R v Amoroso

R v Amoroso - [2021] NSWDC 393 - NSWDC 2021 case summary — Zoe

[3]

Agreed Facts

In January 2020 a police Strike Force began investigating the supply of prohibited drugs in the Illawarra Region. Telecommunications warrants were obtained for a phone known to have been used by Amoroso. That phone was registered in a false name. Between 23 April 2020 and 19 July 2020 the offender supplied either methylamphetamine or gammabutyrolacton (GBL) on no less than 60 separate occasions. The offender would receive calls to his mobile phone and arrange for delivery of the prohibited drugs where he would either accept payment in cash in person or receive deposits into his bank account.
Analysis of the intercepts revealed two other associates who were also involved in the supply of prohibited drugs. The two co-offenders Jade Asher and Kelly Dent would communicate only with the offender and not with each other. Both are for sentence in this court shortly. The agreed facts set out how they interacted.
The agreed facts detail each of the transactions relied on for the ongoing supply charges. Thirty involve methyl amphetamine. Twenty six involve GBL. Two involve either methylamphetamine or GBL. Two involve both GBL and methylamphetamine. Count 1 involves 32 supplies. Count 2 involves 13 supplies. The Form 1 matter involved 15 supplies.
All of the transactions were of relatively small scale. The largest methylamphetamine supply was for $1,100. Most of the GBL supplies were for amounts between $100 and $300. Some sales were for cash, for others the purchaser deposited money in the offender's account. Varying arrangements were made for delivery of the drugs; for example a meeting at Bunnings. On one occasion when he dropped drugs off, the offender was also reporting to Lake Illawarra Police on bail.
Unsophisticated codes were sometimes used. A gram of methylamphetamine would be sold for $200 to $250; 100 ml of GBL for $300. On some occasions he tells his customers he has nothing to supply. It is accepted that at times he tells them he only had "perso," which the prosecution accept meant a quantity for personal use: MFI 1 Crown Submissions [27].
In early July 2020 intercepted telephone calls between Amoroso and the co-accused Kelly Dent revealed that Dent was attempting to procure a larger amount of GBL from a supplier in Sydney for $2000 a litre. The two discussed how the drug was to be paid for and eventually Amoroso transferred Dent that amount.
On 16 July 2020 police saw Dent in a car parked on the side of the M1 motorway at Maddens Plain. Police searched the vehicle and found 7 bottles containing a clear liquid. They asked Dent about the bottles and she replied that it was "just water." Later analysis confirmed that one of the bottles contained 2251 grams of gammabutyrolacton.
That afternoon Dent rang the offender and told him "I'm going to jail Jas" Amoroso made arrangements to go and collect her.
On 6 August 2020 police executed search warrants at the Novotel apartment where the accused was staying and his usual residence in West Wollongong. Among the items they seized were diaries said to be drug ledgers and a 'tic' sheet with names and numbers on them.
The offender was arrested. In an electronically recorded interview he admitted to having a daily drug habit of both Methamphetamine and GBL. He denied and/or declined to answer all allegations of drug supply.

[4]

Section 25A

As with all similar drug supply operations these crimes were committed without regard for community safety. While at a low level this was still organised criminal activity. Amoroso engaged directly in supply transactions and personally negotiated prices. He supplied to a broad customer base. As Mr McGonigal, Solicitor for the Director, submitted, while ongoing supply is the critical element of the offence, here his actions were "persistent and repetitive." While only small amounts were supplied they were not "altogether insignificant."
As the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal has made quite clear: "An offender charged with a s 25A offence cannot rely upon an argument that the act of supply was an isolated event. Nor can [they] expect to receive a sentence of the kind which may be appropriate for a single offence of supply. Significant sentences must be imposed in such cases in order give effect to the clear legislative intention to discourage the ongoing trade in drugs, which depends entirely upon the availability of a person such as the present [offender]:" R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457 at [57].
Section 25A is directed to this repetition and the business operation of supplying prohibited drugs and the magnitude (or otherwise) of the operation. Here, the offender conducted an effective retail distribution operation over the course of 3 months. In each matter for sentence I have to consider; the quantity of drugs, the number of instances of supply and the individual quantities supplied.
It is accepted that application of the profits of this activity was largely directed to the purchase of quantities of the drugs for Amoroso's own use. But he chose to fund his need for the drugs by selling them to others in the community. Notwithstanding his own usage he remained clear thinking enough to be able to carry on his trade in a rational, clandestine and efficient manner. And he did make some profit enabling him to support himself and his drug habit.
The seriousness of a retail distribution such this lies, in part, in its contribution to servicing and maintaining the market for the drugs methylamphetamine and GBL. This maintained market in turn provides the economic incentive for manufacture, importation and distribution of illicit drugs at the bulk and wholesale levels.

[16]

Synthesis

The sentencing exercise involves: "a synthesis of competing features, which attempts to translate the complexity of the human condition and human behaviour to the mathematics of units of punishment usually expressed in time or money:" Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629.
While a Court's sentencing discretion cannot be judicially constrained, a Court, must nevertheless give full and proper consideration to the guidance offered by past sentencing decisions. In practice it is likely that, in the absence perhaps of some unusual circumstance, proper application of principle mean a sentence of imprisonment for those who engage in trafficking in illicit drugs, no matter what their level: Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
Amoroso offended over a three month period. He supplied drugs to many other users. Despite being allowed conditional liberty he continued to buy and sell the drugs. He must be appropriately punished for those crimes. The requirement for appropriate punishment means that only full time custody can be imposed. So much is accepted by Amoroso.
That said, the community must understand that the problems caused by illicit drugs cannot be solved by arresting or gaoling our way to a solution. The evidence is in, harsher prison sentences for users and conventional law enforcement methods cannot cure what is a social problem, a health problem, a personal problem, a community problem and ultimately a policy problem: see NSW Bar Association discussion paper Drug Law Reform 24 11.2014; UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009.
Here the community would be best served by Amoroso getting help needed to deal with his long term drug addiction. If he can deal with that problem he has skills and a work ethic that will enable him to be a productive member of our community. I have structured the sentence to allow that to occur but first he must serve the minimum period in custody his crimes deserve.
The sentence cannot be backdated to when he was first arrested. There must be some independent punishment for the sentences imposed in the Local Court; including the Intensive Corrections order breached so soon after it was imposed. This sentence will commence on 5 November 2020.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (19 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (17)

Cited By (1)