DPP v Snyder

1. The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 2 July 2025 (Exhibit 1). At your Determination Hearing your Counsel confirmed that this document contained an admitted factual outline of your offending.
2. On 21 August 2018, as a result of your conviction for sexual offending, you were declared a registrable offender pursuant to the relevant provisions of the SORA, with your reporting obligations commencing upon your release from prison and the reporting period being for 15 years.
3. An initial Registered Sex Offender Interview was conducted with you on 3 August 2021. At that time, you were served with the relevant documentation which explained in full your reporting obligations, and those obligations were explained in detail to you to ensure that you understood these obligations. You signed an acknowledgement to this effect at the time.
4. About two years later, on 9 August 2023, you participated in a Registered Sex Offender interview with a member of Victoria Police. You confirmed your home address and phone number with police and again signed an acknowledgement of your understanding of the reporting obligations that you must abide by during your reporting period.
5. Pursuant to s14 of the SORA, you are subject to a requirement to make an initial report regarding various details, including the address at which you generally reside, the relevant details of any children with whom you have contact and relevant details with regard to any motor vehicle owned or generally driven by you. Pursuant to Division 2 of that Act you also have ongoing reporting obligations requiring you to report changes to various personal details.
6. Specific to your offending in this matter, you were required to report any contact with a child, any vehicles driven or intended to be driven by you for more than seven days in a 12-month period, any creation of a username intended to be used online and any secondary addresses where you slept or resided for more than seven nights in a 12-month period.
7. Charge 1 on the Indictment is a rolled-up charge of failing to report changes to locations where you generally resided between 1 January 2023 and 3 May 2024. Between those dates you stayed in excess of 40 nights at an address in Ballarat. Between 18 February 2023 and 17 February 2024, you stayed for a total of 20 nights at the RACV Goldfields Resort located in Creswick. You were required to report these changes within one day once you had stayed at these locations for more than seven days, whether consecutive or not. You did not report either of these changes to police.
8. Related Summary Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge relating to your failure to comply with your reporting obligations between 21 April 2023 and 9 November 2023, by failing to report the fact that you had hired four separate motor vehicles from three different hire companies, the details of which were set out at paragraph 13 of the Summary of Prosecution Opening.[2] Pursuant to your reporting obligations, you were required to report to police any vehicles that you had driven, or intended to drive, for more than seven days in a 12-month period. You did not report driving these vehicles in accordance with your reporting obligations.
9. Charge 2 on the Indictment is a rolled-up charge relating to your failure to report contact with children. Following a report made to Victoria Police, CCTV recordings were obtained from a location outside the Central Square Shopping Centre on Armstrong Street South in Ballarat from 6 November 2023 at approximately 11.30am. The CCTV footage showed you in the company of Ms Billie Purvis,[3] the partner of Daniel Voight,[4] a longtime friend of yours, and Ms Purvis' three-year-old son, Charlie Voight.[5] This is the first of two incidents referable to this charge. The second incident relates to 3 February 2024. At about 1.25am on that date you were intercepted by police in a black BMW in Redan. You were again in the company of Billie Purvis and her eldest son, 15- year-old Dane.[6] You were required to report both of these instances of contact within one day pursuant to your reporting obligations, yet you failed to report that you had contact with Charlie or Dane.
10. Charge 3 on the Indictment relates to your failure to report the creation of a TikTok account and username on 12 February 2024, contrary to your reporting obligations under the SORA. Pursuant to those reporting requirements you were required to report the creation of any username or identity intended to be used by you through the internet or other electronic communication service within seven days. You did not do so.
11. Charge 4 on the Indictment relates to trafficking by you in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine on 3 May 2024. Victoria Police monitored your movements from December 2023 until your arrest on 3 May 2024, while investigating a drug trafficking syndicate. You were observed to regularly travel from Ballarat to Bacchus Marsh and Ballan, mostly during the middle of the night, returning in the early hours of the morning. In the weeks before your arrest, you regularly travelled to an address in Tullamarine, which was associated with a known drug trafficker.
12. Shortly before 8.00am on 3 May 2024, you were observed driving your BMW motor vehicle before parking in your driveway. At the time, you were in the company of Ms Purvis' oldest child, who was then 19 years of age. At the time, you had your driver's licence suspended for a period of six months due to a speeding offence from 20 March 2024, as a result you were not permitted to drive a motor vehicle, hence your liability for the related summary charge of driving whilst suspended.
13. Police executed a search warrant enabling them to search your bedroom and your motor vehicle. Various items were located in your vehicle, including two mobile phones, an amount of Australian cash, two zip-lock bags containing 3.5 and 5.3 grams of methylamphetamine and one set of digital scales.
14. Your vehicle was seized and later further searched, at which point police located further drugs in an air vent compartment. One zip-lock bag was located which contained another zip-lock bag containing 165.5 grams of methylamphetamine at 84 per cent purity, another zip-lock bag containing 23 grams of methylamphetamine at 80 per cent purity, and one magnetised lockbox containing 21 zip-lock bags containing various small quantities of methylamphetamine. Later drug analysis confirmed that the total weight of the methylamphetamine was 217.8 grams with a purity on average of 83.1 per cent. The pure drug weight was 181 grams.
15. Seizure by police of your phone revealed photographs of drugs being sent to prospective buyers and various notes and tick sheets.
16. During the search of your premises, an unknown quantity of cannabis was located in a brown bag on a single bed within your bedroom. At your Determination Hearing on 3 July 2025, Ms Fleming, who then appeared to prosecute in this matter, indicated that the Prosecution was not in a position to dispute that this amount represented a small quantity for the purposes of sentencing.
17. When later interviewed by police, you essentially made admissions with regard to the driving offence and the possession of cannabis for your own personal use. You denied the trafficking allegation.
18. In relation to the SORA breaches, you told police that you did not believe that you had stayed more than seven consecutive nights at Seymour's on Lydiard. You had no explanation for failing to report three of the four hire cars. You provided context with regards to your friendship with Daniel Voight and his wife, Billie, and you told police, in relation to the two children referable to the charges, that you believed you were only required to report contact with a child if the child was a female under the age of 16.
19. You have remained in custody since the date of your arrest, a period of 480 days up to today.

Nature and gravity of your offending and your level of responsibility for it

1. As indicated by the Prosecution in submissions, the relevant maximum penalties for the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty, in particular the commercial quantity trafficking charge, reflects the seriousness of your offending.
2. Whilst you are certainly not to be punished twice in relation to your previous offending, the fact remains that your rather concerning criminal history is relevant to an assessment as to the nature and gravity of your current offending and your level of responsibility for it. You have a prior conviction for trafficking in a drug of dependence from 15 February 2017, for which you received a 12-month Community Correction Order. That you would again engage in a serious example of trafficking in a drug of dependence certainly elevates, in my view, your moral culpability for the current offending, as you must surely have known of the seriousness of this particular type of behaviour and the likely sanctions that would follow detection.
3. Likewise, your conviction dating from 16 October 2023, in relation to breaches of the SORA, which resulted in a purely work-based Community Correction Order, is relevant to an assessment with regard to the gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it.
4. Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, the Community Correction Order then imposed essentially expired upon the completion by you of the unpaid community work on 6 December 2023. Accordingly, you were not subject to the Community Correction Order at the time of the trafficking offence on 3 May 2024. However, to some degree, the fact that you were subject to a Community Correction Order for SORA breaches does aggravate the current SORA offending.
5. In relation to Charge 1 on the Indictment, you were subject to the Community Correction Order for a period of this offending.
6. In relation to Charge 2 on the Indictment, which involved contact with children, that offending commenced on 6 November 2023, a matter of weeks after you received the Community Correction Order at the Ballarat Magistrates Court on 16 October 2023 for SORA breaches. Whilst the offending referable to Charge 2 only partially overlaps the operative period of the Community Correction Order, the fact that you offended in a similar fashion so soon after receiving the Community Correction Order is indeed concerning.
7. The offending referable to Charge 3 on the Indictment post-dates the operative period of the Community Correction Order. A portion of the offending period referable to the related summary charge involving your unreported use of motor vehicles also partially overlaps with the operative period of the Community Correction Order.
8. In a global sense, given the significant sentence of imprisonment which was imposed in 2018 for the sex offending, and the fact that you had been subject to reporting requirements pursuant to the SORA for a considerable period of time, it is concerning that you failed to comply with your reporting requirements in a multitude of ways over relatively extended periods of time. This conduct represents a significant breach of a court order, that order being protective in nature, given the nature of your sex offending. It is vitally important that those who are subject to the SORA scheme fully comply with the reporting requirements for self-evident reasons.
9. However, as conceded by the Prosecution, the contraventions do not involve aggravating features such as the connection to sexual offending against children. I also accept, as pointed out by your Counsel, that SORA contraventions are regularly dealt with in the Magistrates' Court, reflecting in a general sense the level of seriousness of this particular type of offending.
10. In relation to the trafficking charge, as is often stated, sentencing in relation to trafficking is a quantity-based regime - all other things being equal, the greater the amount trafficked, the more serious the offending. The commercial quantity for methamphetamine is 50 grams pure. The quantity of methylamphetamine referable to the trafficking charge is 217.8 grams mixed or 181 grams pure, the latter quantity being 3.62 times the commercial quantity threshold. On any view, this must be viewed as a significant amount of methylamphetamine, albeit not as great as other commercial quantity trafficking cases regularly seen by the court. The trafficking charge is referable to a single date, though as indicated in the Prosecution Opening,[7] the broader context highlights your involvement in trafficking-related activities.
11. The prosecution in this case has accepted that your primary motivation for this offending was for financial gain in order to fund your drug addiction. Whilst this of course in no way excuses your conduct, it does contextualise your rationale for the offending and distinguishes you from offenders motivated purely by commercial gain.
12. Overall, your offending must, in my view, be seen as representing concerning examples of the relevant crimes and your culpability must be seen as high.

1. In gaining an understanding with regards to your personal history and circumstances, I have had regard to your Counsel's extensive written and oral submissions, the comprehensive Psychological Report from Jane Bidjossian dated 20 February 2025,[8] and the various Assessment Reports produced by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court.[9]
2. You are now 50 years of age. You have an older brother and two younger sisters, one of whom, Francis,[10] has been significantly involved in the previous hearings in relation to this matter, and I note is also here again today. It is clear that you are quite close to her. You have an elderly mother who still resides in Ballarat where you were born. She has age-related health issues.
3. It is of note that your criminal history, whilst concerning, commences in 2017 when you were aged 42. This is consistent with your self-report of your home environment being stable and positive during your younger years. Following the completion of your education, you commenced employment. At the age of 23, you moved to Queensland and worked with the Harvey Norman organisation for two years before returning to Ballarat and working in the area of concreting. There followed a pattern of moving between Queensland and Victoria until you ultimately settled in Ballarat, where you became a lead franchisee for several Harvey Norman stores.
4. Your introduction to the criminal justice system appears to have occurred in the context of you being unemployed and engaging in problematic use of methamphetamine. You have a history of cannabis use from your teenage years. You were exposed to amphetamine use socially in your 30s and you appear to have been introduced to methamphetamine initially by a previous partner at around the age of 34. Your own problematic use of this substance started at around the age of 40, when you ceased work for Harvey Norman. As indicated by your Counsel in written submissions,[11] by 2017 the methamphetamine use had a stronghold on you.
5. You have attributed your prior criminal history to problems associated with your substance use. Indeed, your first substantial prior conviction from 2017 relates to trafficking, possession and use of a drug of dependence for which you received a Community Correction Order.
6. A great deal of detail was provided in the 23-page psychological assessment report of Ms Bidjossian.[12] She details an extensive relationship history reported by you, including a relationship that commenced when you were aged 33, from which you have two children. Mutual substance use and other problematic behaviours appear to have been features of this relationship.
7. Your significant prior conviction dating from 2018, involving supplying a drug of dependence to a child, knowingly possess child abuse material, inviting a child to become involved in the production of child abuse material, contravention of Family Violence Intervention Orders and harass witness, relates to conduct in 2017 involving your 15-year-old stepdaughter, who is the daughter of your ex-partner. It appears that in the context of a growingly dysfunctional relationship with her, and in the context of methylamphetamine use, and in the context of personal difficulties of her daughter, you ultimately pleaded guilty to offending which included the provision by you of methamphetamine to her daughter and the exchanging of sexually suggestive photographs and text messages, followed by multiple instances of communications and contacts with her in contravention of relevant court orders.
8. On 21 August 2018, you received a total effective sentence of three years and 10 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. You successfully completed the parole component of this sentence between 11 August 2020 and 2 November 2021.
9. Whilst on parole, you undertook a Certificate III in Construction and were subsequently employed in the construction industry, ultimately holding a supervisory position with the Winslow Group for approximately two years. Following your loss of employment, which led to an unfair dismissal claim, you descended again into substance abuse.
10. According to Ms Bidjossian, in the period leading up to the current offending, you were significantly influenced by emotional distress stemming from your inability to see your children and difficulties dealing with your ex-partner, in that regard. During this time of emotional strain you turned again to methamphetamine as a way to avoid confronting the deep emotional distress associated with your situation. You reported using methamphetamine daily, which contributed to your decision to engage in criminal behaviour to sustain your substance use, including drug trafficking.
11. During your assessments with the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court clinicians, you reported a daily use of three grams of methamphetamine at around the time of the offending. You reported to Ms Bidjossian a daily use of four grams or more of methamphetamine.[13] Notwithstanding submissions made by the Prosecution with regard to this purported disparity, I do not regard any differences of account in this regard as being problematic.
12. You have generally reported to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court assessors, as well as Ms Bidjossian, essentially a level of misunderstanding and confusion with regard to your SORA reporting obligations. According to Ms Bidjossian, your failure to report various incidents to the SORA authorities appears to stem more from a lack of understanding and miscommunication rather than any intent to disregard the law. Across multiple charges you expressed genuine confusion about your reporting responsibilities.[14]
13. Having regard to your criminal history and experience with the SORA authorities, and the absence of any significant mental impairment revealed in Ms Bidjossian's report, I am rather sceptical with regard to your purported confusion regarding the SORA requirements. However, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was anything more nefarious involved in your SORA breaches.
14. Returning to Ms Bidjossian's report, she indicated[15] that you were likely suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time of the offending. You were also in the grips of a substance use disorder. Whilst given the interaction between these two disorders, there is not, in my view, any basis for any meaningful reduction in your moral culpability pursuant to Verdins Limb 1.[16] The comprehensive report of Ms Bidjossian is of course relevant as to a general understanding of your psychological make-up and underpinnings of the offending.

1. I will turn now to the matters relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The purposes of such an order are to facilitate your rehabilitation, to take account of your drug or alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminal activity associated with drug or alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency.[17]
2. Importantly, if I am considering making 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.
3. The criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991. Of relevance to this case, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs or alcohol and that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending now before me. I note that neither of these matters were controversial insofar as the Prosecution's position.
4. In order to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, I must be satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years. The Prosecution have maintained throughout these proceedings that it would not be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years, having regard in particular to the seriousness of your offending, current sentencing practices and in light of your criminal history.
5. In terms of the sentence that I would otherwise impose, I have already referred to the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it. The nature of your offending, in particular the commercial quantity trafficking, requires me to give appropriate attention to the sentencing purposes of denunciation and general deterrence. Trafficking methylamphetamine, particularly at the commercial quantity level, is concerningly prominent in the community and has caused untold grief to others. Your relevant criminal history means that any penalty I impose must appropriately reflect the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence. That is, any penalty should seek to deter you from further offending.
6. However, there are a number of significant mitigatory factors relevant to the sentencing exercise in your case.
7. As conceded by the Prosecution I am satisfied that you pleaded guilty to this offending at an early stage in proceedings, warranting a sentencing discount. Your early pleas of guilty do demonstrate, in my view, a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your actions.
8. Furthermore, there are expressions of remorse and a demonstration of insight in the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Case Management Assessment Report[18] and in the psychological report of Ms Bidjossian.[19] Whilst I have gleaned in a general sense a level of minimisation of responsibility with regard in particular to the SORA breaches, overall I am satisfied that you are remorseful for your conduct and appreciate the gravity of your offending. A further sentencing discount is warranted.
9. Whilst your criminal history, as I have noted, is concerning and indeed relevant to the sentencing exercise in the manner than I have described, it is to your credit that you attained the age of approximately 42 with an absence of any breaches of the criminal law. Notwithstanding obvious difficulties, you have demonstrated an ability to obtain and maintain productive employment. As evidenced by the bundle of certificates tendered at your Determination Hearing,[20] you appear to have used your extended period of time in custody, 480 days, productively. Importantly, you clearly have retained the love and support of members of your family, in particular your sister, Francis, who gave evidence on two occasions before me, on both occasions impressing me with her level of insight and motivation to provide meaningful assistance to you with regard to your ongoing rehabilitation upon release from prison.
10. In those circumstances, whilst your recovery is clearly linked to your willingness and ability to wholeheartedly embrace the specialist services relevant to your longstanding dependency issues, having regard in particular to your early pleas of guilty and expressions of remorse, I am satisfied that your prospects of rehabilitation, whilst not straightforward, are reasonable.
11. On the issue of current sentencing practices, Ms Fleming, who then appeared for the Prosecution in this case at the Determination Hearing, appropriately drew to my attention various sentencing decisions highlighting the seriousness, in particular, of the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity. Your Counsel also provided authorities in that regard. I was also taken to various decisions with regards to previous SORA breaches. I have read and considered all the authorities provided to me carefully.
12. There is a need, in my view, for a distinct penalty with regard to the SORA breaches and a level of cumulation would be appropriate given the distinct nature of the SORA breaches in contrast to the trafficking charge, subject as always to the overarching principle of totality.
13. In all the circumstances and having regard in particular to s18X(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which essentially establishes the primacy of rehabilitation as a sentencing purpose, I am satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years in your case.
14. I turn now to the final matter of relevance with regard to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. Pursuant to s18Z(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991, 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 is often referred to as the residual discretion.
15. In considering your suitability for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, I have of course carefully considered the various Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Assessment Reports which have been produced in this case.[21] According to Clinical Adviser, Terry Sequeira, in his report dated 26 May 2025,[22] you would have satisfied the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of stimulant use disorder at the time of the offending, which was severe in nature. Mr Sequeira indicated that he was satisfied that the treatment and supervision component of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order would be an appropriate intervention and that there are no significant concerns regarding your capacity to participate in such an order.
16. Mr Sequeira did raise some concerns with regard to the impact of your historic sex charges upon access to some alcohol and other drug services in the broader community, and some concerns with regard to, at least initial, access to your currently prescribed ADHD medication.
17. In her assessment, case manager, Louise Henderson, from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, found you suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, as indicated in her report dated 16 May 2025.[23] Due to some aspects relevant to the SORA breaches, your attitude with regards to these breaches and the potential impacts upon access to AOD treatment in the community, and potential risk from others on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, your suitability was expressed with reservations by Ms Henderson.
18. Given your problematic history of intimate relationships and the family violence context, a comprehensive family violence assessment was undertaken by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Family Violence Worker, Erica Beard, with her conclusions contained in her report dated 1 July 2025.[24] Ultimately, despite assessing you as having an elevated risk of family violence in accordance with the relevant framework and some issues with regard to the minimisation of your behaviour, you were, according to Ms Beard, child-focused and provided very realistic expectations around the possibility of reconnecting with your children in the future. You were aware that such reconnecting efforts will need to be endorsed and approved by the relevant authorities. You acknowledged that you will need to abstain from substance use in the community.
19. Ms Beard recommended monitoring, information sharing and safety planning on a continual basis, should you be placed on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, in order to appropriately manage your family violence risk.
20. There were some delays associated with the finalisation of your case in relation to the impacts of your proposed accommodation with your sister and her family in Camberwell, and the impacts upon your SORA obligations and any resulting investigations by the authorities with regard to children residing at the Camberwell address.
21. I do not now intend to relitigate or repeat the extensive submissions relevant to this issue. However, having heard evidence on two occasions from your sister, I am satisfied that the proposed arrangement for you to reside in her family home is an appropriate and protective one in the circumstances.
22. I am satisfied that your sister is fully cognisant of matters relevant to your offending history and the current offending, has a good understanding of the rigours of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and has essentially provided informed consent for you to reside at the family home notwithstanding the notifications and potential investigations that may follow by the authorities.
23. Your sister has impressed me as being particularly motivated with regard to your reintegration into the community and appropriate compliance with the rigours of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order on your part. She has expressed a willingness to be involved in aspects of your Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, which is very much to her credit.
24. At my direction, a further Addendum Report was provided by Case Manager, Louise Henderson, dated 14 August 2025,[25] where Ms Henderson set out various aspects of this issue. Whilst not ideal, there is the capacity for you to be placed into emergency accommodation on a temporary basis whilst the appropriate investigations take place. According to Ms Henderson she has spoken with your sister who has confirmed that she maintains support of you residing with her in these circumstances.
25. I have carefully considered the broader circumstances of your case given the complexities associated with your history of sex offending and your current and ongoing SORA obligations. You have now been in custody for 480 days. In my view, the proposed arrangements in the community are appropriate and, to put it bluntly, now is the time for you to be released into the community with appropriate monitoring, supervision and a significant level of accountability in the form of a carefully constructed Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
26. Mr Snyder, would you please stand.

1. On Charge 5 on the Indictment, possession of cannabis, you are convicted and fined $200.
2. On the related Summary Offence of driving whilst suspended, you are convicted and fined $500.
3. In relation to all other charges, you are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. This order commences today.
4. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order 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:

a) you must not commit, whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment during the time the order is in force; > > b) you must attend Drug Court when required by the court to do so; > > c) you must report to the Melbourne Drug Court House within two clear working days after the order is imposed; > > d) you must report to and accept visits from the members of the Drug Court; > > e) you must undergo treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court; > > f) you must give notice of any change of address at least two clear working days before the change, to a specified Drug Court officer; > > g) you are not to leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court; and > > h) you are to obey all lawful instructions and directions from the Drug Court team.

6. These core conditions will operate for three years and six months, or until further order.
7. The program conditions, which are that:

a) you comply with the Individual Treatment Plan dated 22 August 2025 and signed by you this day; > > b) you must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed; > > c) you must submit to detoxification or other treatments specified in the order as directed; > > d) you must attend vocational, educational and employment programs as directed; > > e) you must submit to medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment as directed; > > f) you must reside at [address omitted] Camberwell; > > g) you must comply with a curfew that you remain at your address between the hours of 9.00pm and 6.00am; > > h) you are not to attend the City of Ballarat, unless in the company of your sister, Ms Francis Hopper, and for the sole purpose of visiting your mother;

1. you are not to use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;

j) you are to abstain from alcohol; > > k) you must not drive a motor vehicle;

1. you must engage with the Family Violence Social Support Worker in relation to family violence issues;

m) you are to do, or not do, anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning your drug and alcohol dependency and the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.

8. These program conditions will operate for two years or until further order.
9. 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 a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, and it is a term of imprisonment of three years and six months. That is made up as follows:

a) On Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the Indictment and related Summary Charge 1, an aggregate sentence of six months, three months of which will be cumulative upon the other term of imprisonment. > > b) On Charge 4 on the Indictment, trafficking in a commercial quantity, three years and three months' imprisonment.

10. This will make a total effective term of three years and six months, not to be served until further order.
11. I have decided to exercise my discretion not to make an order on your driver's licence pursuant to the Road Safety Act 1986.
12. Pursuant to s18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have served 480 days of pre-sentence detention.
13. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and 10 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months.
14. Finally, I make the disposal order with regards to the drugs and paraphernalia described earlier in the proceedings.
15. Take a seat for a moment Mr Snyder.
16. Firstly, Ms Worrell, any issues or ambiguities.
17. MS WORRELL: No, Your Honour, thank you.
18. HIS HONOUR: The same question to you Ms Lyons.
19. MS LYONS: Nothing further, Your Honour.

[16] The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

[17] s18X(1) Sentencing Act 1991