DPP v Reynolds

a) In the driveway, a black Holden sedan recorded as stolen on the police database which is the basis of Charge 4, theft. The black Holden sedan was bearing Queensland licence plates ending in W5, also recorded as stolen which is the basis of Charge 5, handle stolen goods. > > b) Inside the boot of the sedan: > > 1. two Victorian licence plates ending in 88 which had been reported to police as stolen and are the basis of Charge 7, handle stolen goods; > 2. a bag containing two Ziploc bags containing a white crystal substance.

1. In the garage, inside a Louis Vuitton bag on the floor - 1. a black pouch containing an electronic scale and two Ziploc bags of a white crystal substance; 2. a Ziploc bag containing black and white capsules and another containing a small amount of white crystal substance; 3. A small black plastic bottle containing a clear liquid; 4. an unfired .45 calibre cartridge ammunition which is part of summary Charge 21; 5. a plastic tub containing a brown jelly-like substance; 6. one gold chain; and 7. a Mt Franklin bottle containing a pink-coloured liquid.

d) In the upstairs bedrooms, items seized included the following: > > 1. a shoe box containing various ammunition, also the subject of the summary Charge 21 and two vials of testosterone which is the basis of Charge 6, possess drug of dependence on the indictment; and > 2. a Tommy Hilfiger satchel containing various ammunition, also part of summary Charge 21. > > e) In the upstairs lounge room, a Colt .45 calibre handgun containing a loaded magazine was under the couch. The handgun was unregistered and you were not licenced to possess any firearm under the Firearms Act. That is the basis of Charge 3, prohibited person possess firearm. > > f) In the downstairs lounge room: > > 1. was a brown Gucci brand bag containing a small Ziploc bag of white crystal substance; and > 2. a wallet containing $340 cash and proof of age card in your name.

8. You were conveyed to the Ringwood Police Station for a recorded interview and you provided no comment answers. Your mobile phone was subsequently analysed, identifying the extensive messages relating to trafficking drugs of dependence, relevantly summarising the schedule attached to the opening.
9. The very substances seized from your address was subsequently analysed and identified and is reported in a table at paragraph 17 of the opening - the total amount of methylamphetamine was 247.06 grams, 205 grams pure, and 16 grams of testosterone.
10. The seized handgun was subsequently analysed as follows:

a) the handgun was a .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol. > > b) It had a detachable box magazine with capacity for 11 cartridges. > > c) It's barrel measures 129 millimetres and had an overall length of 219 millimetres. > > d) It was capable of being discharged after being loaded by the normal method of applying pressure to the trigger. > > e) The accompanying magazine contained nine cartridges suitable for use with the pistol.

1. Your offending Mr Reynolds, individually and collectively, is plainly serious, as reflected in the maximum penalties. Your offending falls broadly within four different categories - recklessly exposing emergency workers to risk by driving, trafficking methylamphetamine, prohibited person possess firearm and dishonesty offences. It covers the period between 3 May to 12 June 2024. The offending is also aggravated by the fact that you were on a Community Correction Order at the relevant time, imposed on 31 January 2024 for similar offences.
2. Turning to Charge 1, the prosecution submit that the offence is objectively serious, taking into account that the charge is comprised of you swerving towards a moving vehicle. While the offending was brief, the potential consequences of the conduct was significant, noting that it occurred on a freeway at speed of around 100 kilometres per hour. The charge is also rolled up comprising two victims. While there are no Victim Impact Statements, there is evidence that the victims were in fear. Further, the offence is aggravated as you were disqualified from driving at the time and the vehicle was concealed by use of a false number plate.
3. Your counsel submits that while the driving placed other road users and the police at risk, the incident was of extremely short duration. Fortunately, contact was not made and there was no damage or injury that resulted. He submits that while your conduct was reckless and ill-considered, it is the type of manoeuvring one sees a reckless driver doing on the freeway all too often and is at the lower end of seriousness for this type of offence. Your offending bears no factual similarity to the cases referred to by the prosecution in their table of cases.
4. After the determination hearing, the Court was provided with a copy of the CCTV footage of the incident which it has now had an opportunity to watch. The footage captures the incident and shows your vehicle on the freeway, to use the words of the officers at the time, "swerving towards the police vehicle."
5. Your driving particularly at such speed was reckless and purposeful and placed two officers at risk. Your conduct was entirely unacceptable and general deterrence and denunciation loom large as sentencing objectives.
6. Also, your offending occurred while you were disqualified from driving and further, your vehicle was concealed by use of a false number plate.
7. While I have taken these factors into account in my assessment of this charge, I note that they are also the subject of separate charges and I have taken care to avoid double punishment.
8. I accept that your driving, the subject of Charge 1, was of short duration and can be contrasted to many of the cases cited by the prosecution which involve driving directly into police vehicles or incidents which were protracted and repeated.
9. While your offending is objectively grave, I accept that it does not sit at the high end of the scale of seriousness for such offending.
10. Turning to the drug offences, the legislation provides for a quantity-based regime; all things being equal, the greater the quantity the more serious the offence, though this is not the only or determinative factor. Other indicia of objective gravity are duration, role and profit.
11. Charge 2 is a between dates offence comprising a period of just over a month. You trafficked in the amount of 247.06 grams of methylamphetamine, which is just below the commercial quantity of 250 grams and is around 82 times the trafficable quantity of 3 grams.
12. The methylamphetamine was found across five different packages located in the garage and in the boot of the stolen Holden Commodore. The text messages indicate that you were selling bags of methylamphetamine for prices generally ranging from $2800 to $3400.
13. Your counsel submits that there was nothing sophisticated about the drug operation. It was transactional with you selling and "carving off a bit for yourself." He also notes that you have no history for drug trafficking, however, concedes that this is not a low-level example of trafficking simpliciter. In all the circumstances, I accept that Charge 2 represents a serious example of trafficking simpliciter. You trafficked in a substantial amount of drugs over a one month period. In terms of your role, as submitted by the prosecution, there is limited evidence of your role in the overall operation but it appears that you "must have played a relatively a low role in any larger network of traffickers."
14. As already noted, Charge 6 comprises 16 grams of testosterone located across two containers in your bedroom, which falls well below the small quantity amount.
15. Turning to the firearm offences, Charge 3 relates to a single handgun concealed under a couch, possession of a loaded and operable handgun in these circumstances is serious. As raised by the prosecution, the higher courts have emphasised that the use and possession of firearms is generally recognised as "a grave source of danger to society particularly in the context of drug trafficking."
16. In respect of Charge 21, various ammunition was found located throughout the house, in the garage and in your bedroom, hidden in a shoebox and satchel. While not precisely clear how many, as I just indicated to counsel, the photographs of the exhibits, at least Exhibit 23, indicates that there were at least a couple of Ziploc bags that contained ammunition.
17. In respect of the dishonesty offences, Charge 4 comprises of a stolen Holden Commodore. In respect of Charges 5 and 7, they are at the lower end of objective seriousness, but it is submitted by the prosecution, the gravamen lies in the means by which the stolen number plates were used to conceal the stolen vehicle and obscured detection of the trafficking operation as a whole. Your counsel submits that your offending occurred during an "incredibly unstable period of your life when you were addicted to drugs, associating with negative peers and ensconced in the drug milieu."
18. You told psychologist, Ms Sandra Cokorilo, after serving a lengthy custodial term and managing to obtain employment for a period, you relapsed into drug use and your use was the worst it had ever been.

1. You entered an early plea of guilty which entitles you to an important sentencing discount. Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value and represents a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your offending.
2. The prosecution submit that there is limited evidence of remorse, over and above the plea of guilty, and that the Drug Court reports raise concerns as to your level of insight.
3. Overall, I accept that you have expressed some remorse as indicated by your letter to the Court, however you would benefit from developing further insights and meaningful reflections into your offending behaviour.
4. Your counsel also relies upon the delay in your case finalising. I take into account the delay as outlined. I accept that you have had this matter and the uncertainty of the outcome hanging over your head since June 2024. I note the prosecution submission that the delay and it's impact is not referred to in the reports and that this may bear upon the appropriate weight that the factor should be given.

1. Your personal circumstances, Mr Reynolds, were canvassed by your counsel and in the psychological report of Ms Cokorilo of 10 July 2025. You have recently turned 32 years of age. Your parents separated when you were three and you remained in your mother's care. You have a younger sister with whom you have a good relationship. You describe your mother in positive terms and your relationship has overall been a close one and you identify her as your key source of support. You see your father infrequently. Your mother commenced a new relationship when you were between nine and 21 years of age and you describe this man as abusive and as trying to fracture your family relationships.
2. In terms of your education, you struggled reporting issues with literacy and numeracy and diagnosis of ADHD and dyslexia at age 12. You completed Year 10 and then undertook and completed a boilermaker apprenticeship. You also understood a truck awareness and safety course in 2020 and a Certificate III in personal training in 2023. You report being employed about 50 per cent of the time in various capacities including as a truck builder and manager, digger, personal trainer, boilermaker and retail assistant and you attribute periods of unemployment to your drug use.
3. You have had several intimate relationships, some thwarted by shared drug use. You report a positive three-year relationship with your current partner.
4. In terms of your history of drug use, while there has been some inconsistency as to your precise use, I am satisfied on the material that you have had an entrenched and serious drug problem now for many years. You told Ms Cokorilo that you commenced weekend use of ecstasy between the ages of 20 and 22, you began smoking methamphetamine on weekends from 18 and reported daily use since the age of 21. You have consumed cocaine 10 to 20 times over the past five years. Since the age of 26, you've been using GHB most days, noting increased daily use in the five months before you were remanded.
5. You describe to her using methylamphetamine to deal with depression, for energy and without it feeling overwhelmed. Ms Cokorilo considered that you present with symptoms consistent with Stimulant Use Disorder.
6. Ms Amanda Brown of Lamberti Associates also conducted a comprehensive Alcohol and Other Drugs Assessment in December of 2024. She outlines that you started using amphetamines for approximately a year at the age of 17 before moving to methamphetamine. Your use developed into a daily habit and escalated to up to two grams per day when you were around 20. Prior to your arrest, you report using between 1 and 2 grams per day. You have also used other drugs and at the age of 24 were introduced to GHB. Some four months prior to your arrest, you commenced using it daily.
7. With regard to your mental health, you described to Ms Cokorilo struggling with depression for years. You report being first diagnosed with depression, ADHD and dyslexia by a child psychologist, but you never received medication. Then in 2019 to 2022, you were prescribed anti-depressant medication but stopped using them after two weeks as they made you tired. You also reported to Ms Cokorilo experiencing frequent nightmares in relation to an incident where you were shot by police in 2018 while driving a stolen vehicle. Ms Brown also notes that this incident appears to have had a profound impact on your progress in life.
8. Ms Cokorilo administered a range of psychological tests and questionnaires as outlined in her report. In conclusion, she found that you presented with symptoms consistent with ADHD, recurrent episodes of Major Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. She states at paragraph 66 that the presence of co-morbid Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder further complicates your presentation and undermines your general functioning by exacerbating your emotional dysregulation, hyper-arousal, working memory deficits and heightened susceptibility to maladaptive coping strategies. Your methamphetamine use also compounds these symptoms. Ms Cokorilo opines that continued imprisonment is likely to have a significant detrimental effect on your mental health.
9. During the interview with her, you presented as highly anxious, tense and on-edge. Your chronic hyper-arousal, emotional dysregulation, negative effect and rumination makes the volatile intense custodial environment more burdensome on you than an individual without your psychopathology.
10. On the basis of Ms Cokorilo's report, your counsel relies on Verdins limbs 5 and 6 as applying.[4] The prosecution submit that neither is enlivened on the evidentiary material and that you have been in custody for a significant period now, without suggestion of deteriorating mental health.
11. I accept that prison may be more burdensome for you than someone not presenting with your psychopathology and symptoms as canvassed by Ms Cokorilo. I do not consider that there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to enliven limb 6.
12. Mr Reynolds, you have an extensive and relevant criminal history and you have received a range of dispositions including custodial terms. You have a history of dishonesty offending, reckless conduct endangering serious injury in the context I was told of a police pursuit, weapons charges and a prior matter for prohibited person possess a firearm which formed part of an aggregate sentence of 150 days.

1. The prosecution submit that the nature of your offending, your extensive criminal history, the subsequent matters for which you have been dealt with, which included broadly similar offending, and a breach of a Community Correction Order, along with the reported prison incidents, do not cast positive light on your prospects of rehabilitation.
2. At the hearing of the matter and after provision of the report of Ms Brown, the prosecution conceded the dependence criteria was met for the making of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
3. As to the contribution criteria, they submit in respect of Charge 1 that the evidence is "fairly scant" and that there is nothing in the materials that would allow the court to reach the relevant evidentiary standard.
4. Further, they submit that it is not open to the Court to impose a sentence not exceeding four years. There are a range of charges and high need for cumulation particularly as between the driving incident and the drug and firearm charges. Also, they submit the Court cannot be satisfied an Order is appropriate in all of the circumstances.
5. Your counsel submits that it is open to the Court to draw the inference that your drug dependence contributed to the commission of all offences, including Charge 1. In all of the circumstances, the Court should infer that your attempts to intervene or to 'act as a decoy' was because you had been involved in nefarious transactions with the other vehicle and you did not want it intercepted. There is a "very strong inference that this is related to drug activity." Further, your counsel submits that even though the offending is serious and you have relevant priors, an appropriate sentence of no more than four years can be imposed in all of the circumstances. The concerns raised in the Drug Court reports as to your conduct in custody should be viewed in the context of the hostile and artificial nature of the prison environment and also against the fact that you do not have a criminal history for violence.

1. The purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are outlined in s18X of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('Sentencing Act') and are to facilitate your rehabilitation, take account of your drug or alcohol dependence and reduce the level of criminality and health risks associated with this dependence. 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 along with community protection remain important considerations.
2. The criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order is set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act. I have also had regard to the clinical advisor report and the case management report, both dated 20 October of last year. The clinical advisor report canvasses your substance use, including your recent use on remand. You reported unprescribed buprenorphine during your current period on remand. You stated that you would use it daily if accessible.
3. Prior to arrest, you identified methylamphetamine as your primary drug of concern amongst a pattern of intermittent polysubstance use, along, I note here, with GHB. In the month prior to your arrest, you report using approximately two to 2.5 grams of ice almost daily, and GHB often in conjunction with ice to reduce the amount of ice consumed.
4. You also reported using alcohol and cocaine. Your score of 38 out of 44 on the drug use disorders identification test indicates that you were likely to have been heavily dependent on drugs over the last 12 months prior to arrest and alcohol.
5. The advisor opines that it is likely that you would have satisfied diagnostic criteria for diagnosis of Stimulant Use Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder at the time of the initial offending which were severe in nature and are currently in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
6. You reported no previous engagement with a formal alcohol drug treatment. You reported approximately six months of abstinence in 2023 and of working and attending gym and doing pro-social activities. Things gradually deteriorated with you losing motivation to do anything and you relapsed into drug use. You expressed a clear and personal motivation to engage in alcohol and other drug treatment. You stated that you "want to break the cycle of the toxicity from the last 12 years" and articulated a strong desire to create a new and stable life.
7. A significant motivating factor was the relationship with your partner, as well as your mother and siblings. You are currently prescribed buprenorphine depo every three weeks under the management of Justice Health but expressed a wish to discontinue this upon release. Overall, you demonstrated partial insight into the impact of your mental health and your substance use behaviour. It is noted that you report being diagnosed with ADHD when you were younger, though no formal diagnosis could be found in the available documentation. The author concludes:

"His engagement with the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order program presents an opportunity to strengthen motivation, developing coping strategies and address underlying behavioural and emotional factors contributing to his offending and substance use."

1. She was satisfied that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order would be an appropriate intervention to address your Substance Use Disorder and that there are no significant concerns regarding your capacity to participate in it.
2. The case management report canvasses a range of matters including your forensic history and references three previous Community Correction Orders that were imposed and breached. In terms of the narrative of your current offending, you stated that they were "50/50 accurate." Overall, you reflected that the current charges were "fair", except the recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving.
3. You reflected the time leading up to the offending was 'the worst time of [your] life, depressed, tired and a million things to do... couldn't do anything."
4. You attributed the offending to substance use. The report documents five reported recent prison incidents between 14 January and 14 August 2025. One involved alleged property damage where no further action was taken; another an alleged assault against another prisoner where the matter was finalised upon the relocation of you and the other prisoner; swearing and making derogatory remarks towards an officer in response to being told not to wear certain attire which attracted a disciplinary hearing and reprimand; and one occasion where you provided a positive urine screen and another where you refused to provide a screen, both attracting small monetary penalties at a Governor's disciplinary hearing. You also have had five screens that have been negative for illicit substances.
5. You were questioned about some of these incidents. In regard to the incident involving the officer, you advise that he had been "rude" towards you. When you were challenged, as to how you would respond in the community if you had an issue, particularly by a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order Clinician, and you stated that there would be no issue. You were not able to identify, however, strategies outside of this and understandably the author refers to concerns should you be challenged on an order or experience conflict in the community.
6. You denied any Family Violence Intervention Orders, however explained that you have anger issues and that you get overwhelmed, frustrated and angry. You identified your mother, sister and nan as protective factors. Your motivation to engage with employment is also a protective factor, however the writer notes that this would be limited during Phase One on an Order. You do not have suitable accommodation on release and would require emergency accommodation.
7. The writer assessed you as unsuitable for an Order. While you have treatment needs, she held strong reservations regarding risk and also your tendency to minimise your actions. I have carefully considered these reports and all of the material before the Court.
8. Ms Cokorilo observes that from:

"a purely psychological perspective, a disposition which promotes engagement with integrated dual diagnosis treatment should be prioritised to facilitate sustained behavioural change".

1. She states that deterrence alone without targeting interventions is unlikely to facilitate meaningful rehabilitation and reduce your risk of recidivism. She considered that you appear genuine in your motivation to reform, noting also that you were abstinent for six months in 2023 following a court mandated episode of alcohol and other drug counselling. She undertook a risk assessment by considering your circumstances against empirical literature, as she outlines at paragraph 59 to 61 of her report. I note that within this assessment and her report, she did not specifically consider or refer to the alleged documented incidents in custody.
2. She assessed your risk of general reoffending as moderate, on the basis of your criminal history, history of stimulant use disorder, unemployment, involvement with antisocial peers, limited pro-social supports and outlets and ADHD and chronic depression and anxiety. However, she regards your risk factors as "amenable to treatment and could be managed through a combination of alcohol and other drug, psychological and potentially pharmacological interventions."
3. Ms Brown considered that you were candid in acknowledging your substance use. It was problematic and you were open to intervention. You stated to her many times throughout the assessment that you were "over it." You impressed with insight into your condition and the need for treatment. She considers that "with appropriate structure, support and treatment, his prospects for rehabilitation appear to be relatively good."
4. I take into account as a protective factor the family support that you have and I have considered the letters of your mother and aunt. It is clear that both women, and your mother is present in court today, I note, it is clear that both women offer their ongoing support of you and have observed that you are "ready to commit to real lasting change."
5. In your letter to the Court, you state "[you're] ready to engage fully in a rehabilitation program. [You've] matured and [you] genuinely want more out of life and the destructive cycle [you're] caught in." You conclude - "I am ready to face the challenge of change."
6. Consistent with this resolve, in custody recently you've completed all 10 modules of the Atlas program which involves participating in over 20 hours of practical workshops targeting wellbeing and personal development.
7. Turning now to the specific criteria, between the parties it is not disputed and I accept on balance, that you were dependent on drugs at the time. In assessing the contribution criteria, I take into account the policy objective of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order 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. In all the circumstances on balance, I am satisfied that your drug dependence contributed to the commission of the offences. As reported, you were heavily using substances in the immediate lead-up to your offending and you were assessed as likely being heavily dependent on drugs over the 12-month period prior to your arrest.
8. As already noted, I accept that you trafficked in drugs at least to partly fund your own addiction and I accept that the items found in your home are largely consistent with this.
9. In respect of Charge 1, which was committed on 3 May 2024, I accept that it is open to infer that you had likely engaged in drug transactional activity with the other vehicle as submitted by your counsel, notwithstanding that the Charge 2 trafficking charge does not cover or include this period.
10. In addition, I accept that during that relevant period and at the time of this offence, you were heavily using drugs which contributed to reckless, poor and non-consequential thinking and behaviours. You describe the driving offence to the case manager, though arguably with a degree of minimisation as "stupid behaviour on the drugs."
11. While this is not mitigating, these circumstances satisfy the Court on balance that your drug dependence contributed to the commission of this offence. The Court must impose the sentence of imprisonment that it would have imposed if it had not made a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. Notwithstanding the seriousness of your offending, I am satisfied that I would otherwise impose a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding four years.
12. As already canvassed earlier in these reasons, I have taken into account the objective gravity of your offending, the maximum penalties and the general sentencing landscape including the cases I was referred to in the sentencing statistics referred to, noting their inherent limitations.
13. I have taken into account the sentencing objectives, including the provenance of general deterrence, denunciation and community protection, particularly for offending involving reckless conduct towards emergency workers trafficking drugs and firearm offences.
14. I accept that there is a need for adequate cumulation as between the offending to reflect the separate criminality involved in each charge, however the principle of totality is also an important consideration in your case, particularly as it relates to the offending that largely arises from the execution of the search warrants on your home.
15. The task for the Court is to impose an appropriate sentence for each offence and to structure the sentence such that the overall sentence is just and appropriate to the totality of your offending behaviour.
16. Pursuant to s18Z(3) of the Sentencing Act, I must not make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order unless satisfied in all of the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so. This involves consideration of your suitability for an intensive order such as a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
17. On all the evidence, I consider that the Order is appropriate and can adequately reflect the denunciatory objectives of sentencing. While there are legitimate concerns raised as to your risk and insight, I accept that you have both the capacity and motivation to engage in an Order. Such an Order will assist in supporting you to develop further insight and challenge you on issues relating to minimisation and conflict resolution. Through the provision of specialist and targeted therapeutic interventions, it will support you, Mr Reynolds, in taking personal responsibility for your self-management. The Order is also rigorous and will ensure that you remain accountable for your actions. Having now served a lengthy period on remand, you will be placed on a significant order which will carry a substantial custodial component operative for up to several years. While the treatment and supervision order part of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order has a rehabilitative, rather than punitive, purpose, the core and program conditions of an order involve restrictions on a person's freedom and the imposition of a range of positive obligations, reflecting the onerous nature of the Order. So, Mr Reynolds, can you please stand.

1. Synthesising all factors, I consider that the only just and appropriate sentence in your case is a term of imprisonment. On all charges, excluding summary Charges 7 and 21, you are convicted and you are placed on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
2. The Order commences today. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order has two parts: the treatment and supervision part and the custodial part. The treatment and supervision part itself is two parts which are as follows:
3. The core conditions which are that you:
   1. Must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment;
   2. Must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment;
   3. must attend the Drug Court when required by the Drug Court to do so;
   4. must report to a Melbourne Drug Court House or other specified place within two clear working days after the order is made;
4. I pause there to note that from here, today, the requirement is that you attend at the Drug Court House so immediately from court to the Drug Court House. Okay?
5. OFFENDER: Yep.
6. HER HONOUR:
   1. Must undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependence as specified in the order or by the drug court;
   2. report to and accept visits from a member of the drug court;
   3. must give notice of any change of address within two clear working days before the change to a specified drug court officer.
   4. You must not leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court, you must obey all lawful instructions from the Drug Court team.
7. The core conditions will operate for a period of 47 months, which is three years and 11 months or until further order.
8. The programme conditions are as follows:
   1. That you comply with the individualised treatment plan dated 4 March 2026 and that you will sign today;
   2. Submit to drug or alcohol testing specified in the order as directed;

1. You must submit to detoxication or other treatment specified in the order, whether or not residential in nature is directed and you must attend vocational educational employment or other programs as directed, and you must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed and you must reside as directed by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment team or until further order.
2. You must comply with the curfew that you remain at your address between 9 pm and 6 am and this curfew is required until further order.
   1. 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.
   2. You must not use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation. You must abstain from alcohol, must not drive or operate a motor vehicle. Must not attend gaming venues, including but not limited to Crown, TAB venues, RSLs or any other venue with slot machines, must not gamble online or via any Smart device, must not access any online gaming platform. These program conditions will operate for two years or until further order.

1. In signing this Order Mr Reynolds, you are waiving all rights of confidentiality in respect of communications between the drug court and various government providers and you will see that on the order. Okay, so ordinarily Mr Reynolds, you might say, or you might be able to say "I don't want you to speak to my doctor or to a government agency, that's my private business." On this Order, you are waiving that. In other words, you are letting go of that information sharing between your team and those bodies is important. Do you understand?
2. OFFENDER: Yep.
3. HER HONOUR: Okay. Also you would have heard conditions were about a number of conditions.
4. OFFENDER: Yes.
5. HER HONOUR: It is probably all a bit overwhelming, but there was one that was very broad. To do or not do matters that relate effectively to your dependence. That enables the drug court to adjust your order to continue to meet the requirements and your needs. Okay, so they are pretty broad provisions as well. They are very specific, but they also allow for flexibility. Do you understand?
6. OFFENDER: Yep, yes.
7. HER HONOUR: Now, 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 47 months. It is not to be served unless the court orders this to occur. So, the term is comprised of the following individual sentences and turning to those now.

1. On the charge of Charge 1, recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, one year and 10 months' imprisonment;
2. Charge 2, trafficking in a drug of dependence, two years and four months' imprisonment.
3. Charge 3, prohibited person possessing a firearm, one year and eight months' imprisonment.
4. Charge 4, theft, six months' imprisonment.
5. Charge 5, handling stolen goods, six months' imprisonment.
6. Charge 6, possess drug of dependence, two months' imprisonment.
7. Charge 7, handling stolen goods, six months' imprisonment.
8. Summary Charges 7, displaying correct number plate which is only punishable by a fine, convicted and fined $200.
9. Charge 8, drive whilst disqualified, seven days' imprisonment.
10. Charge 21, possess cartridge ammunition without a licence, convicted and fined $800.
11. Orders for cumulation as follows: The base sentence is Charge 2 on the indictment. Charge 1, I cumulate 10 months. Charge 3, six months. Charge 4, one month. Charge 5, one month. Charge 7, one month and the remaining sentences to be clear, are to be served concurrently. That should arrive at three years and 11 months which is 47 months' imprisonment.
12. Mr Reynolds, you can take a seat for a moment and I will just give counsel an opportunity to check my numbers.
13. MR SLUCKI: From my perspective, it is 47 months.
14. MS SNOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
15. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. Pursuant to s18 I declare 609 days as pre-sentence detention. Pursuant to s6AAA had Mr Reynolds not entered a plea of guilty, I would have sentenced him to some four years and eight months with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.
16. Forfeiture and disposal orders were sought on the last occasion, and you can remind me, they were unopposed, weren't they?
17. MR SLUCKI: Yes, Your Honour.
18. HER HONOUR: I make them in the terms sought.
19. Charge 1, counsel agrees a serious motor vehicle offence within the meaning of s89BA of the Sentencing Act.
20. MR SLUCKI: Yes, Your Honour.
21. HER HONOUR: And that there is a mandatory disqualification period of 24 months.
22. Counsel, unless either of you want to address me because I can appreciate the focus of the determination hearing and the plea lay elsewhere, but I am not proposing to exceed the minimum term for a couple of reasons; one being that Mr Reynolds has been on remand now for a fairly significant period of time and it cannot be backdated. There's no notice to backdate this. Is that right; no notices have been served or anything of that nature that I should be told of?
23. MR SLUCKI: I do not believe so, Your Honour.
24. MS SNOOD: No, I don't believe so, Your Honour.
25. HER HONOUR: No, okay, so it is for that reason I am going to confine it. Do either of you wish to be heard?
26. MS SNOOD: The prosecution have no issue with that course.
27. MR SLUCKI: No, Your Honour.
28. HER HONOUR: No, okay. Mr Reynolds, just stand again please. Your licence, so it is a condition, you heard me read out a number of conditions of the order.
29. One is that you not drive a motor vehicle. In addition though, Charge 1 on your indictment carries a minimum mandatory term so I must interfere with your licence. I must do so for a period of 24 months and that is what I am doing today. You must not drive a motor vehicle. If you do, it is punishable by imprisonment, you will be charged, you will be in breach of this order.
30. OFFENDER: Yep.

[4] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.