It was accepted that they were at the middle man level and not low level dealers. Mrs Buciuman had no previous and Mr Buciuman had no relevant previous. It was alleged by the Buciumans that Mr Dobrovolski knew the supplier but they did not. Mr Dobrovolski's counsel accepted that that was so except for the first occasion. It was also accepted that he was not a low level dealer. Counsel for Mr Dobrovolski had submitted that a 12 year sentence would be the appropriate head sentence. The information was that none of the applicants were users and therefore there was a commercial motive without the circumstance of funding an addiction to drugs. It seems that there may have been a habit of gambling that was being funded, at least to some extent, by the moneys received.

In my opinion the learned trial Judge was justified in not differentiating between the prisoners when sentencing and Mr Dobrovolski did not today suggest that there was any basis for differentiating. There was a slightly lesser quantity in his case, but that was counterbalanced, in my view, by what appears to be a closer relationship with the supplier.

Notwithstanding the range suggested by counsel at the hearing, Mrs Richards today submitted that 10 years with a recommendation after three years was appropriate. We were referred particularly to the cases of Scaunasu and Tran as possible bench marks. Having considered those cases and the others to which reference was made in the outlines, it is my view that the present case fits comfortably within the pattern of cases, and for that reason I am not persuaded that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. In each case the application should be refused.

MOYNIHAN J: The order will be as Justice Mackenzie has proposed. Do you understand the outcome, Mr Dobrovolski?