R v Bridge

Facts

1. In April, 2016, Newcastle police commenced "Strike Force Malsbury" targeting the supply of prohibited drugs by the offender Michael Bridge. Telephone interception warrants were granted for the two mobile services used by the offender. It became evident from a very early stage that the offender was heavily involved in the large scale supply of the prohibited drugs methamphetamine (ice), cannabis and gamma-Butryrolactone (GBL).
2. Investigators established that the offender was a close associate of co-accused Blake Waterhouse and together they ran a joint criminal enterprise supplying prohibited drugs.
3. The recorded telephone interceptions demonstrated that the offender was a large scale drug supplier in the Newcastle area. He had no other employment and was supplying prohibited drugs solely for financial gain.
4. The telephone interceptions indicated that the offender would arrange drug transactions by using two mobile phones. Once the quantity, price and location were agreed, the offender would arrange to meet his client at various locations, where he would supply them with the drugs. There were no pre-arranged meeting places in order to preserve and conceal the illegal nature of the transactions.
5. Whilst the majority of the offences took place in Newcastle, Bridge on-supplied drugs that he regularly obtained from Sydney.

H61103323 - Sequence 1 -Supply Prohibited Drug (greater than commercial quantity)

1. A combination of covert surveillance and telephone intercepts identified a customer of the offender as Shane Murray who regularly purchased methamphetamine from the offender.
2. On 18 April 2016, the offender travelled to Sydney to meet with his up-line supplier. About 8.30am on 19 April 2016, investigators were conducting a surveillance operation upon the offender at the Novotel Apartments in King Street, Newcastle. The offender sent a text message to Shane Murray which read, 'got that litre'.
3. A short time later, Murray arrived and met with the offender at the apartment complex. Murray left and was observed to be carrying a plastic style shopping bag. He was followed then stopped and subjected to a search. The police located a litre of a liquid substance which the NSW Police Service Forensic and Analytical Science Section later identified as gamma-butyrolactone (GBL).
4. The GBL was contained in five 200ml bottles and disguised as screen cleaner. Murray was charged in relation to a number of other items found in his possession. After arrest, Murray participated in an interview with police and conceded that he knew the liquid was a prohibited drug.
5. The weight of the GBL was 1,100 grams.

H61103323 - Indictment (count 2) (formerly seq 21) -Supply Prohibited Drug (greater than indictable quantity)

1. On 1 May 2016, police monitored a number of telephone calls and SMS messaged between the offender and Lee Ann Chalmers in which Chalmers wished to purchase cocaine "for a mate".
2. Notwithstanding the fact that the offender was still in Western Australia, he arranged for a half ounce (14.2 grams) of cocaine to be supplied to Chalmers in exchange for $4,000.

H61103323 - Indictment (count 3) (formerly seq 22) -Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime

1. At 4:56pm on 2 May 2016, the offender made a telephone call to his de factor partner Vanzanden.
2. During that conversation, the offender asked Vanzanden to go home and "grab that twenty grand and give it to Muz".
3. The offender instructed Vanzanden that the money was in the drawer and that she should give it to Murray.
4. Vanzanden then told the offender that she would leave work and take care of it.
5. The offender then sent Shane Murray an SMS that included, "…Sharon's at home with my money for ya and give her a ring when you at door downstairs and she will buzz you up. Sharon's number 0421 555 682."
6. Later that evening the offender had an SMS conversation with Murray that went as follows: Offender: How much coin you end up giving him? Murray: 24 I didn't get the chance to go to my place I had 2500 there as well I said can give to him or who eva drops it off the traffic was fucked here today around that time and he was already at servo. Offender: 4 of the 24 was yours as well yeah? Murray: Na 20 was off ur mrs and 4 was wat I had to vie to you anyway if you no wat I mean.
7. The phone calls and SMS show that the offender instructed Vanzanden and Murray to deal with $20,000 on his behalf and that the $20,000 was proceeds of the offender's drug supply enterprise.
8. H61103323 - Form 1 (Seq 26) - Supply Prohibited Drug (greater than small quantity)
9. On 6 May 2016, the offender had an SMS conversation with Krystal Bridge during which Bridge asked the offender for "a pound of pot".
10. Bridge told the offender to bring the pound (454 grams) now.
11. The offender told her that the price was $3,800 and Bridge said that she knew and told the offender to settle down.
12. The offender then supplied 454 grams of cannabis to Bridge.
13. Following the supply, Bridge sent the offender a message stating, "Dipple said is there other green cause that is crap" followed by "Fuuuk its all seedy m shit…. Is he bringing more green he don't want this".
14. The offender replied, "It's fucking good pot"

H61103323 - Sequence 28 - Supply Prohibited Drug (greater than large commercial quantity)

1. Between 13 April 2016 and 20 May 2016, the offender made over 4,000 calls and texts in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs.
2. During that period, the offender was involved in at least 19 instances of actual supply, of varying amounts, in and around the Newcastle area.
3. The total amount supplied was approximately 1,115.1 grams of Methylamphetamine.
4. The following are some examples of his drug related activities.

Supply to Burnes

1. On the afternoon of 30 April 2016, investigators intercepted and recorded a call between the offender and Angela Barry. This conversation was in relation to Ms Barry arranging for her partner, Stephen Burnes to meet Bridge in Newcastle to purchase drugs.
2. At 6.15pm, surveillance captured Stephen Burnes meet with the offender at the Chifley Apartments on Hunter Street in Newcastle. A short time after leaving Burnes was stopped and arrested for traffic matters and an outstanding warrant. Following this, investigators intercepted a telephone call from Ms Barry to the offender informing him of the arrest of Burnes.
3. During this call the offender stated, 'Did they get the Occa?' Barry replied, 'I'm not sure, I've searched the car and it's not there'. The offender replied, 'He might still have it on him'.
4. As a result, police believed that Burnes was in possession of one ounce (28.4 grams) of the prohibited drug Methylamphetamine whilst in Corrective Services custody. Arrangements were made to have Burnes searched again which resulted in corrective services officer locating one ounce of Methylamphetamine in Burnes' shorts.

Supply with Waterhouse

1. On 19 May 2016, a police surveillance operation, in conjunction with telephone interceptions, was conducted in relation to the activities of the offender and co-accused Blake Waterhouse. It was established that they intended to travel to Sydney to purchase a quantity of Methylamphetamine. During the afternoon Waterhouse drove the offender to Budget Rental in Tudor Street, Hamilton where he obtained a Holden Commodore sedan, NSW registration number CG-69-DY.
2. Later in the evening the two men were seen in the same rental vehicle, CG-69-DY, travelling to Sydney where they obtained Methylamphetamine from a person police believe to be Abdul Hassian.
3. The continued recording of intercepted mobile services of the offender and Waterhouse provided evidence that they intended to supply the drugs they obtained to other persons in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.
4. At about 2.00am on 20 May 2016, the offender and Waterhouse were stopped at the McDonalds Restaurant on the M1 Pacific Motorway, in Warnervale. They were arrested and the vehicle was searched.
5. Police located a black plastic bag which contained two smaller freezer style plastic bags secreted in the roof cavity of the vehicle. The two freezer style plastic bags contained 168.4 grams of what was later identified as Methylamphetamine. The drug was well hidden within the internal light with the sunglass holder being removed to secrete it between the roof and the interior lining.
6. The offender and Waterhouse were taken to the Wyong Police Station where they declined an opportunity to be interviewed by police.

Supply from Hassain

1. In May 2016, the offender flew to Perth to purchase a motor vehicle. Intercepted telephone SMS messages indicated that whilst there, the offender contacted Shane Murray and commenced arranging a purchase of drugs from an "up-line supplier" from Sydney, named Abdul Hassain for an amount of 14 ounces.
2. The code used was "14 straight up", in addition to pounds of cannabis. Here the code used was "a few sheds".
3. Extensive intercepted conversations demonstrated that Murray arranged to procure prohibited drugs on behalf of the offender which was later confirmed as "15 and 2 sheds bro" in a text sent by Hassain. The code in this instance, indicated 15 ounces of Methylamphetamine and 2 pounds of cannabis.

Search Warrant - 11/522 Hunter Street

1. On 20 May 2016, after the arrest of the offender and Waterhouse, a search warrant was executed at the premises the offender shared with Sharon Vanzanden, at unit 11, 522 Hunter Street in Newcastle.
2. During the search police located a number of items including: a. On the TV stand there were two small resealable plastic bags containing Methylamphetamine, one weighting 1.47 grams (Seq 29 - s.166) and the other weighing 0.86 grams (Seq 30 - s.166). b. Within the offender's bedroom was a black tin containing three small resealable plastic bags, the first contained 17.17 grams of 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Seq 31 - Form 1), the second contained 0.46 grams of 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Seq 32 - s.166) and the third contained 0.38 grams of Cocaine (Seq 33 - s.166) c. On the floor in the offender's bedroom were three 200ml plastic bottles entitled 'Fone Fix Screen Cleaner'. Analysis of the content of the bottles showed that they contained 625.4 grams of GBL (Seq 34 - Form 1) and were in the same bottles the offender supplied to the co-accused Murray in relation to sequence 1. d. A silver pistol (Seq 35), four rounds of matching ammunition (Seq 36 - s.166) and 24.5 grams of Cannabis leaf (Seq 37 - s.166) were located in a floor safe in the offender's bedroom. The offender was not licenced to possess neither a firearm nor ammunition. e. On the floor underneath the offender's bed police located a further amount of Cannabis leaf weighing 549 grams (Seq 38).
3. Also located in the unit were three laptop computers, two iPad devices, two "tick lists", a small set of electronic scales, a glass pipe, a bag of glucose, five mobile telephones and a total of $9,050 in cash.

H61103323 - Sequence 39 and 40

1. Police investigations revealed that the offender also leased a storage unit at the Kennards Storage facility in Newcastle West. The storage unit was held in the offender's name and CCTV showed the offender coming and going from the premises as well as storing items in the storage unit.
2. During a search of the offender's storage unit police located the following items (Seq 39 - Form 1): a. 1 x McCullock brand chainsaw; b. 3 x camping swags (brand new in boxes); c. Assorted power tools; d. 1 x Husqvarna motorcycle; e. 1 x Honda motorcycle; f. 1 x KTM motorcycle; and g. 1 x Yamaha motorcycle.
3. In the course of his drug supply activities, the offender would extend credit to his lower level customers. If the customer was unable to pay the offender in cash, he would also accept property as payment for the supply of prohibited drugs.
4. The property in the Kennards storage unit was received or derived through the supply of prohibited drugs and is the proceeds of crime.
5. Also located within the storage unit was five plastic bags containing cannabis leaf, weighing a total of 2,257 grams (Seq 40 - s.166).

H51571850 - Sequence 4 - Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis

1. In May 2015, Central Hunter police commenced Strike Force "YellowBox" to investigate the supply of prohibited drugs in the Maitland area.
2. One of the targets was Matthew Kisielewicz, who was identified as being involved in the supply of Methylamphetamine.
3. In March 2016, police started monitoring interactions between the offender and Kisielewicz.
4. In short, the offender supplied a prohibited drug on three separate occasions to Kisielewcz for financial reward.

First Supply

1. On 29 March 2016, the offender began exchanging messages with Kisielewicz, during which Kisielewicz requested "half oz" and "a qtr".
2. At about 10:45am on 30 March 2016, the offender met with Kisielewicz near the Newcastle Fishing Co-op in Wickham and supplied him with 21 grams of Methylamphetamine in exchange for an amount of cash.

Second Supply

1. In the morning of 31 March 2016, Kisielewicz sent the offender a series of SMS asking to meet up. In response, the offender asked "how much dosh you got?" to which Kisielewicz replied, "two and a half".
2. The offender and Kisielewicz then arranged to meet in the car park of Supercheap Auto in Mayfield West.
3. Shortly afterward, the offender sent an SMS to Kisielewicz stating, "My mate Coop coming to you bro he in dark blue Commodore wagon".
4. Kisielewicz then travelled to the Cowper Street Bridge in Carrington and told the offender his updated position and that he had, "three grand".
5. Kisielewicz then met with the offender's agent "Coop" who supplied him with 7 grams of Methylamphetamine for an amount of cash. After the exchange, Kisielewicz immediately drove away from the area.
6. Shortly afterward, Kisielewicz was stopped by police and after a search of Kisielewicz's car they located a plastic freezer bag containing 6.6 grams of Methylamphetamine in a coin holder in the dashboard next to the steering wheel. Police also located $1,090 in cash in Kisielewicz's wallet.
7. Kisielewicz was then arrested by police and granted bail.

Third Supply

1. At 6:13pm on 31 March 2016 (shortly after being granted bail) Kisielewicz again contacted the offender by SMS asking, "any chance u can drop one in for me?"
2. The offender immediately called Kisielewicz and they spoke about Kisielewicz being arrested with "the shit" (Methylamphetamine) and that the police "took everything".
3. The offender offered to supply Kisielewicz with "a half" and Kisielewicz said "that would be good". The offender then told Kisielewicz that "a half would be easier for you to make it back you know".
4. Shortly afterward, the offender sent an agent named "Foggo" to meet with Kisielewicz to supply him with 14 grams of Methylamphetamine.

H61342870 - Sequences 1 - 4 - Counterfeit money offences and participation in a criminal group offence

1. In April 2016, Strike Force Jular was initiated by the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad to investigate the drug supply activities of a man named Abdul Hassian and one of his associates in Newcastle, the offender.
2. This investigation identified a sophisticated, organised syndicate supplying prohibited drugs including Methylamphetamine, Cocaine, Heroin, and Cannabis. Moreover, under direction of Hassian, the syndicate was responsible for manufacturing counterfeit Australian currency.
3. Analysis of telephone communication revealed that Hassian had invested a large sum of money in the manufacture of counterfeit Australian Currency.
4. Between 5 May 2016 and 19 May 2016, the offender was monitored discussing with Hassian the counterfeit process.
5. The offender not only offered advice about issues raised, he also gathered relevant materials for the process including a large quantity of polymer for the coating of counterfeit notes as well as providing a stamp required for the white image printed on the clear window of a counterfeit bank note.
6. Additionally, there was specific conversation in which the offender advised about the quality of the counterfeit notes and that they needed to be accepted into machines such as poker machines and money counting machines.
7. The offender advised Hassian that they would keep possession of the counterfeit money if accepted by machines, if not accepted, the money will be on-sold at a reduced cost of 4:1. For example, Hassian stated they could sell 20,000 for $500. The offender also indicated that the counterfeit money could be used for future drug supply transactions.
8. During telephone calls between 5 and 10 May 2016, the offender asked Hassian whether he still has a mate who works with the printers and tells Hassian he has come across the clear paper, "heaps of it." The offender said he can buy it, a course later approved by Hassian. The offender told Hassian that he can "pick up 500 sheets now".
9. The following day the offender told Hassian that the paper had "come from the Reserve Bank Mint" and "we can get a 100,000 of them."
10. On 9 May 2016, Hassian informed the offender that he can get a "double-triple sign writer which can work with three people at a time."
11. Hassain tells Bridge that he "wants to do it right" and that they need an extra printer." Hassian discussed with the offender "20 for 500 is great". Bridge said "Mine is going in the tool box and I'm burying it. If it can go in those machines then happy days." Further discussion between the two centred on the thickness of a $50 note.
12. On 10 May 2016, the offender confirmed with Hassian that he has "…the stamp and to throw it in when Dan comes up."
13. On 19 May 2016, the offender travelled from Newcastle to Liverpool to purchase a large quantity of prohibited drugs from Hassian. CCTV footage from Hassian's residence depicts the offender attending 20 McKell Avenue in Liverpool. (See H61103323 - Sequence 28)
14. On 10 June 2016, investigators arrested Hassian and executed a search warrant at his residential address at 20 McKell Avenue. Cocaine, Cannabis, and $42,855 in Australian Currency was seized.
15. Within the garage, located 1 x black Canon Printer Model MG3660 and 1 x silver 'Brother' Printer Model MFC-J6720DW, 1 x Scan and Cut machine Model CM110.
16. An inspection of the silver 'Brother' Printer Model MFC-J6720DW showed that the glass scanner still had a template attached to the glass which outlined three rectangle areas consistent with the size of Australian notes. This is consistent with Hassian telling the offender on 9 May 2016 "I'm going...I've actually suggested a double-triple sign writer where we can go 3 at a time, 3 people working at the same time".
17. An inspection of the A4 paper tray at the bottom of the printer revealed 3 x Australian $50 notes colour printed on a piece of white paper. This was repeated twice on separate pieces of paper making 6 printed notes in total.

Interview

1. On 20 May 2016, the offender was arrested in relation drug supply offences and taken to Wyong Police Station where he declined the opportunity to participate in an interview with police.
2. On 19 August, 2016, police attended the MRRC at Silverwater and arrested and charged the offender with the counterfeiting offences. The offender agreed to take part in a record of interview but then declined to answer any questions.

General Principles - Drug Supply

1. The crime of supplying prohibited drugs is regarded by the courts as extremely serious in circumstances where there are very significant detrimental effects to the community. The supply of prohibited drugs destroys the lives of individuals, disrupts families and generates a significant cost to the community, both socially and financially. The community expects and is entitled to expect that persons who commit these offences will face condign punishment.
2. The sentences imposed for such offending must ensure the offender is adequately punished and made accountable for the conduct, reflect the need for denunciation of the conduct and ensure that the offender and others are deterred from committing similar offences (see s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act).
3. The offender's role and the level of criminality involved is more important in determining the appropriate sentence than the quantity of drugs involved.
4. In Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156 at 42, Price J, with whom Spigelman CJ and Hidden J agreed, stated as follows: "It is well established that the quantity of the drugs is not the sole or even the principal determinate for sentencing in relation to drug offences. As was pointed out by Woods CJ at CL in R v MacDonnell [2002] 128 CrimR 44 at 33, 'What is more important is the role of the offender and the level of his or her participation in the offence, subject, of course, to the fact that, in relation to supply offences under State law, there is a gradation of seriousness reflected by an increase in penalty as the quantity of drug involved moves into those levels which answer the descriptions of a commercial quantity, or of a large commercial quantity'."

General Principles - Counterfeiting

1. In relation to the proper approach to sentencing for the offence of counterfeiting I have had regard to R v Institoris [2010] NSWCCA 8 and the remarks of Levine J at 38 to 40: "The offences under the Currency Act in my view are particularly insidious in their very nature. The trick or deceit practised upon the community by the manufacture and uttering of counterfeit banknotes is immediately damaging and potentially disastrous. The achievement of the criminal objective, founded in greed, requires (as in this case) a determination from the outset to employ modern technology and experimentation. The objective is calculated to abuse every member of the community. Everyone should be free to conduct day-to-day affairs without concern about the integrity of this country's currency".
2. Further, at paragraph 78, his Honour stated as follows: "The amount of currency is a relevant consideration in an assessment of the criminality involved in the particular offence before the court, but it is only one of the considerations. For example, in my view, there would be little mitigation in the fact that the counterfeiter was apprehended before he or she had time to produce a great quantity of counterfeit notes, notwithstanding that he or she had the material, intention, expertise and equipment to do so. In other words, the criminality for the offence cannot simply be determined by the amount of currency produced, or its face value. Whether the amount of forged currency produced should be considered as a matter of mitigation depends upon all the facts of the particular case".
3. An important consideration in sentencing for counterfeiting offences is the need for general deterrence in circumstances where counterfeiting undermines the whole economy.

Sequence 28/H61103323 (Supply prohibited drug - large commercial quantity 1115.5g methylamphetamine).

1. In assessing the objective seriousness of this offence I have taken into account the following matters: 1. The quantity of drug supplied was 1115.1g was well above the prescribed commercial quantity of 500g. 2. The nature and extent of the supply - Within a period of 6 weeks the offender was involved in 19 separate supplies of substantial quantities of methylamphetamine. 3. The role of the offender - I am satisfied that the offender together with Blake Waterhouse was involved as a principal in running an extensive business supplying prohibited drugs. It was a very large scale operation and involved a network of other persons engaged in the supply of a significant quantity of prohibited drugs. 4. For reward - I am satisfied the offender engaged in the drug supply business for significant financial reward. I accept his evidence that at the time he had a $800 - $1000 a day drug habit.
2. Having regard to the above matters I assess the objective seriousness as being in the middle of the range.
3. Sequence 1/H61103323 - Taking into account the quantity of the prohibited drug suppled 1100g GBL (the prescribed commercial quantity being 1kg) I assess this offending as being below the middle of the range of objective seriousness.
4. Count 2/Indictment - Taking into account the quantity of the prohibited drug supplied (14.2g cocaine)(the prescribed indictable quantity being 5g), I assess this offending as being toward the lowest end of the range of objective seriousness.

Sequence 4/H61671850 - Supply Ongoing basis

1. Taking into account the quantity of prohibited drugs suppled and the number of supplies (21g, 7g and 14g methylamphetamine) I assess this offending as being well below the middle of the range of objective seriousness.

Count 3 - indictment (Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime $20,000)

1. In assessing the objective seriousness of this offence I have regard to the following matters: 1. The amount of proceeds involved was $20,000 which I regard as a moderate amount. 2. The money was the proceeds of the offender's drug dealing business.
2. I assess this offending as being in the middle of the range of objective seriousness.

Sequence 35/H61103323 (Possess unauthorised pistol)

1. In assessing the objective seriousness of this offence, I have had regard to the following matters: 1. The unauthorised pistol was in possession of the offender who was significantly involved in the drug supply business. 2. Ammunition was also in the possession of the offender. 3. The weapon posed a significant risk to the safety of the community.
2. I assess this offending as being in the middle of the range of objective seriousness.

Sequence 1/H61342870 (Make counterfeit money)

1. In assessing the objective seriousness of this offence, I have had regard to the following matters: 1. The amount of counterfeit money produced was six $50 Australian notes; 2. The counterfeiting operation was well set up and organised and had the potential to produce a significant amount of counterfeit notes.
2. I assess this offending as being below the middle of the range of objective seriousness.

Aggravating features

1. The Crown relied upon the following matters as aggravating features: 1. The offences of supply prohibited drug were committed for financial gain (s 21A(2)(b) Crimes (SP) Act); and 2. There was a dissemination of drugs into the community (see Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25 at para 24).
2. I accept that both of those aggravating features are established.

Subjective circumstances

1. The offender is now 34 years old.
2. He has a very limited criminal history consisting of convictions for driving offences (2002, 2007, 2008) and two counts of common assault (2006).
3. He has not previously been convicted of any drug related offences. I am satisfied that having regard to his very limited criminal history he is entitled to some leniency on sentence.
4. The following material was tendered on sentence on behalf of the offender: Exhibit 1 - Report of John Nolan, Forensic Psychologist; Exhibit 2 - Letter written by the offender, undated; Exhibit 3 - Letter from Jason Stojanowski 6/3/18; Exhibit 4 - Letter from Anno Van Zanden 7/3/18; and Exhibit 5 - Letter from Kathy Love 8/3/18.
5. The offender's background is outlined in the Report of John Nolan (Exhibit 1) and the Presentence Report (Exhibit E).
6. The offender was raised by his natural parents in the Newcastle Region. His father left home when the offender was 17 years old and his parents ultimately divorced.
7. His father was physically and mentally abusive toward his mother.
8. The offender feels some responsibility for his parent's separation in circumstances where he had stood up to his father shortly before he left the house. He feels this has led to "depression and wallowing in drug use" as a compensatory reaction.
9. He has been in a relationship for 6 years and his partner remains supportive of him.
10. The offender reported an unremarkable schooling history. He left school in year 10. He reported losing application to school work due to his use of cannabis from 14 or 15 years of age.
11. The offender has worked constantly in the construction industry in semi-skilled labour roles since leaving school.
12. Before his arrest he had been unemployed for 5 months. Prior to that he had completed a 16 week traineeship to work as an NBN installer.
13. Upon release from custody the offender has ambitions to seek an apprenticeship in a trade such as plumbing or electrical. It was the opinion of the psychologist that the offender has the intelligence required to meet the demands of these trades.
14. The offender has worked as a sweeper whilst in custody.
15. The offender reported no medical issues and is in good health.

Substance Use

1. The offender first used cannabis at 14 or 15 years of age.
2. He started using amphetamines from 17 years of age. He also commenced consuming alcohol with his level of consumption steadily increasing.
3. He reported that during the 5 months prior to his arrest whilst he was unemployed his amphetamine use rapidly increased. At this time amphetamines were readily available to him because of his involvement in the drug supply trade.
4. The psychologist state as follows: (Exhibit 1, p 4) "He said he was able to see the extent of his offending and degradation once he became sober in goal."
5. And further (Exhibit 1, p 5) "He commented that gaol has been therapeutically beneficial for him because he has been sober for 22 months since his arrest and wants to remain that way."

Mental health background

1. The offender undertook a number of psychological assessments. His results indicated moderate levels for depression, anxiety and stress. The psychologist noted (Exhibit 1, p 7) as follows: "These elevated indicators for depression and anxiety appear consistent with his life being on hold whilst incarcerated. Otherwise, he appeared motivated and committed to making his life productive upon release".
2. The offender's IQ was assessed in the average range.
3. The psychologist made a diagnosis of substance use disorder severe in early remission.
4. The Presentence Report noted as follows: "Mr Bridge demonstrated insight into his offending behaviour, stating that he regrets his actions and acknowledges the need to receive treatment for substance use and gambling. He stated that during his time on remand he was able to reflect on his actions and use the situation as a motivator to ensure he does not repeat the same mistakes"
5. The psychologist concluded as follows: "Summary Opinion Mr Bridge has demonstrated remorse for his offending. He has no resentments about being in gaol as a consequence. He is using gaol time to build length of sobriety and plan a sober future. The positive pointers to a sober life include these features plus his given history of long term employment. He is motivated to maintain positive pro-social change by his wish to build a family. He is aware of the dangers of returning to mixing in company that would encourage him to relapse and reoffend. He has had an amphetamine addiction. He has demonstrated insight into his addictive behaviours. This is supported by my opinion that he presented as a sober thinking person without resentments. He is happy and grateful for the chance to be sober even if it is for now, in gaol. For Mr Bridge, it is remarkable how therapeutically beneficial he has made his incarceration. Incarceration as a therapeutic outcome has been a factor in some of my other cases where I have noted that offenders have maintained sober, pro-social goals upon release. He indicated intention to seek therapeutic support upon release. In my opinion Mr Bridge has sufficient intelligence to pursue stated career goals. His current mental health is within normal limits in that he not (sic) suffering from psychopathologies such as depression, anxiety or psychosis. His personality is well within the boundaries of being a likeable person and free of personality disorder. He has good family and partner support and he has insight into the process of this offending behaviour. His prognosis is good."
6. The offender gave evidence during the sentencing proceedings.
7. He apologised to the court and his family and friends for his offending behaviour. He told the court he now well understands the damage that drugs do to the community.
8. He said at the time of his offending he had a $800-$1000 a day drug habit.
9. He said his family remain supportive of him. He regarded himself as having an addictive personality. In addition to becoming addicted to alcohol and drugs he also reported a gambling problem. In relation to his prospects of rehabilitation he stated, "I won't be committing any further crimes at all." He was hopeful of gaining employment upon release from custody and plans to have a family.
10. I have also had regard to the letter that the offender wrote to the court (Exhibit 2). The offender expressed his remorse. He further outlined his circumstances at the time of the offending and spoke positively about his future plans.
11. There were a number of references tendered on behalf of the offender (Exhibit 3, 4, 5).
12. He is described as reliable, trustworthy and is highly regarded by his peers. This offending is regarded as being out of character.

Prospects of Rehabilitation

1. The court is satisfied the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation having regard to his very limited criminal history, his expressions of remorse and contrition, the steps he has taken towards rehabilitation whilst in custody and his good family support.
2. I am also satisfied the offender is unlikely to reoffend. I note that in the Presentence Report he was assessed as a medium-low risk of re-offending (see Exhibit E).

Remorse

1. I am further satisfied the offender is remorseful. He has given evidence of his remorse before me and has also expressed his remorse to family and friends (see Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 5).

Special circumstances

1. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that I would find special circumstances and vary the statutory ratio between the non-parole and parole period in circumstances where the offender will need a longer period on parole to address his drug addiction issues. I am satisfied that special circumstances are established and I propose to vary the statutory ratio pursuant to section 44(2), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Form 1 matters

1. I have taken into account the Form 1 matters in accordance with the principles enunciated in Attorney General's Application No. 1 of 2002 (2002) NSWCCA 518.

Parity

1. As a result of the police investigation a number of other offenders were identified as being involved in the supply of methylamphetamine and were subsequently charged.
2. The following offenders have been sentenced.

1. Matthew Kisielewicz - pleaded guilty to the following offences: (1) Supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, 413 grams, an offence pursuant to s 25(2), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for this offence is twenty years imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000. There is a prescribed standard non-parole period of ten years. (2) Supply prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, 6.6 grams, an offence pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for this offence is fifteen years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000. There is no standard non-parole period. Mr Kisielewicz was also to be dealt with for two offences on a s 166 certificate as follows: (1) Drive unlicensed, an offence pursuant to s 53(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for this offence is twenty penalty units or $2,200. (2) Deal with proceeds of crime, an offence pursuant to s 193(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for this offence is two years imprisonment. Mr Kisielewicz was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a NPP of 1 year and 6 months. He received a total discount of 50% for his plea of guilty and assistance.
2. Shane Murray - pleaded guilty to the following offence: Supply prohibited drug, to wit, 1041.3 grams of gamma butryolactone being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug; and Supply prohibited drug, to wit, 426 grams of methylamphetamine being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug. The following Form 1 matters were taken into account: - Deal with property suspected proceeds of crime - Supply prohibited drug >indict. quantity (not cannabis - Possess prohibited drug - Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years, 6 months to commence on 15 March 2017 and expiring on 14 September 2020 with a non-parole period of 1 year, 9 months. Stephen Burnes - pleaded guilty to the following offence: Supply a prohibited drug, namely, 27.5g Methylamphetamine (quantity). He was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment to be released forthwith (s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act).

1. The offenders Blake Waterhouse and Abdul Hassain are yet to be dealt with.
2. I am satisfied that there is no direct parity between this offender and Mr Kisielewicz, Mr Murray or Mr Burns in circumstances where the offences for which this offender is being sentenced are objectively more serious. None of the co-offenders was involved in the drug supply business to the same extent as this offender.

Authorities

1. The Crown and Mr Healey provided the court with the following authorities: R v Medd [2016] NSWCCA 216 Lam v R; Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 87 Baquiran v R [2014] NSWCCA 221 R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38
2. Those authorities have been of assistance in determining the appropriate sentence in this matter.
3. I have also had regard to the submissions of the Crown, both oral and in writing (see exhibit B) and the oral submissions of Mr Healey on behalf of the offender.

Commonwealth Offences

1. In relation to the Commonwealth offences the Court is required to sentence the offender in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act. The sentences must be "of a severity appropriate in the all the circumstances of the offence" (see s 16A(1), of the Crimes Act).
2. Section 16A identifies the matters the Court must take into account such as are relevant and known to the Court. I am satisfied that the plea demonstrates genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. I propose to allow a discount of 25% for the Commonwealth matters.

State Offences

1. I have had regard to the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Having considered all possible alternatives, I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate for all offences (other than sequence 36/H61103323 possess ammunition and sequence 37/H61103323 possess cannabis 24.5 grams), (see s 5(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act).
2. I have had regard to the prescribed maximum penalties and the standard non-parole periods where applicable.
3. I propose to impose an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for all the State offences (with the exception of sequence 4/H61342870 knowingly participate in criminal group (manufacture counterfeit money) which will be dealt with in connection with the Commonwealth offences, and sequence 36/H61103323 possess ammunition in respect of which the maximum prescribed penalty is a $550 fine, and sequence 37/H61103323 possess cannabis (24.5 grams) which I propose to deal with by way of s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act).

Totality

1. Had I been sentencing the offender separately for each offence, I would have made the sentences partially cumulative in order to reflect the total criminality. However, the accumulation would have been moderate, given that all drug offences occurred during the same criminal enterprise. I propose to also partially accumulate the aggregate sentence upon the sentences imposed for the counterfeiting charges in circumstances where that conduct demonstrates separate and distinct criminality.
2. In accordance with s 54A 2(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act the indicative sentences are as follows: 1. Sequence 1/H61103323 supply commercial quantity GBL. The starting point for the sentence was three years, discounted by 25%, leaving a total term of two years and three months and a non-parole period of one year and five months. 2. Sequence 28/H61103323, taking into account the form 1 matters, supply large commercial quantity methylamphetamine. The starting point for the sentence was ten years, discounted by 25% for the plea of guilty, leaving a total term of seven and a half years with a non-parole period of four years and eight months. 3. Sequence 35/H61103323, possess pistol. The starting point for that sentence was two years and eight months, discounted by 25%, leaving a total term of two years with a non-parole period of one year and three months. 4. Count 2 on indictment, supply prohibited drug, cocaine, 14.2 grams. The starting point for the sentence was twelve months, discounted by 25%, leaving a total term of eight months. 5. Count 3 on indictment, knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, $20,000. The starting point for the sentence was eight months, discounted by 25%, leaving a total term of six months. 6. Sequence 4/H61671850, supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis. The starting point for that sentence was three years, discounted by 25%, leaving a total term of two years and three months.
3. The indicative sentences for the s 166 certificate matters are as follows: 1. sequence 29/H61103323, a fixed term of one month; 2. sequence 30/H61103323, a fixed term of one month; 3. sequence 32/H61103323, a fixed term of one month; 4. sequence 33/H61103323, a fixed term of one month; 5. sequence 38/H61103323, a fixed term of one month; 6. sequence 40/H61103323, a fixed term of six months.
4. In respect of all offences, you are convicted. You are sentenced as follows: 1. Sequence 1/H61342870, make counterfeit money, a fixed term of nine months to date from 20 May 2016 and expire on 19 February 2017. The starting point for that sentence was twelve months, less 25%. I decline to make a recognisance release order.
5. Section 166 Matters 1. Sequence 2/H61342870, give information with respect to the manner in which counterfeit money may be made, fixed term of one month to date from 20 May 2016 and expire on 19 June 2016. I decline to make a recognisance release order. 2. Sequence 3/H61342870, possess counterfeit materials, a fixed term of one month to date from 20 May 2016 and expire on 19 June 2016. I decline to make a recognisance release order. 3. Sequence 4/H61342870, knowingly participate in criminal group (manufacture counterfeit money), a fixed term of six months to date from 20 May 2016 and expire on 19 November 2016.
6. Aggregate Sentence 1. In relation to those matters that I have previously indicated will be the subject of an aggregate sentence, I sentence you to a total aggregate sentence of ten years imprisonment to date from 20 September 2016 and expire on 19 September 2026 with a non-parole period of six years to date from 20 September 2016 and expire on 19 September 2022. The earliest date upon which you will become eligible for parole is 19 September 2022.
7. The total effective sentence is ten years and four months with a non-parole period of six years and four months. 1. In relation to sequence 36/H61103323, possess ammunition without a licence, I impose a fine of $200. 2. In relation to sequence 37/H61103323, possess cannabis, 24.5 grams, pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, you are convicted without imposing any further penalty. 3. Pursuant to s 18 (1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crimes Act, I make forfeiture orders in accordance with the short minute of consent order dated 9 March 2018.
8. You will need to confirm, Mr Crown, that I have dealt with all matters. I will stand the matter down so you can check that every matter has been dealt with.
9. HENSCHELL: Thank you, your Honour.
10. HER HONOUR: There were a number of matters to be withdrawn.
11. HENSCHELL: Yes.
12. HER HONOUR: Do you wish to withdraw those now?
13. HENSCHELL: Yes, your Honour. Those matters are set out on a summary document, exhibit C perhaps.
14. HER HONOUR: Yes.
15. So I will note that the following matters are withdrawn: H61103323 sequences 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25, 27. That is all. I will note that the sequences to be withdrawn are set out in the table that forms exhibit C.
16. HENSCHELL: Thank you, your Honour.
17. HER HONOUR: Have you had an opportunity to check the dates, Mr Crown and Mr Healey?
18. HEALEY: As far as I can follow, your Honour, there does not appear to be any issues that I can submit or argue.
19. HER HONOUR: Thank you. Is there anything further?
20. HENSCHELL: No, your Honour. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 April 2018