R v AHMED

SENTENCE 1HIS HONOUR: Maria Ahmed appears for sentence today after having pleaded guilty at an early stage to offences involving substantial criminality as a drug supplier. She was an apparently enthusiastic and resourceful supplier of methylamphetamine. She now stands to be sentenced for three offences, one of ongoing supply of the drug methylamphetamine, one of supplying cannabis and a further charge of supplying methylamphetamine, not on an ongoing basis but relating to the interpretation by police of telephone calls that Ms Ahmed had with her customers. 2Police obtained telephone intercept warrants. They were granted on 23 April 2010. That very day police recorded Ms Ahmed making arrangements concerning the supply of half a gram of methylamphetamine. Police continued to listen and watch over the next few weeks until Ms Ahmed was arrested. The first count, that of ongoing supply, relates to supplies on 8 May, 14 May and 17 May. On 8 May police overheard the offender agreeing to supply Jason Isling with methylamphetamine. Police watched as he went to Ms Ahmed's premises and arrested him as he drove away. He was found to be in possession of 0.09 grams of methylamphetamine. 3On 14 May 2010, again police overheard arrangements made by the offender to supply a person, this time Brad Wilmot, with drugs. Police watched as the offender delivered those drugs to him and when they arrested him, he had a bag containing half a gram of methylamphetamine. The bag itself apparently was in the possession of another person but there is no doubt it was a product of the offender's supply. 4On 17 May, once more police intercepted a telephone conversation between "Andy" and the offender and once more police watched as the offender supplied him with drugs. Upon his arrest he was found to be in possession of 0.2 of a gram of methylamphetamine. 5The total amount of drugs covered by the s 25A offence is 0.79 grams over those three transactions I have described. Of course, this is a relatively low figure reflecting the nature of the offender's operation - street level supplies. 6The second count relates to the supply of cannabis to a person named Sarah. Police overheard a conversation between Sarah and the offender relating to the purchase of drugs and, when they met, police watched the transaction and arrested Sarah soon afterwards. She was found to be in possession of 30.7 grams of cannabis leaf which had just been supplied to her by the offender. 7The last count concerns a large number of transactions which police have been able to identify by listening to the intercepted telephone calls. Between 23 April 2010 and 12 June 2010, there were approximately forty-nine such transactions recorded involving a total of 21 grams of methylamphetamine. 8The evidence put before me today concerning those transactions reveals the enthusiasm with which the offender went about supplying drugs. There were as I said, about forty-nine transactions and there were a large number of purchasers involved. Just by looking at exhibit 2, which is an extract of the telephone intercepts, it can be identified that the offender supplied to Bec, Gordon, AK, Amber, Rob, Brett, Jay, SF, Andy, Jules, Frecks, Kane, Jace, Tracey, Lisa, Brad, Aaron, Adam, Sarah, JA, Andrew, Tony, Sheree and others whose voices are not identified. There were SMS messages relating to the supply of drugs intercepted as well. It is apparent therefore that the offender was deeply involved in her drug supplying activities. 9Police eventually wound up the operation by arresting the offender on 17 June. When they searched her premises they discovered other matters of importance, a glass ice pipe, some cannabis leaf, some crystal methylamphetamine and four cannabis seeds. The offender asks me to take into account possession of those items on a Form 1 when I sentence her for the ongoing supply matter. 10It was also apparent that throughout this period that the offender's fifteen year old daughter lived with her at the home. Drug paraphernalia was located throughout the house and it was obvious I gather from the police facts that the offender was conducting her drug supply operations whilst her daughter was at home. That circumstance relates to an offence of conducting drug premises while exposing a child to prohibited drugs, another matter that the offender wishes me to take into account on the Form 1. 11The offender is not a person who has been addicted to drugs for most of her life as are many people who come before the courts. Her drug addiction is of more recent times. She was brought up in Australia by her parents who separated when she was about nine due to domestic violence within the household. The offender's father returned to Greece, his country of origin, and she had no contact with him until she was about sixteen. She was married for some time and the daughter to whom I have earlier made reference was born as a result of that relationship. That relationship ended in divorce in 1999. The following year Ms Ahmed's ex-husband was murdered. His murder remains unsolved. 12She has had other relationships since then, although that has been complicated by the relationship between her partners and her daughter. In particular she was in a de facto relationship with a man who was a drug user. Her use of drugs developed at that stage and increased after that relationship ended. Her former de facto acted violently and dangerously and at one stage she and he were shot at. It is probably understating matters to say that this caused a level of anxiety in the offender. Those matters were the genesis of these offences. 13The offender said that she desired to have friends and one way that she could get friends is by supplying them with drugs. She said that it was a case of the friends pooling their money and the flavour of her evidence was that she was suggesting that it was almost an accident that it was she who was doing the supplying. 14Unfortunately the telephone intercepts reveal a more traditional relationship between supplier and purchaser. It is apparent from those intercepts that the offender obtained drugs in bulk and then sold them to purchasers who would ring up, make arrangements to buy drugs from her and on many occasions the offender would then go and deliver them to the purchasers. This was clearly trafficking to a substantial degree. The number of individual transactions, particularly those the subject of the third count on the indictment, demonstrate that conclusion immediately. True it is that the quantities involved were relatively small but that is precisely the sort of thing that occurs with street level dealing. Street level dealing such as this is seriously criminal, even though the quantities involved are relatively small. There are no exceptional circumstances such as would justify a sentence other than a full time imprisonment. Certainly, and I will get to them, there are subjective matters in the offender's favour but they do not, in truth, amount to exceptional circumstances. Many of them are relatively commonplace. 15Since her arrest it appears that the offender has achieved a significant measure of rehabilitation. There is no suggestion that she has used drugs. She has expressed her remorse both to others and in court today and I am indeed satisfied that she has good prospects of rehabilitation and is unlikely to re-offend. She is employed as a spray tan operator and references from her employer, her doctor and her friends speak highly of her. It is something of a puzzle as to why someone in the offender's position would become involved in such serious criminality but that cannot be allowed to cause me to impose a sentence on the offender which fails to reflect the objective gravity of what she has done. 16She has a criminal history but it can effectively be ignored. The matters on it are minor indeed and they pale into insignificance when compared to what the offender did in the middle of 2010. 17The offender pleaded guilty at an early stage and so I will reduce the sentences I would otherwise impose by twenty-five per cent to reflect the utilitarian value of that plea. 18The offender will do her time in custody harder than would otherwise have been the case for two particular reasons. One is that she still bears the physical consequences of a motor vehicle collision where she was significantly injured and the second is that she will know that she has deprived her daughter of a mother's care and attention. It was not suggested to me that the offender's daughter would not be cared for and so there was no suggestion of exceptional hardship to third parties, but it will be harder for the offender knowing that she has left her daughter behind than would otherwise have been the case and so I will take that into account. 19One important thing to consider when looking at the sentence to be imposed upon the offender is the ongoing nature of the offender's criminal acts. This was not a single offence immediately regretted. This was ongoing criminal behaviour which only came to an end when the offender was arrested. Had she not been arrested, there was no suggestion she would have not continued on precisely as she had been, supplying a large number of people with their drugs simply so that she could get drugs for nothing. 20There is no suggestion that the offender was making a large amount of money out of this operation and indeed the evidence would suggest that she was spending money that her father was sending to her from Greece on drugs. The material reward she got from her activities was free drugs for herself. 21Mr Barham who appeared for the offender today made a submission regarding the possibility of an Intensive Correction Order. I need say no more about that because the length of the sentences that I will shortly announce is such that no alternatives to full time imprisonment arise. I need not consider the matter further. 22There are clearly special circumstances in this case. This will be the first time that the offender has gone to gaol. She did spend some time in custody after breaching bail which is perhaps the one qualification to suggestions that she has been fully rehabilitated but, given her explanation, I do not propose to find other than that she has good prospects of rehabilitation. She spent a number of days in custody and so it is appropriate therefore that I commence the sentences of imprisonment on 5 August this year. 23For count 1 on the indictment, I take into account the matters on the form 1. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months to date from 5 August 2011 and the head sentence for that count is three years. 24For count 2 on the indictment I set a fixed term of one year to date from 5 August 2011 and that is a fixed term because of the sentences I am imposing for the other matters. 25For count 3 on the indictment the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of one and one-half years to date from 5 August 2012. I set a head sentence for that matter of three years. The non-parole period on the third count will thus expire on 4 February 2014 on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole. 26The overall sentence I have just imposed consists of a non-parole period of two and one-half years and a head sentence of four years. 27If the drugs have not yet been destroyed, I order that they are to be destroyed.