pleaded guilty to

(a) Charge 1, trafficking a commercial quantity of BD over four months between April-August 2023,

(b) Charge 2, trafficking methylamphetamine over three months between June September‑ 2023, and

(c) Charge 3, conspiring over two days in July 2023 to commit an aggravated burglary.

The basis of your plea is set out in the summary of prosecution opening dated 12 November 2025, noting the typographical error detailing Charge 1 as Charge 2 and vice versa.
You have been prosecuted together as co-offenders in relation to trafficking methylamphetamine and BD largely because your offending was discovered during the one police operation.
While it may be accepted that you played a role, to a degree, in each other's offending, I will sentence each of you based only on the facts alleged against each of you specifically. I will not punish either of you on the basis of being complicit generally in the other's offending.

In September 2022 police started to investigate you both and others suspected of trafficking drugs in and around Shepparton. They monitored your communications and movements.

Mr Phang, over about 12 months between October 2022 and October 2023, you trafficked a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. Over that time, you are charged with having and have admitted engaging in 39 transactions involving 752.45 grams (mixed) of methylamphetamine (Charge 1). A Commercial quantity is 250 grams (mixed); a large commercial quantity is 750 grams (mixed).
Among those transactions, you arranged a sale to Mr Tautala of 28 grams on 30 April 2023, another of 7 grams on 4 May 2023, another of 3.5 grams via a third party on 6 August 2023, and you arranged for Mr Tautala to sell 0.5 gram to a third party, for a price you had set, on 12 August 2023.
Over about four months between 4 April 2023 and 14 August 2023, you trafficked a large commercial quantity of BD involving 12 transactions and 29.66 litres of that drug (Charge 2). A large commercial quantity of BD is 20 kilograms or about 20 litres.
Among those transactions, you sold Mr Tautala 1 litre on 12 April 2023, another litre on 30 April 2023, and on 13 August you had agreed to sell Mr Tautala 2 litres, but at the last minute it is said you discussed selling more to him.
Over about four months between 7 April 2023 and 13 August 2023, you trafficked a total of 42 grams of heroin in four transactions, including one at 14 grams and another at 28 grams (Charge 3). A traffickable quantity of heroin is 3 grams (mixed); a commercial quantity is 250 grams (mixed).
On 26 August 2026, you spoke with someone about buying hypophosphorous acid, a precursor chemical used to manufacture methylamphetamine. You agreed to pay $1,000 for 100 mils. While the evidence does not confirm the actual exchange, by your plea, you agree that you attempted to obtain it (Charge 4).

Mr Tautala, over about four months between April and September 2023, you sold 440 mils of BD in 12 transactions and during that time possessed for sale a commercial quantity of that drug (Charge 1). A commercial quantity of BD is 2 kilograms, or approximately 2 litres.
You disputed the total quantity of BD you possessed for sale. The prosecutor alleged that you had possessed over 7 litres during the charged period - 1 litre purchased from Mr Phang on 30 April, 2 litres purchased from a person named Lin on 17 July 2023, and 4 litres purchased from Phang on 13 August 2023.
You submitted that the evidence at best disclosed something over 2 litres. This, your counsel said, was largely because it is unclear whether you proceeded with the August purchase of 4 litres at all.
There was no dispute that you purchased 1 litre from Phang on 30 April. This is consistent with your sales during the following weeks. There was no substantial dispute over the alleged 2 litres that you purchased from Lin on 17 July. A review of the messages sent between you at pp323.384-402 reveal as much.
Ms Ollquist, I said in relation to Mr Phang, that there was a 2 litre - sorry a 1 litre on 30 April 2023, but the materials in relation to Mr Tautala suggest that there was an earlier purchase of 1 litre on 12 April. Are you aware of the circumstances of what was agreed? I am just bearing in mind that what I have said in relation to Mr Phang is different to what I have just said in relation to Mr Tautala. Mr Cescato, you might be able to assist.
MR CESCATO: Your Honour, can Your Honour just run the dates by me again please.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. So in the Phang opening, there was a transaction of selling 1 litre to Tautala on 12 April, and another litre on 30 April. Whereas in the Tautala summary there is 1 litre from Phang on 30 April, so the second of those two, and then a 2 litres purchased from a person called Lin on 17 July. Before I move into sentencing remarks, I will come back to you as to which is the basis upon which I should calculate the total for Mr Tautala. I am not worried about Mr Phang, but it might make a difference of about 1 litre for Mr Tautala.
MR CESCATO: I will just go through Mr Tautala's opening while Your Honour is speaking - - -
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
MR CESCATO: - - - and I'll get back to you, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: There was a challenge in relation to the 4 litres on 13 August, I am about to deal with that, but if you wouldn't mind checking the earlier quantities and who they came from.
As to the 4-litre purchase alleged on 13 August, your messages at pp323.651-660 disclose your discussion with Phang on that date. On a call at 3.07 pm (p323.651), he asked if you had any 'juice' and you said no. He replied 'I got two litre' and you asked how much and said that you had cash. You offered $325 a litre and Phang agreed to deliver it within half an hour. On a 3.40 pm call (p323.657), you asked where Phang was and told him to meet you at Maude Street.
On a subsequent call at 3.55 pm (p323.659), there was the following exchange, which the prosecutor alleges amounts to you increasing your order from 2 litres to 4 litres.

PHANG: AH, YOU NEED MORE, THREE MORE? YOU NEED ONLY TWO OR ONE - ONE, THREE

PHANG: NAH, NAH, NAH, I MEAN YOU - AH AH, AH MEANS, AH, I GOT FOUR - FOUR HERE.

PHANG: YEAH, SO YOU - YOU - YOU - YOU CAN (INAUDIBLE) NOW.

Significantly, the very next call at 4.06 pm (p323.660), shows that you had still not met with Phang. You had gone to unit No.1 at the Maude Street address, but Phang was not there. He then told you that he was at No.4, not No.1. I find that the truth of what was passing between you in these last two calls is confusing.
As I am unable to be certain that the only interpretation of the ones and fours in the 3.55 pm call related to litres of BD, I find that you had on that day only agreed to buy the 2 litres of BD, as revealed in the previous call at 3.07 pm.
I note that in the following days there was no dispute that on 15 August 2023, you sent a customer a message, 'I've got a fair bit of mls if you need any mls?' On 18 August you sent a message to another number saying, 'let me know if you need any mls.' On 19 August you offered to sell another customer 500 mils of 'drink'. This is all consistent with you taking delivery of a significant quantity of BD in the days previous.
I will break there. Ms Ollquist, are you clear about the 1 and the 2 litres that I mentioned provided by Phang?
MS OLLQUIST: As far as I can see, Your Honour, the summary is silent in relation to the 12 April transaction and I note that the indictment and the charge, the between dates start at 30 April.
MR CESCATO: Your Honour, my understanding is that those two amounts, the amount of the 1 litre on 30 April and the 2 litres on 17 July were context evidence, so they weren't included in the actual totals.
HIS HONOUR: So I should only proceed on 1 litre - sorry, what do you say the quantities before the August transaction that I should proceed on?
MR CESCATO: I have got the total here, Your Honour, just bear with me. I think it's 440 mils, Your Honour, that's the total I've got on the chart.
HIS HONOUR: That's the total sold, but in terms of possession for sale?
MR CESCATO: Possession for sale.
HIS HONOUR: This was the quantities - - -
MR CESCATO: Well those quantities are included in the possession for sale, I apologise.
HIS HONOUR: The 440 mils is included in the possession for sale.
MR CESCATO: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: But there was quite some discussion between the parties during the plea, there was a contested plea as to the 4 litres in August, for example, in the context of there being the earlier two supplies. So what do you say is the consequence flowing from the following paragraphs in your opening? Let me just get them.
MR CESCATO: My understanding is, Your Honour was required to make a ruling on that, because there was quite a substantial amount of argument, as Your Honour - - -
HIS HONOUR: And that was an argument in relation to the quantities possessed for sale.
MR CESCATO: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Not an argument about what was actually sold.
MR CESCATO: No, that's correct.
HIS HONOUR: And so we have on Charge 1, trafficking a commercial quantity of butanediol, paragraph 134, 'The prosecution case is that Tautala purchased 1 litre of 1,4-BD for the purposes of trafficking' and that relates to 30 April. And that was not a quantity that I understand Ms Pezzimenti took issue with.
MR CESCATO: Sorry, that was paragraph 134?
HIS HONOUR: Yes. And so do I simply take that 1 litre into account? And then we go to paragraph 145 and 146. The end of 146 says, 'The prosecution case is that Tautala purchased the 2 litres of 1,4‑Butanediol for the purposes of trafficking'. So that, added to the first 1, makes 3 litres.
MR CESCATO: Three, yes.
HIS HONOUR: And then we come to the 13 August question, which I have just dealt with at 150, and I found that there were only 2 litres possessed for sale as a result of that transaction.
MR CESCATO: So that would make a total of five on those three paragraphs.
HIS HONOUR: But are those, is the first litre on 30 April and the 2 litres on 17 July, what the Crown is proceeding on?
MR CESCATO: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: As opposed to 12 April litre as context from Mr Phang?
MR CESCATO: Just let me have a look at 12 April, Your Honour, pardon me.
HIS HONOUR: It doesn't appear in the Tautala opening.
MS OLLQUIST: Yes, it's silent and that was our opening - - -
MR CESCATO: If it doesn't appear in the opening, we can't rely on it, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you.
I do not believe that in relation to Mr Tautala's possession of BD for sale, that I referred to the 12 April 1 litre transaction, and I will not sentence on the basis of the 12 April transaction, it not having been alleged. I will continue to sentence on the basis of 1 litre possessed from 30 April, 2 litres on 17 July, and as I have just spelt out in my finding, only a further 2 litres from 13 August.
In those circumstances, I find that the total quantity of BD that you possessed, Mr Tautala, for sale during the charged period was 5 litres, not 7 litres.
As to Charge 2, over about three months between 13 June 2023 and 3 September 2023, you trafficked a total of 196.85 grams of methylamphetamine involving 48 transactions. You had sourced some of that drug from, or with the assistance, of Mr Phang. A traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine is 3 grams and a commercial quantity is 250 grams (mixed).
As to Charge 3, during that same period, over two days on 18-19 July 2023, you, Mr Tautala, agreed with a Mr Lim to commit an aggravated burglary. This related to a methylamphetamine deal gone wrong. You agreed to enter an address Lim gave you, with another person at least, and to bash those inside in order to take 2 kilograms of methylamphetamine that Lim said belonged to him. In return, initially he agreed you would get 125 grams of the drug as payment.
Late night on 18 July, you attended near the address only to find a significant police presence there. You left. A few hours later on 19 July, early in the morning, you bargained with Lim to take 500 grams of the drug to be recovered, in light of the risk of arrest.
Later again, Lim agreed to give you 1 kilogram of the methylamphetamine and half of any cash you found. This was because you said to him that in order to succeed you would need to get others, your 'two boys', involved. You assured Lim that you would go ahead later in the morning with the aggravated burglary. Ultimately, however, the plan did not go ahead. (Charge 3.)

Mr Phang, police arrested you on 7 October 2023 at a Cobram Motor Inn, where they seized drugs and numerous mobile phones and other items. When interviewed, you made no comment. You have remained in custody since.
Mr Tautala, police arrested you on 9 October 2023 and seized your phone. When interviewed, you denied the phone was yours and said you did not know the address of the planned aggravated burglary. You denied selling drugs and said none of the drug transactions actually occurred.
At your committal hearing on 26 June 2024, you both cross-examined police witnesses before being committed for trial.
You, Mr Tautala, were granted bail on 24 February 2025.
You both sought a case conference, which was conducted in this court on 22 August 2025 and then listed the case for a sentence indication hearing, but you both pleaded guilty on 25 September 2025 before any indication was given.
Upon entering a guilty plea and having made sentencing submissions, you Mr Tautala, were remanded again on 9 December 2025.
Your guilty pleas came relatively late in the proceedings for you both, your trial having been listed in October 2025. Nevertheless, your guilty plea has real utilitarian value - it avoided the cost, time and inconvenience of conducting a lengthy trial.
I accept to a very mild degree that your plea, Mr Phang, demonstrates a degree of acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Your counsel made no submission as to it reflecting remorse.
For you, Mr Tautala, I accept that your guilty plea is an acknowledgement of your responsibility and a willingness to cooperate with the court procedures, and given the time you have spent engaging properly in counselling and avoiding further offending, I accept that your plea and the other circumstances represents a mild degree of remorse.

You were born in Malaysia and have three brothers. You are not close with your siblings and, at age 17, you relocated to Singapore to find work. You had no contact with your family for around five years.
You relocated to Australia in your early 20s. You have had some contact with your parents, but not your siblings since.
You found work on a farm in Shepparton and studied English. You met your now wife in 2019 and have a son. Your wife expressed relief when you were arrested, hoping you would address your problems and stabilise your life. You were then 30 and unemployed.
As for drugs, you started using methylamphetamine at age 16 but stopped when you moved to Singapore. However, in mid-2021, aged 29, you say you resumed using that drug as a coping mechanism to relieve stress, in part due to losing work because of COVID-19.
In August 2021, you were sentenced to a community correction order for trafficking MDMA, possessing other drugs, burglary, theft and failing to answer bail among other offences. In June 2022 you were gaoled for two days for possessing methamphetamine, deception and breaching bail.
On 20 October 2022, four days before you commenced the offending in this case, you were placed on a CCO at Shepparton Magistrates' Court for trafficking methylamphetamine and BD and breaching your previous CCO. Each of your CCOs included conditions involving supervision and treatment for your addiction.
The offending in this case is more serious because it breaches that CCO.
On 11 December 2024, while on remand for this matter, a Magistrate sentenced you to one month for relatively minor offending and the CCO was cancelled. I will take that month into account when arriving at your total sentence.
In preparation for your plea hearing, psychologist Jane Bidjossian provided a report dated 5 November 2025 based on what you told her about your life (Exhibit P1). In it, she stated you demonstrated limited insight into the significance and effect of your offending as well as into your mental health needs. You admitted to seeing trafficking as a way to make quick money. You expressed regret for the effect your offending has had on you and your family.
With the assistance of brief assessment tools, it is suggested that you experienced mild depressive and anxiety symptoms relating primarily to your remand status, suggesting that being in custody will be more onerous for you and that your depressive symptoms will likely get worse while there. Unsurprisingly, the psychologist suggested that you have significant drug-related problems, which I accept. This evidence, I accept satisfied the conditions in the case of Verdins point 5, somewhat, but not Verdins 6.
Your risk of further general offending was found by the psychologist to be high, which in context, I also accept. You will need proportionate supervision and support on your release.
During your time on remand, you have completed five courses on taking stock and adapting to a better future (Exhibit P2).
You report not always having someone to speak to in your first language and I accept that you have been somewhat isolated. However, you have had twice weekly contact with your partner and have been able to participate satisfactorily in courses. You also work in the kitchen.
Your counsel also relied on Sentencing Advisory Council statistics on sentencing (Exhibit P3) and your remand history (Exhibit P4).
I note that you are not an Australian citizen and you expect to be removed from the country on your release. I accept that losing a chance to remain here and to pursue a life with your partner and child is a reality for you. I have taken this into account. I also accept that you will find it hard to remain in custody and not able to support your young family over the coming years.

You were 29 years old when you committed these offences.
You were born in New Zealand and you migrated to Australia with your family in 2001 when you were aged seven.
You completed Year 12 at school and then commenced work in fencing and a few years later as a concreter, where you worked up until the year before your arrest. You lost that job after refusing a work drug test knowing you would not pass.
You began using drugs at around age 18 socially with others at your football club. You played football well until you were about 26 when you were injured. Your mood then deteriorated and your drug use increased.
Around 2019-2020 your mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. This further aggravated your low mood. Since then, you have tended to isolate yourself from others.
In March 2022, you were before the Courts for the first time - you were fined for driving offences, including driving whilst affected by drugs. Then in July 2022, you were placed on a CCO for driving with drugs again, using a false name, having stolen goods, stealing a vehicle, possessing an imitation firearm and a controlled weapon. Conditions of that order included supervision and treatment for your drug use.
You were still on that CCO when your offending in this case started, which makes it worse.
After your release on bail in February 2025, you attended the Goulburn Valley Alcohol and Drug Services ('GVADS') Therapeutic Day Rehab program over an extended period from February until July 2025. Clinician, Therese Crosbie, stated that you attended all sessions, engaged in regular group therapy, complied with your individual treatment plan, and provided voluntary support to others (Exhibit T1). This bodes well for your future prospects.
In preparation for your sentencing, psychologist Carla Lechner provided two reports on you dated 21 November 2025 (Exhibit T2) and 5 February 2026 (Exhibit T3). She states that historically, you probably suffered with a major depressive disorder, but not currently. You now report low mood due to your remand status, which is likely an adjustment disorder, less than major depression.
I accept Ms Lechner's opinion, unchallenged as it was, that you likely suffered depressive symptoms during the period of your offending and I have given that mild-moderate weight only in calculating your sentence.
Whilst on bail for this offending you have engaged in Alcohol and Drug counselling with Goulburn Valley. You also commenced volunteering at the Salvation Army.
Numerous references have been filed on your behalf (Exhibit T4), including references from Reverend Ikinofo, Pastor Lester Malua, members of the Salvation Army, and from your Alcohol and Drug counselling practitioners with Goulburn Valley.
I accept that you are also not an Australian citizen and will face deportation to New Zealand upon release. I accept that you have made a life in Shepparton where you live with your family and that any such removal if it were to occur, will be hard on you. I have taken this into account when arriving at your sentence.

The maximum penalty for trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug is life imprisonment, and it carries a standard sentence of 16 years, which I take into account along with all other sentencing factors. It is a Category 1 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991.
Trafficking a commercial quantity of a drug has a maximum penalty of 25 years, and it is a Category 2 offence. For conspiring to commit an aggravated burglary, the maximum is 25 years. For trafficking a drug, it is 15 years. For attempting to possess a precursor chemical, it is two years.
Your role in and blameworthiness for your offending, Mr Phang, in my view is high. While it was conceded that you were not at the top of the hierarchy in your supply chain, I find nevertheless your role to have been a trusted one, if only because of the quantities you were dealing with. I also accept that you generally sold amounts of methamphetamine around the 28-gram mark, and that the transaction of 250 grams on one occasion was an outlier.
Your culpability is not reduced, however, because of your later-observed depressive symptoms, and whilst I do not accept that those symptoms will be made significantly worse by being in custody, I do accept that they will have a mild effect on you and how you experience prison on a day-to-day basis.
I find the gravity of your offending in trafficking drugs, Mr Tautala, to be less high, but still high. You trafficked in significant amounts over a significant period of months. Your blameworthiness was also moderately high albeit affected to a degree by your depressive symptoms.
Regarding trafficking in BD, in Sharbell v The Queen [2018] VSCA 324, the Court of Appeal considered what it observed to be the competing trends towards lower sentences for trafficking BD due to lower profitability and towards higher sentences for trafficking any drug in a commercial quantity. In that case, the claim of manifest excess against the sentence of four years for attempting to traffick about three times the commercial quantity of BD was held not to be reasonably arguable. I note, however, that the maximum penalty in Sharbell was 25 years and not life, and the standard sentence provisions did not apply. Of course, the later applying to large commercial quantities.
Mr Tautala, the gravity of your proposed aggravated burglary was significant. It was intended to involve a violent confrontation, involving yourself and at least one other associate of Mr Lim's, and it was aimed to achieve an underlying criminal purpose relating to serious drug trafficking.
You had an opportunity to cease your agreement, but as time went by that night, you doubled down, agreeing to get 'your boys' involved and to use what I interpret to be weapons. You bargained for an increased reward reflecting a proportionate increase in your commitment to achieve seriously criminal ends.
In sentencing for significant trafficking, general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment have great significance.
The period of your offending, Mr Phang, was considerable, that is over 12 months on Charge 1. For you, Mr Tautala, if was shorter, it was still significant over four to five months. The number of the transactions, the number of customers and the arrangements involved in your trafficking mean that you both need to be specifically deterred from further offending - more so you, Mr Phang. Less so you, Mr Tautala, including because of your good progress you made while on bail.
I have had regard to totality, particularly considering the common features of your offending with respect to each of your own offending, separate from each other, and I have considered parity between you as best as I can, albeit you are not exact co‑offenders for the same offending.
Mr Phang, I find your prospects for rehabilitation to be guarded. Your offending was more serious generally than Mr Tautala. You were his supplier and gave him directions at times about his offending. You have been sentenced twice before for trafficking drugs.
Mr Tautala, I accept that you have good prospects of rehabilitation. You engaged properly in the Day Rehab service over an extended period of months in 2025, showing considerable dedication to countering your reliance on both methylamphetamine and BD. I have taken this into account when assessing your sentence and particularly when fixing your non-parole period.
The prosecutor and your counsel, Mr Phang, agree that only a head sentence with a non-parole period is appropriate, and I agree.
However, counsel for you, Mr Tautala, and the prosecutor disagreed over whether a combination sentence taking into account the period you have already served, would be appropriate. Having considered all of the matters, in particular the seriousness and extent of your offending, I agree with the prosecutor. Only a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period is appropriate.
Counsel provided a number of comparative cases which of course are not binding as to sentence but assist me in assessing current sentencing practices and in the application of equal justice. I have read them and have had regard to others generally speaking by way of sentencing statistics and the collection of cases provided by the Judicial College.

Sentencing you, Mr Phang, I sentence you as follows:

On Charge 1, for trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, you are to be imprisoned for seven years.

On Charge 2, trafficking a large commercial quantity of BD, 10 years and I declare you to be a serious drug offender under s89DI of the Sentencing Act.

On Charge 4, attempting to possess a precursor chemical, 1 year.

On summary Charge 9, offending whilst on bail, you are convicted and discharged.

I sentence you on Charge 2 as a serious drug offender under Part 2A of the Sentencing Act.
Two years of the sentence on Charge 1 and one year of the sentence on Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 2.
Your total effective sentence is 13 years.
I fix a non-parole sentence of 9 years.
I declare you have served 857 days and direct that this be reckoned as time served under this sentence.
But for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you to 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years.
The prosecutor has sought a disposal order relating to various drug-related items and phones. It was unopposed and I make the order.

On Charge 1, trafficking a commercial quantity of 1,4‑Butanediol, three years and nine months.

On Charge 2, trafficking methylamphetamine, two years and six months.

On Charge 3, conspiring to commit an aggravated burglary, three years.

Nine months of the sentence on Charge 2 and one year three months of the sentence on Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 1.
Your total effective sentence is 5 years 9 months.
I fix a non-parole sentence of 3 years 6 months.
I declare that you have served 596 days and direct that this be reckoned as time served under this sentence.
But for your guilty plea, I would have sentenced you to 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Upon the provision of a draft forfeiture order for an amount of cash in the order of $600, your counsel, Mr Phang, agrees that I should make such an order. I will do so in chambers if the draft reflects those terms.
On the oral application by both counsel for the accused for a certificate under the Appeals Cost Act relating to the adjourned sentence listed for 330pm last Wednesday, I refuse the application given the adjourned hearing was short and late in the day.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (28 paragraphs)

Parties