DPP v Toon [2025] VCC 1524

1. The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 19 August 2025.[1] Your counsel confirmed that this document contained an admitted factual outline of your offending.
2. Your offending can now be briefly summarised. At the time of your offending, you were aged 34 with no fixed address. You were residing in various hotels, including the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Southbank, with your partner at the time, ZS.
3. Your offending is comprised of three incidents.
4. The first incident took place on 21 March 2024. At about 7.00am on this day, you were driving a white Kia Sportage on Palermo Street in South Yarra. This vehicle had been rented from SIXT Car Rentals by ZS one week earlier. You were unlicensed at the time, hence your liability for related summary offence 1, unlicensed driving. You collided with a stationary vehicle. You were observed by a couple who were walking nearby, getting in and out of the car several times, taking two duffle bags out of the rear driver's side of the vehicle. Before walking away, you had a brief interaction with the couple, where you produced a driver's licence, which was photographed by the couple. That licence was in the name of another individual, with your photograph superimposed onto it. This forms the basis of Charge 1 on the Indictment, using a false document. Sometime after you had left the scene, police arrived. A search of the abandoned vehicle was conducted, and police located various stolen identification documents, including a driver's licence, a marine licence, three Medicare cards and a debit card. This forms the basis of Charge 2 on the Indictment, negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime. Various other personal documents in your name were also located in the vehicle.
5. The second incident took place approximately one month later, on 19 April 2024. On that day at around 6.00pm, a person whom I will refer to as "FH" parked their grey Sportage vehicle outside Nando's on Springvale Road in Springvale, and they went inside to get food whilst their partner and child remained in the vehicle. At this time, you entered the car park driving a grey Subaru vehicle, which had previously been rented from SIXT Car Rentals by ZS. You did not have a licence to drive at the time, hence your liability for the related Summary Offence 7, unlicensed driving. After the vehicle which you were driving entered the car park, it collided with the rear of FH's stationary vehicle, with the impact causing that vehicle to rotate. FH received a phone call from their partner, and FH ran outside. A bystander pointed you out, and by this time, you were out of your vehicle. When asked by FH why you had hit their car, you apologised. Their child was crying. Their partner used a phone to take a photograph of the driver's licence produced by you. That photograph was subsequently provided to police, who confirmed that whilst the driver's licence was in the name of another individual, your photograph had been superimposed onto it, hence your liability for Charge 7 on the indictment, using a false document. You left the scene on foot, prior to police attending the collision scene. When police commenced searching the vehicle, they located a black duffle bag inside the front passenger footwell, which contained bags with crystal-like substances inside. The vehicle was towed to the Dandenong Police Station for examination.
6. A search of the vehicle at the Dandenong Police Station revealed a number of items. Inside the black duffle bag, police located 365.5 grams of mixed substance and methylamphetamine across various bags, with purities ranging from 84 per cent to 90 per cent. This forms the basis of Charge 3 on the Indictment, trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. Police also located 24.9 grams of mixed substance and cocaine across various bags within the duffle bag, with purities ranging from 83 per cent to 86 per cent. This forms the basis of Charge 4 on the Indictment, trafficking in a drug of dependence. Police also located 5.3 grams of mixed substance and heroin across various bags within the duffle bag, with purities ranging from 71 per cent to 75 per cent, this forming the basis of Charge 5 on the Indictment, trafficking in a drug of dependence. In the centre console of the vehicle, police located 7 grams of Diazepam, this forming the basis of Charge 6 on the Indictment, possession of a drug of dependence. In the boot of the vehicle, police located a large amount of stolen identification documents, including 35 driver's licences, 20 bank cards, six Medicare cards and eight work or membership cards. This forms the basis of Charge 8 on the Indictment, negligently dealing with proceeds of crime. Police also located three mobile phones and a notebook containing a handful of drug transactions.
7. The third incident took place on 9 May 2024. At about 8.00am on this date, police executed a Search Warrant in a room that you and ZS had been sharing at the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Southbank. After gaining forced entry, you and ZS were located in bed, and you were arrested. A search of the room located a number of items. Inside a locked portable safe, police located 448.3 grams of mixed substance and methylamphetamine across various bags, with the purities ranging from 84 to 89 per cent, this forming the basis of Charge 9 on the Indictment, trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. Also, in the safe, police located 60.5 grams of MDMA across 100 pink and green pills, with a purity between 14 and 16 per cent, this forming the basis of Charge 10 on the Indictment, trafficking in a drug of dependence. Inside a shopping bag in the kitchenette of the hotel room, police located a water bottle containing 66.2 grams of 1,4-Butanediol, this forming the basis of Charge 11 on the Indictment, possession of a drug of dependence. Inside the apartment safe, police located two vials containing 114 grams of Drostanolone, an anabolic steroid, this forming the basis of Charge 12 on the Indictment, possession of a drug of dependence. On the bedside table of the apartment, police located a brown wallet which contained $1,500 in Australian currency, this forming the basis of related Summary Offence 21, dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime. On the bedside table, they also located a stolen Commonwealth Bank card in the name of another individual, this forming the basis of related Summary Offence 22, dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime. During the execution of the Search Warrant, police also located numerous clip seal bags, lists of names and other types of packaging.
8. Both yourself and ZS were arrested and transported to St Kilda Police Station, where you were both found to be unfit for interview due to the fact that you were withdrawing from drugs. Accordingly, no interview took place.
9. You have been in custody now since your arrest on 9 May 2024, a period of 471 days pre-sentence detention attributable to this matter.

Nature and gravity of the offending and your level of culpability for it

1. Your offending took place on three separate occasions in March, April and May 2024 respectively. Clearly, therefore, this was not isolated offending.
2. The first incident, which took place on 21 March 2024, is clearly the least serious of the three incidents. There is an obvious aspect of dishonesty with regard to your conduct on this occasion. You produced a false driver's licence, which prevented your identity from being ascertained following your role in the collision. The various stolen identification documents left in the vehicle after you left the scene, only add to the sense of dishonesty associated with this incident. I accept overall that the offences which form part of this incident are reasonably low-level examples of the offences in question. I also accept that there was a haphazard nature to your conduct, given that various personal documents in your own name were located in the vehicle which you had left behind.
3. The second and third incidents are by far the most serious matters to which you have pleaded guilty. They both involve serious drug related offending. In relation to both incidents, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, and trafficking simpliciter. The relevant maximum penalties for these offences, 25 years' imprisonment and 15 years' imprisonment respectively, reflect in a general sense the gravity of such criminality. In relation to the commercial quantity trafficking charges, the now well-known adverse impacts of methylamphetamine on the broader community means that individuals who choose to engage in trafficking significant quantities of this pernicious substance can expect significant punishment. The sentencing purposes of denunciation and general deterrence are prominent sentencing purposes in such cases. As is often stated, quantity is a highly relevant consideration in sentencing for trafficking offences. Other things being equal, the greater the quantity trafficked, the more serious the offence.[2]
4. In relation to the second incident, the trafficking charges are clearly founded upon your possession of various illicit substances for the purposes of sale. These substances were located in your vehicle, which you left at the scene after you collided with FH's vehicle in a car park in Springvale. This forms the basis of Charge 3 on the Indictment, trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamines, with the quantity of methylamphetamines located in the black duffle bag in the vehicle being 365.5 grams mixed, with a purity ranging from 84 to 90 per cent. Based on that minimum purity, you were in possession of at least 307 grams of pure methylamphetamine, which is well in excess of the commercial quantity threshold, and over halfway to a large commercial quantity.
5. The third incident also involves a commercial quantity trafficking charge, in relation to the 448.3 grams of mixed substance and methylamphetamine found inside a locked portable safe. Again, taking the lowest purity, you were in possession of at least 376 grams of pure methylamphetamine, which is well above the commercial quantity and around three-quarters of the way to a large commercial quantity. On any view, these must be seen as significant quantities of methylamphetamine, capable of causing enormous grief in the broader community.
6. In relation to both the second and third incidents, there are also associated trafficking simpliciter charges, albeit in relation to relatively modest quantities of the illicit drugs in question. In relation to both the second and third incidents, there were other items located by police which are reflective in my view of drug trafficking related activities - numerous mobile phones and a notebook containing drug transactions in relation to the second incident, and a quantity of cash, together with numerous clip seal bags and lists of names in relation to the third incident. Whilst the large amount of stolen identification documents found in the boot of the vehicle in relation to the second incident, and the stolen Commonwealth Bank card found in relation to the third incident, are in and of themselves quite concerning, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that these particular items were directly connected to your drug trafficking activities. Nor am I satisfied to the requisite level that the false driver's licences that you produced in relation to both collisions were directly connected to your drug trafficking activities. Nevertheless, whilst the possession for sale relates only to the dates referable to the second and third incidents, as conceded by your counsel in written submissions, the lack of distribution does not make the trafficking less serious, and you have also acknowledged essentially that you were in the business of trafficking.[3] I also agree with the Prosecution that a concerning aspect of these offences was your persistence in carrying on this drug business. You abandoned a rental vehicle on 19 April 2024, the date of the second incident, with a large quantity of methylamphetamine inside. In circumstances where you must have known that there was at least some risk of the drugs found being connected to you, you went on to possess an even larger amount of methylamphetamine less than three weeks later in relation to the third incident. This, in my view, shows determination and persistence on your part to offend in this serious manner, even whilst knowing of the risk of detection.
7. I accept, as submitted by your counsel, that there are several common aggravating features absent from your offending. There was no operational violence or intimidation - there were no weapons or firearm charges, there was no large amount of cash seized or other accoutrements of high-end trafficking with considerable profit, and overall there was no evidence of any great sophistication. There was also no evidence of significant enrichment. As pointed out by your counsel in written submissions, there is evidence in the materials that you were in debt at the time of the offending.
8. Overall, I regard the objective gravity of the offending captured by Charges 3 and 9 on the Indictment, commercial quantity trafficking, as approaching mid-range examples of those particular offences. As conceded by the Prosecution, the other drug charges all represent lower range examples of either trafficking or possession. Whilst the false document charges may well represent lower range examples of that particular offence, I still regard them as reflective of serious criminality on your part. The maximum penalty for the crime of using a false document is 10 years' imprisonment, further highlighting, in a general sense, the seriousness of this particular conduct.
9. I turn now to a consideration of your moral culpability for this serious offending. Whilst I accept that you were likely in the grip of drug dependency at the time of your offending, the quantity of drugs found, and the overall circumstances of your offending cannot, in my view, be simply explained by your drug dependency. The quantities involved here to be sold far exceeded an amount that would be required to simply support your own drug habit. Relying on data from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission for the period 2020-2021, and the national median street price for methylamphetamine, the Prosecution estimated that the street value of the methylamphetamine referable to the second incident was approximately $328,000, and $403,000 for the third incident. Even allowing for these figures to be inflated, in my view, there must have been some degree of profit motive related to the commercial quantity trafficking in particular. The culpability of an offender motivated by financial gain will be higher than one whose only motive was to fund their addiction. An assessment with regard to your moral culpability is further informed by your criminal history. Whilst not particularly lengthy, you have prior convictions for trafficking from 2022 and 2023. Indeed, you were subject to a Community Correction Order imposed for trafficking methylamphetamine and other substances at the time of the offending. This fact alone represents an aggravating feature of your offending, which elevates your moral culpability. In addition, it impacts upon an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. Your counsel did not submit that your moral culpability for the offending was reduced in any way by virtue of the Bugmy or Verdins principles.[4] Accordingly, I find your level of culpability for this offending to be high.

1. You are currently 35 years of age. You are an only child. You were initially raised in the Greensborough area, but apparently moved interstate several times, with associated interruption to your schooling, due to your father's role in the Army.
2. According to your counsel, you have reported a reasonably positive childhood, though there is reference in the materials to you witnessing intrafamily violence when you were growing up. You have reported a positive relationship with your father, with whom you speak fortnightly, and he apparently visits you in prison approximately every six weeks. Your mother has a history of mental ill-health associated with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. You apparently do not have any contact with her.
3. In addition to your counsel's written outline of submissions, details with regard to your personal background and circumstances are contained within various documents tendered on your behalf at your Plea Hearing: the Psychological Report of Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 25 February 2025,[5] the Occupational Therapy Assessment Report by Occupational Therapist Liam Cannell dated 2 February 2023,[6] and the NDIA letter from Psychologist Dr Boris Goloub dated 3 February 2023.[7]
4. Whilst you have reported a reasonably positive childhood, and your counsel specifically disavowed any reliance upon any reduction in your moral culpability for the current offending due to any background deprivation, pursuant to the Bugmy principles,[8] it seems relatively clear from the materials that you have experienced hardship in your upbringing. In the Psychological Assessment Report of Dr Aaron Cunningham,[9] he refers to significant difficulties associated with your schooling, which appears to have subsequently founded a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.[10] I have already referred to your father's role in the Army and the associated dislocation. You apparently attended primary schools in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and you attended three different secondary schools. You were apparently diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD at about the age of nine. You apparently had few friends at school, and you were bullied due to your weight. You ultimately left education at the age of 15, with only a Year 8 pass.
5. At around this time, you also left home and worked on fishing boats in the Gippsland area for some three years before moving to Cairns to work in the fishing industry for some five years. You have also completed a three-year plumbing apprenticeship and worked as a plumber until 2020.
6. As set out in the Cunningham report, you have a problematic drug and alcohol history. You apparently commenced your use of cannabis from the age of 13, and amphetamines from the age of 15. This escalated to methylamphetamine use from the age of 19, with you reporting that you were smoking and injecting at least three grams per day prior to being incarcerated in relation to this matter. You also reported using 50 to 80 millilitres of GHB per day.
7. After living and working in Cairns for some five years, you returned to Melbourne at the age of 25, around the year 2015, due to apparently suffering an episode of substance-induced psychosis. You have reported being treated at the Raymond Hader Rehabilitation Centre for some 12 months. By this time, you have reported being diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and bipolar affective disorder. You have reported that your substance use has essentially been a form of self-medication for your personal and mental health difficulties.
8. Following your 12 months at the Raymond Hader Clinic, you reported a period of relative stability for about five years, between the period of 2015 to 2020. It was within this period that you completed the plumbing apprenticeship. This period of stability does appear to accord with your criminal history, noting that your first prior matter dates from 2015, and your next from June 2022. Within this period of stability, you apparently resided with your parents and, for a period, engaged in a relationship which you have described as dysfunctional. From that relationship, you have a son, Arthur, now aged four, whom you have not seen for three years.
9. You have reported that this relationship ended in about 2020 and following that you relapsed into drug use. As I have indicated, you have prior convictions dating from 2022 and 2023, which I accept involved trafficking-related offending in connection with your substance-use dependencies.
10. You have, it seems, from 2021, received funding and support through the NDIS, with details in that regard contained in the Occupational Therapy Assessment Report from Mr Cannell dated 2 February 2023. That report refers to your diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Generalised Anxiety and Depression. There is also a reference to you being the victim of a home invasion in December 2022. This incident occurred in the context of a 35-day sentence in June 2022, after which you were released from prison and were homeless. You found accommodation and accessed support through the NDIS; however, it was in this accommodation, that you experienced this home invasion, and you were seriously injured. The Report from psychologist Dr Goloub dated 3 February 2023[11] also refers to you being brutally attacked in this home invasion, with the attached photographs from the Goloub Report suggesting this to be the case. Unsurprisingly, the Occupational Therapy Assessment Report refers to your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder being triggered by this event. The assessment report refers to your 'permanent psychosocial disability related to [your] complex mental health issues'.[12]
11. Psychologist Dr Aaron Cunningham concludes in his Report that you present with a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, arising from your unstable home environment and the other matters referred to in the Report.[13] According to Dr Cunningham, as at February 2025 you had not properly addressed this trauma, and in the ensuing years you have abused significant amounts of drugs in the context of being untreated with regard to the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
12. Following the home invasion in December 2022, you were forced to abandon your property. You were then admitted into residential rehabilitation at Harmony House in February 2023, for a period of 90 days, as evidenced by the letters from Harmony House dated 6 July 2023 and 23 March 2023.[14] Upon leaving Harmony House residential rehabilitation in May 2023, you then participated in ongoing outpatient support from Harmony House. Those reports certainly speak of your impressive rehabilitative progress with this organisation, which apparently included the provision of random weekly urine drug screens. In combination with your undertaking of residential rehabilitation at the Hader Clinic, these efforts by you to undertake intensive programs in an effort to deal with your poly-substance abuse issues, certainly provides a measure of hope with regard to your prospects of rehabilitation. In the right environment, you have, it seems, demonstrated a motivation and ability to embrace specialist interventions in that regard.
13. Clearly, though, by the time of the current offending in 2024 you had relapsed and were again in the grips of serious drug dependency. You had received a largely therapeutic Community Correction Order for trafficking-related offending in August 2023, and you were some seven months into that order at the time of the commencement of the current offending. I note that your breach of that Community Correction Order has now been dealt with, and you received a two-month sentence of imprisonment on 27 February 2025.
14. You have been in custody since your arrest on these matters on 9 May 2024, a period of 471 days. You have spent most of that time at Marngoneet Correctional Centre. You have been in receipt of methadone and anti-depressants, both of which you have reported as being helpful. For most of the time, you have worked as a cleaning billet. As I have stated, you receive regular visits and contact from your father.
15. Your background and personal circumstances does not warrant a reduction in your moral culpability for the current offending, and this has been conceded by your counsel. Nevertheless, I have, of course, taken into consideration your difficult personal history, including your mental health difficulties and longstanding dependency issues, in a general sense in the sentencing exercise. These aspects have been considered in the context of gaining an understanding of the circumstances which led to your drug dependency and its connection to your offending, together with your past rehabilitative efforts and the impact upon your prospects of rehabilitation.

1. The Sentencing Act 1991 requires me to have regard to various factors and purposes when formulating an appropriate sentence in your case. I have already referred to the relevant maximum penalties, the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it, and your previous character.
2. I accept in your case that you pleaded guilty at the earliest stage in these proceedings, a matter conceded by the Prosecution. There is a significant utilitarian benefit attaching to your early pleas. Through your early pleas of guilty, you have accepted wrongdoing and facilitated the course of justice, saving the community the costs associated with a criminal trial. On this basis, a mitigatory allowance is warranted.
3. As indicated in the chronology attached to the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea, I also accept that there has, to some extent, been a delay associated with the finalisation of this matter. You first appeared at a filing hearing on 10 May 2024. Thereafter, there were numerous Committal Mentions required, due to delays associated with the provision of the relevant drug analysis report, and clarification with regard to the nature and extent of the prosecution's case against you. You then exercised your rights to seek entry into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, with that application ultimately being refused by this court on 5 June 2025. The matter then proceeded to a Plea Hearing on 15 September 2025, before sentencing today. I do appreciate that the delays associated with this case have meant that this serious matter has been hanging over your head for some time now, and the understandable anxieties caused by this delay warrant a further mitigatory allowance.
4. I have already referred to your prospects of rehabilitation. In written submissions, your counsel conceded that your prospects of rehabilitation were guarded. The nature of your current offending and your relevant criminal history certainly causes some concern with regard to this assessment. However, as I have indicated, you have previously shown your motivation and ability to embark upon intensive rehabilitative treatment, albeit ultimately without success to date. As this Court well knows, rehabilitation is not a linear exercise. You have, it seems, used your time in custody productively, and you do appear to retain the support of at least your father. Whilst your prospects of rehabilitation must therefore be seen as somewhat guarded, you are certainly not without rehabilitative hope. You will clearly need the assistance of specialist interventions upon your release from custody to assist in your successful reintegration into the broader community.
5. In relation to your co-offender, ZS, I was informed that whilst she was originally charged with trafficking, she ultimately received a diversion for possession charges in April 2025. In those circumstances, clearly parity is not a relevant issue in sentencing your case.
6. In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have had regard to current sentencing practices with regard to the offending to which you have pleaded guilty. The prosecution provided a table of comparable cases, part of Exhibit 2 at your Plea Hearing. The prosecution conceded that there were differences, as is often the case, between those cases and the circumstances of yours. Your counsel also provided a decision of Polos v The King [2022] VSCA 258 on the issue of current sentencing practices. I have read and considered those authorities, within the broader context of current sentencing practices, noting that each case is necessarily fact-specific, and that current sentencing practices represent one of many applicable sentencing factors in the sentencing exercise, and that no one factor should dominate the others. Clearly, previous sentences imposed with regard to the offence of commercial quantity trafficking have involved significant sentences of imprisonment. The sentencing purposes of denunciation, general deterrence, and community protection all loom large in the sentencing exercise. In your case, given your relevant criminal history, there is also a need for any sentence I impose to specifically deter you from reoffending.
7. In relation to the commercial quantity trafficking offences, as conceded by your counsel on your behalf, you fall to be sentenced as a serious drug offender pursuant to s6B of the Sentencing Act 1991, following your conviction for the second commercial quantity trafficking offence on the Indictment. Accordingly, in determining the length of the sentence in respect of the second charge, I must regard protection of the community as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. Whilst it is not sought in your particular case, I may impose a disproportionate sentence having regard to its gravity, in order to achieve that purpose. I agree with your counsel that this is not an appropriate case for a disproportionate sentence.
8. The other consequence of the serious drug offender provisions is that there is a presumption of cumulation with regard to sentencing for this offence, though of course the principle of totality is not displaced.
9. The sentence of imprisonment imposed in relation to Charge 9 on the Indictment will form the base sentence. Accordingly, you will be sentenced in relation to Charge 3 on the Indictment as a serious drug offender, and I order that this fact be entered into the records of the court pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act 1991.
10. More generally, there is, in my view, a need to reflect the distinct criminality associated with the various charges to which you have pleaded guilty. This is achieved through a measure of cumulation, subject as always to the overarching principle of totality, and the need to avoid a crushing sentence. The sentence that I am about to impose will contain a reasonable parole eligibility component. Whilst it is ultimately not a matter for me, it is hoped that you be provided with the opportunity for parole, which in my view will be critical to your successful reintegration into the community, and ultimately will facilitate the protection of the community.

1. On Charges 1 and 7 on the Indictment, using a false document, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of six months' imprisonment.
2. On Charges 2 and 8 on the Indictment, negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 10 months' imprisonment.
3. On Charge 3 on the Indictment, trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine on 19 April 2024, you are convicted and sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.
4. On Charges 4, 5 and 10 on the Indictment, trafficking in a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.
5. On Charges 6, 11 and 12 on the Indictment, possession of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of two months' imprisonment.
6. On Charge 9 on the Indictment, trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine on 9 May 2024, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
7. On related Summary Offences 1 and 7, unlicensed driving, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of one month's imprisonment.
8. On related Summary Offences 21 and 22, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of four months' imprisonment.
9. I order that one month of the aggregate sentence imposed on Charges 1 and 7 on the Indictment, two months of the aggregate sentence imposed on Charges 2 and 8 on the Indictment, ten months on Charge 3 on the Indictment, and five months on the aggregate sentence imposed on Charges 4, 5 and 10 on the Indictment, be served cumulatively upon each other, and upon the base sentence imposed on Charge 9 on the Indictment, making a total effective sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment.
10. I order that you serve a period of three years and six months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
11. Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 471 days has been served by way of pre-sentence detention, and I order that this period be administratively deducted from your sentence.
12. Pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act 1991, in relation to Charge 3 on the Indictment, I declare that I have sentenced you as a serious drug offender, and I order that this be entered into the records of the court.
13. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that had you pleaded not guilty, but been found guilty of these offences, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of seven years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months' imprisonment.
14. Finally, I make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought by the prosecution in this case, these applications not being opposed by you.
15. Firstly to you, Ms Quattrucci, any issues or ambiguities with regards to the sentence I have just announced?
16. MS QUATTRUCCI: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
17. HIS HONOUR: Same question to you, Mr Brown.
18. MR BROWN: No, Your Honour.

[2] Gregory (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151 at Paragraph [24]

[4] Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192; The Queen v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

[13] Exhibit B, Top of page 2, and Second Paragraph of Page 4