R v Catanuto

Before: KING SC DCJ

Decision: Indicative sentences:
[SEQ 4] JL 004 – 15 years’ imp – NPP 11 years & 3 months
[SEQ 7] JL 006 (+ Form 1 [SEQ 6]– JL 005) – 15 years’ imp – NPP 11 years & 3 months
[SEQ 9] JL 008 – 14 years’ imp – NPP 10 years & 6 months
Aggregate sentence:
25% discount for plea – no special circumstances.
Convicted on each count.
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 18 years comprising a NPPof 13 years and 6 months commencing 13 September 2023 and expiring on 12 March 2037, upon which date he will become eligible for release to parole, and a balance of term of 4 years and 6 months commencing on 13 March 2037 and expiring on 12 September 2041.

Catchwords: CRIME – drug offences - sentence –knowingly take part in the manufacturing of prohibited drug, more than a large commercial quantity x2 (MDMA; methylamphetamine) – 1x supply prohibited drug, more than a large commercial quantity, 223.5 kg 1, 4‑butanediol + Form 1: supply (cocaine) more than indictable but less than commercial quantity – “huge” quantities of individual drugs - role of offender – offender’s account of involvement – objective seriousness of offences – subjective matters

Legislation Cited: Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rex
Catanuto, Peter

Representation: Solicitors:
Crown: Ms N Sawagid ODPP
Defence: Mr O Samin Australian Criminal and Family Lawyers

File Number(s): 2023/00292186

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Peter Catanuto appears for sentence in respect of three offences.

2. The first of those is Sequence 4, knowingly take part in the manufacturing of prohibited drug, being more than a large commercial quantity, contrary to s 24(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty provided is imprisonment for life and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. The first offence relates to 30.46 kilograms of 3, 4‑MDMA at Mortdale.

3. The second offence is Sequence 7, supply of prohibited drug, more than a large commercial quantity, being 223.5 kilograms of 1, 4‑butanediol (Kirrawee and Mortdale) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and when being dealt with for that second offence, Sequence 7, he asks the Court to take into account a further offence on a Form 1, being Sequence 6, supply prohibited drug, more than an indictable but less than a commercial quantity, being 90 grams of cocaine.

4. The third offence is Sequence 9, knowingly take part in the manufacture of prohibited drug, being more than a large commercial quantity, being 11 kilograms of methylamphetamine at Mortdale, contrary, again, to s 24(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act.

5. In relation to each of the three offences other than the Form 1 matter, the maximum sentence is a term of imprisonment for life, and there is a relevant standard non‑parole period in each case of 15 years.

6. The offender was arrested on 13 September 2023 and he was committed for sentence on 5 June 2025 from the Downing Centre Local Court and is accordingly entitled to a 25% discount in relation to each of the offences. Such a discount will be provided.

7. The facts have been agreed and they are as follows - however, I note that the facts as supplied to the Court were supplied on the basis of there being a co‑offender who is not currently before the Court ,and there is material in the facts which is irrelevant or of only peripheral relevance to the current accused. I intend to shorten the facts by not referring to what appears to be not particularly relevant to this offender.

8. The offenders are Adeson Ayshow and Peter Catanuto.

9. At all material times, the offender Peter Catanuto was living at 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, which was leased in his mother’s name.

10. The offences involved three separate locations.

(i) 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, being the place of manufacture of the prohibited drugs; (ii) A Kennard storage unit at Kirrawee, being the place of storing and holding precursors required in the manufacture of prohibited drugs; (iii) 8/19 Crows Nest Road, Waverton, being Ayshow’s primary residence, where police located prohibited drugs and proceeds of crime.

4. Police conducted a large amount of physical surveillance at 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, across July, August and September 2023, and often observed the offenders engaging with each other near the vehicles that they had parked near the premises. Police were able to determine that Ayshow was driving two separate vehicles from time to time, being a Renault Kangaroo van and a black Mazda CX7. They also established that Catanuto was driving a Holden Rodeo ute.

5. As part of their investigation, police obtained CCTV footage from Kennards Storage at Kirrawee and it was observed that both of the offenders had access to the unit used to store and hold precursors. That storage unit had been leased by the offender since 2016.

EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 2023 - POLICE PURSUIT AND DISPOSAL OF DRUGS

6. Ayshow was arrested on 13 September 2023, after what I would describe as a desperate police pursuit. “Desperate” is not a word used in the facts.

7. Around 3.40pm on 13 September 2023, Ayshow was seen leaving the Cook Street, Mortdale premises, holding a Woolworths enviro bag and a silver‑colour laptop. Catanuto was observed handing Ayshow an unknown item through the driver’s side of the car.

8. Police officers received a message about the departure of Ayshow and the green enviro Woolworths bag and Mazda.

9. In short, Ayshow was observed by police driving a motor vehicle and when they activated their warning lights, he accelerated, and the police then commenced a police pursuit, the details of which are irrelevant to the current offender. At one point during the pursuit, in Universal Street, Mortdale, Ayshow held a bag out of the driver’s side window and shook it causing a “brown crystal‑like substance to fall out and go all over the roadway”. The police pursuit continued until eventually Ayshow pulled over and was removed from the vehicle and arrested.

10. He was asked by one of the officers what he had thrown out the window and he replied, “Nothing”, and further said that it was not true that he had thrown something out of the window.

11. He later declined, as was his right, to participate in an interview.

12. In relation to the substance thrown out of the car window,

“a number of clumps of brown‑coloured crystal were located on the roadway and collected by police officers.”

13. Amongst the material collected was a large, brown crystal rock, as well as finer brown crystal which was swept up.

14. These were later analysed and determined to be 83.9 grams of a loose substance identified as 3, 4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine. The purity was not tested.

A further 377.5 grams of a crystalline substance also identified as 3, 4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine with a prohibited drug purity of 76%, giving a total weight of what had been disposed of from the car and collected of 461 grams of 3, 4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

The vehicle that had been driven by Ayshow during the pursuit was also searched and located in it were three mobile phones and one laptop, as well as a 20-litre plastic fuel container, containing hypophosphorous acid, described as a precursor for the manufacture of prohibited drugs. An Apple iPhone was later examined, which related to Ayshow. Located on it were communications from him to a contact saved in the phone as “Colin” regarding a shipment of 1,4‑Butanediol from Hong Kong. The messages demonstrated that Ayshow had made an International money transfer of approximately $8,000 Australian for the drug.

15. The messages also demonstrated that Ayshow was holding himself out as “Barry Frost” for the purpose of the transaction.

16. Two days later on 15 September 2023, police searched the storage unit at Kirrawee, which was leased by Catanuto. When they searched it, they found approximately 215 kilograms of 1‑4 butanediol in bottles labelled “Rose Hydrosol”. With the bottles, police also found a consignment note relating to the boxes of glass bottles labelled “Rose Hydrosol” that contained 1, 4‑Butanediol. The note was addressed to Barry Frost of 138 Centenary Road, South Wentworthville, and dated 2 September 2022. A second phone from the vehicle was examined, being a Google Pixel mobile phone, the password for which had been recovered from the previous phone referred to. One of the Apps on the phone was the application called “Threema” which enables encrypted messages to be sent between parties.

17. The messages also demonstrated that in the days before his arrest, Ayshow had arranged the supply of 2 kilograms of 3, 4‑MDMA for $10,000 (I note this gives an approximate wholesale price of 1 kilo of 3, 4‑MDMA of $5,000. If that value is applied to the 30.46 kilograms of 3, 4‑MDMA relevant to Sequence 4, it provides an approximate wholesale value in excess of $150,000.)

[I note that the prosecution has not provided any information to the Court about the value of any of the drugs with the exception of that message].

18. The photographs from the “Threema” messaging showed that the form of the drug was similar to what had been thrown out of the car during the police pursuit, a sludgy or powdery form of MDMA.

SEARCH OF 8/19 CROWS NEST ROAD WAVERTON - AYSHOW’S RESIDENCE

8. His residence was searched on 13 September 2025. In his apartment, 11.77 grams of cocaine was located as well as $9,900 Australian cash. The cash was in a dresser in a bedroom. A search of the garage allocated to that unit was also conducted. Seized was a clear resealable bag holding $19,900 in Australian cash, as well as a clear resealable plastic bag containing other bags, amongst which was a brown crystalline substance which was examined and found to be 13.63 grams of 3, 4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

SEARCH OF 5 COOK STREET, MORTDALE ‑ CLANDESTINE LABORATORY AND RESIDENCE OF CATANUTO

9. Catanuto was the primary resident of 5 Cook Street, Mortdale.

10. At about 6.20pm on 13 September, those premises were searched in the execution of a search warrant.

11. Catanuto was arrested at about the time that the search commenced and later participated in an interview with police which was summarised in the facts but not supplied with the Crown material.

12. After finding various substances and chemicals, the search was suspended and the Chemical Operations Unit took over the search upon execution of a crime scene warrant at about 9pm.

13. The search occupied a number of days in which many exhibits and items were seized and conveyed to police custody. Those items seized were observed by Detective Senior Constable Emma Stewart as being typically used in a clandestine laboratory in the manufacture of prohibited drugs.

FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF ITEMS SEIZED FROM 5 COOK STREET, MORTDALE

14. A number of items were seized when found in the clandestine laboratory located at the residence and had been used in the supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs by both Ayshow and Catanuto. Various items seized were forensically examined ,and Ayshow’s and Catanuto’s DNA were both identified.

15. The following items were seized from 5 Cook Street that positively identified Ayshow:

16. A fingerprint lifted from the exterior of a stainless‑steel bowl, the stainless‑steel bowl was analysed to contain 11 grams (gross) of methylamphetamine.

17. A swab from the rubber handle of a shot press showed a mixed DNA profile from which Ayshow could not be excluded as a contributor. The rubber handle belonged to a hydraulic shot press. This is the type of equipment which is often used in the manufacture of prohibited drugs to compress powders into a hard form. [There is no information as to whether this was being operated in relation to a mould to manufacture tablets or blocks.]

18. There was also a trace DNA from a blue glove which showed a mixture of DNA from which Ayshow could not be excluded as a contributor.

19. The following items were seized from 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, that positively identified Catanuto:

Before I refer to that list, could you tell me, Madam Crown, C refers to the inside of “most stained black nitrile glove,” D refers to the “inside of a most stained black nitrile glove.” I’m going to presume, although there are different numbers or figures in brackets, that that is the same glove and there was a further trace from the “exterior of black nitrile glove” not referred to as a “most stained black glove,” I’m going to presume that that was a second glove.

SAWAGID: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So, there were only two not three gloves, with DNA found on the outside and inside of one, that is DNA‑‑

SAWAGID: That’s correct.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑on the exterior of the other? Thank you.

If you look at A and B at para 44, that appears from the numbers in brackets said to be two separate measuring jugs.

SAWAGID: Sorry, your Honour? Two separate?

HIS HONOUR: Two separate measuring jugs, not the same jug because the measuring cup is referred to by a different exhibit number in each case.

SAWAGID: If it’s a different exhibit number, it’s a different jug, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

17. The offender’s fingerprint was found on a glass measuring cup, (G007).

18. A further fingerprint was located on the exterior of a glass measuring jug, being a second measuring jug referred to as an exhibit number (C025).

Mr Samin, do you accept that those were two different jugs?

SAMIN: It seems so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

19. His DNA was also discovered or located on the inside of what is described as “most-stained black nitrile glove” as well as the inside of what appears to be the same glove, although they appear to have different exhibit numbers. There was also the offender’s DNA located on the exterior of a glove simply described as a “black nitrile glove” and the match was to his partial DNA rather than full DNA. The swab from the rubber handle of the shot press showed a mixed DNA profile and the offender’s DNA could not be excluded from being a contributor.

20. The facts refer to all of the items as having been used in the manufacture of prohibited drugs within the clandestine laboratory at 5 Cook Street, Mortdale.

21. The facts assert that the offender, Catanuto, knowingly took part in the manufacture of prohibited drugs by providing the premises, knowing that manufacture was going to occur there. I will return to that later.

CATANUTO’S INTERVIEW WITH POLICE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2023

22. The offender took part in an ERISP at about 8.45pm on 13 September, during which he made admissions to participation in the manufacture of prohibited drugs. While parts of the interview are outlined in the agreed facts, the interview itself has not been provided to the Court. What is contained in the facts is as follows:

That he was living in the car he was pulled over and arrested in;

That he had stayed at 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, in the past, and as recently as a “couple of nights” before the interview;

That he did not know any information relating to Ayshow’s involvement and a police pursuit and disposal of prohibited drugs through the car window;

That he knew Ayshow as he had worked as a mobile mechanic for him for a couple (of cars) over the years ,and that he considered Ayshow a friend;

That the last time he had corresponded with Ayshow was earlier the same day as the arrest ,and it was in relation to his cars, the conversation occurring verbally on the street near 5 Cook Street, Mortdale;

That Catanuto’s mother is the lessee of 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, but she was admitted to hospital during the period of his arrest;

That at the time of his arrest, the offender had misrepresented that he had never been to 5 Cook Street, Mortdale, and that he had no knowledge of the premises, due to being scared;

That he had accumulated significant debt and was attempting to reconcile the debt by doing “some things” including “just sit down and boil and put these things out and just watch them boil, that’s about it”, questions 114 to 122;

When asked about who provided the ingredients and materials for this process, the offender stated, “A bloke just dropped it off and said, ‘It’s right to go’, he said, pretty much told me to go and set up what to do”;

That this was set up in the bathroom of the premises;

When the offender was asked about his participation in the manufacturing of prohibited drugs, he stated that he did not know what he was doing exactly and did not have knowledge that he was assisting in manufacturing drugs (Question 136 and answer);

That another individual had dropped off the chemicals and ingredients and would set up the process and the offender would then simply watch and monitor.

That individual visited the premises multiple times over a period of time;

That Ayshow was not the individual who brought the ingredients or set up the clandestine laboratory;

That Catanuto had minimal contact with the individual who completed the set‑up;

That these visits began in the last six months and that it was not reported to the police.

23. I note that that statement would put the initial setting up as potentially having occurred in March;

That he was under the belief that his participation in the process would reconcile his debt;

That he knew that what he was doing was the wrong thing, “I just needed the money. I wanted to get out of shit.”

24. The offender cannot answer questions from police about the details of his role when supervising the clandestine laboratory, such as the use of a flame, the colour of the chemicals or prohibited drugs, and the exact involvement of Ayshow within the premises.

25. The offender explained his participation in the following way:

26. He was being stood over;

27. He owed money to the people who organised the laboratory as a result of gambling and drug debts;

28. He didn’t approach the police because he “valued his life”, and “didn’t want anyone else in my family to know or get hurt or anything like that”;

29. He feels disgusted with himself;

30. He “didn’t want any part of what was happening, so I just did what I was told to do and that was it”;

31. He “was not supplying to people”;

32. He was not getting paid for his involvement.

ANALYSIS OF CLANDESTINE LABORATORY AT MORTDALE AND ITEMS STORED AT KENNARDS KIRRAWEE

26. Following the investigations, the premises at Mortdale and Kirrawee were searched, and multiple items and exhibits seized and forensically analysed. The agreed facts contain a schedule of prohibited drugs, prohibited precursors and non‑prohibited precursors which were identified at each of the premises and the amounts located at each.

27. At Mortdale - the prohibited drugs located were:

MDMA - 25.27 kilograms,

Methylamphetamine - 834 grams,

Cocaine - 91 grams,

1, 4‑Butanediol - 5.65 kilograms.

28. Items found in the process of manufacture were:

MDP‑2‑P - 27.6 kilograms,

Methylamphetamine - 7.1 kilograms,

Methamphetamine - 3 kilograms,

P2P - 12 kilograms,

MDMA - 5.2 kilograms.

29. As to prohibited precursors:

3,4 Phenyl‑2‑methyl glycidic acid -, 2 kilograms,

Hypophosphorous acid - 26.6 kilograms,

Non‑prohibited precursor:

EMDMG - 12.2 kilograms.

30. At Kirrawee, the prohibited drug located was:

1, 4‑Butanediol - 241 kilograms,

As to the prohibited precursors:

3-Phenyl‑2‑methyl glycidic acid - 20.7 kilograms, and

Benzaldehyde - 16.7 kilograms and 6.8 Kilograms.

As to non‑prohibited precursors:

EMDMG - 140 kilograms.

31. The next paragraph in the agreed facts contains some information about the purity of various prohibited drugs that were located. I am not going to repeat those as part of this. They were of varying quality ‑ there was both MDMA and methylamphetamine which had been located. Three separate quantities of MDMA were analysed and four separate quantities of methylamphetamine were analysed for purity. The MDMA varied between 36.5% or less pure to 77% pure. The methylamphetamine there varied between 4% or less and 78.5%.

32. The cocaine and 1, 4‑Butanediol were not manufactured at the premises. I note that on behalf of the offender, Mr Samin has submitted that the Court would find, in relation to each of the sequences for which he is to be sentenced, that on the facts, the objective seriousness falls well below the mid‑range of objective seriousness. That is a submission which, in my view, can only reasonably be described as significantly underappreciating the nature of the offending.

33. The offender was the lessor of the premises in relation to which a clandestine manufacturing lab had been set up. He was supervising the manufacture and apparently supplying Mr Ayshow from what was produced. He was also the lessor of the storage unit in which significant quantities of drugs and/or precursors were stored. The prohibited drugs located and/or precursors were in very significant quantities.

34. In respect of Sequence 4, that is the 30.46 kilograms of MDMA at Mortdale, I note that it is more than 60 times the large commercial quantity which commences at half a kilogram. The MDMA was found in the clandestine lab in both completed form and, otherwise, undergoing the process of manufacture.

35. Part of the total the subject of the charge was also the 460 grams of MDMA that the co‑offender, Ayshow, had removed from the laboratory in a Woolworths bag and spilled out on to the roadway during the police pursuit. Apparently, the specific purity of that drug ranged from 36.5% to 77%. As to the second offence of knowingly take part in the manufacture of prohibited drug, more than a large commercial quantity, being 11 kilograms of methylamphetamine at Mortdale, and Sequence 9, 11 kilograms of methylamphetamine, these amounts are 22 times the threshold for the large commercial quantity which is, again, half a kilogram and, again, it was found in both the completed form at Mortdale and also undergoing the process of manufacture. Its purity ranged from 4% to 78%.

36. As to the cocaine to be taken into account consequent to the Form 1, in respect of Sequence 7, it was 90 grams, being 30 times more than the 3-gram threshold for a trafficable quantity, and 18 times the indictable quantity threshold, which is 5 grams.

37. I note the offender’s reference to when the lab was originally set up some six months before arrest in September, and that the premises were under police surveillance only during July, August and September 2023. There is no reference to any other person being present or visiting the premises at any time during the period that it was under police surveillance.

38. The offender declined to give evidence on sentence and assertions by him to a psychiatrist or to police officers in an interview must carry little or no weight in the absence of sworn evidence. He did not himself identify any other person as being involved, and on my reading of the Crown summary of the record of interview, he appears to be endeavouring to leave Mr Ayshow out as well. It was always within his knowledge to be able to identify those persons who he claims offered him the opportunity to work off his gambling debt and acquire some drugs in the process by giving evidence of those persons. He has not done so and, as I have indicated, provided absolutely no information that might assist the police in what, on his version of events, was a well organised criminal activity.

39. Mr Ayshow, on the evidence, appears to be responsible for obtaining the relevant chemicals and/or imported drugs they were found in possession of, and the offender, on the evidence, appears to be the person responsible for the manufacture of any prohibited drugs from precursors, or to be partially engaged in doing so.

40. The quantities involved in relation to the individual drugs are huge. The Crown has provided no material before the Court as to the value of any of the drugs, but even the precursors must have cost a considerable amount, and as I have previously referred to, the 30 plus kilograms of 3, 4‑MDMA on the price Mr Ayshow was trying to sell it would alone have a wholesale value in excess of $150,000. What was located by way of processed prohibited drugs is likely to have had a wholesale value in the millions of dollars, if not tens of millions of dollars on the street. They were significant quantities and must have had, at least, a significant value on a wholesale basis.

41. There were significant quantities of precursors which could have been used for the future production of further prohibited drugs, and this was clearly set up to be an ongoing operation. In my view, each of the offences should be regarded as a very serious incidence of such offending, whether it be knowingly take part in, or supply. While it is the quantity which is relevant, it is the fact that prohibited drugs can be sold that adds a further layer to why they are prohibited: because it is their value which creates an additional risk to the, community in that it creates the risk of offences other than use or supply, involving violence within the distribution networks because of the high value that prohibited drugs may have.

42. As to subjective matters, before the Court is a Sentence Assessment Report under the hand of Lynda McLean, dated 18 September 2025, a psychiatric report from Dr Adam Martin, dated 2 October 25, a letter to the Court of five and‑a half pages from the offender, dated 8 October 2025, not written by the offender, but composed by his legal representative on the basis of instructions provided to him by the offender.

43. As I have indicated when it was tendered, letters to the Court from offenders are of little weight. They can have significant weight where there is other material which indicates that they can be relied on. In his lengthy letter to the Court, the offender repeats on many occasions how deeply he regrets his actions, he accepts that there is no excuse and that he would accept full responsibility, and he is ashamed of his actions. If that were so, I would have hoped it would have caused him to provide information to the police that might have assisted them to crack down on organised crime.

44. Otherwise, in his letter to the Court, he sets out his personal history, with which I have no particular difficulty, as there is some confirmation of aspects of it contained in the letter to the Court from his mother, Barbara Catanuto, dated 8 October 2025, and the letter to the Court from his sister, Anne Catanuto, dated 7 October 2025.

45. He used his letter to the Court to pursue his claim: that his participation arose from his having regular drug suppliers from whom he purchased drugs for his own use, who had allowed him to run up a debt in the sum of $10,000 before offering him the opportunity to wipe that debt by providing the Mortdale premises as a place to manufacture prohibited drugs.

46. He otherwise claims that he had a gambling habit, and so apart from his drug use, his gambling habit meant that he was unable to repay or pay them for the drugs he had otherwise used.

47. He claims that those who asked to use his premises “told me who they worked for”, and that he then realised how much trouble he was in and that they were not people who would be forgiving of his debt and accordingly decided to assist them in their criminal enterprise. As I have indicated earlier, the offender did not nominate any other person at all as being involved at any time in this matter, other than by way of saying there were other unidentified persons. He claimed that his participation was to wipe his debts and because he was informed that they would give him a consistent amount of drugs to use himself.

48. Subjective matters have been drawn from that material, including a letter from Ian Gibson, dated 30 September 2025, as to the offender’s very well-regarded participation in the engineering unit at Parklea Correctional Centre, and a schedule setting out his attendance while in custody on a significant number of occasions at programmes in relation to Narcotics Anonymous and other training which might assist him on release.

49. In addition, his criminal history is before the Court.

50. I note that in his letter to the Court, he said:

“I have assisted people to benefit from highly illegal activity and live luxurious lives while having a total disregard for the safety of others and myself. For that I am truly sorry.”

51. Apparently, he knows these people well enough to know they live “luxurious lives” but was not inclined to bring their luxurious lives to an end, if they existed, by disclosing who they were.

52. As to any possible issue of duress, the material provided to the Court simply goes to him believing that they were serious criminals, but he does not refer to any actual threat, simply the request that he repay the moneys he owed for past drugs supplied.

53. As to any duress, he said in his letter to the Court that he knew - when being asked about his house being used - that he knew that they were asking him about doing something legal.

“I did not ask any questions about it, because, quite honestly, I was scared, and didn’t want to ruffle any feathers with them, given that I felt as though I was lucky they hadn’t resorted to violence with me yet.

I remember that when they first told me that they wanted to access, use my house, I was very hesitant. I was already frightened of them, but I didn’t try and ask if there was another way, but the reality was they told me that the people they worked for had already decided this is what they wanted and they were not really going to take no for an answer. In my mind, this meant that it was either I go along with what they wanted or I would face some very serious consequences.

This is when I ultimately gave them access to my house in Mortdale. I gave them a key to the garage which backed on to the laneway, at the time I gave them the key, I was still of the view that they would be storing stuff. It was only when they brought over the equipment and began to actually set up the drug lab in my house that I became fully aware of what exactly they were planning to use my house for.

I never asked any questions of them. I just went along with what they wanted and stayed out of their way. They gave me very clear instructions not to disturb or take anything, not to tell anybody about what was happening, and not to smoke around the equipment. I was obviously aware that there was some kind of drug cooking going on, however, I did not know exactly how much was being produced. I never asked and I was never told. It was clear to me that there was a significantly large amount being manufactured, given the amount of equipment that was there and the fact that I knew they weren’t just doing this to cook drugs for themselves to use.

I had no knowledge of how to cook drugs at all and I did not handle the product or any chemicals and I did not set up the lab. I recall helping them bring some of the equipment from the street into the house but then being told to go while they were setting up the equipment.

Not long after the drug equipment was set up in my house, they approached me once again, asking if I still had my storage shed. I had mentioned this to them previously in passing when I was purchasing drugs...In a similar way to how they asked to use my house, they asked if they could use my shed to store more products. Given what they had done with my house, I was aware that this meant drugs. In reality, they weren’t asking, they were requesting. I gave them the details of the shed and the access code. I was once again given strict instructions not to take any of the product for myself.

Essentially, my role was to warehouse it for them and that was it. I was never engaged in selling it to people or delivering some of the product to others for them to sell. My involvement was solely giving them the shed to keep it in. I knew that the amount of drugs being stored would be large, but I generally had no idea how much they would be storing there. The first I knew about the actual amount was when I was charged and my solicitors advised me about what evidence there was against me. I recall being stunned by the exact numbers because they go well beyond anything that I would have expected...I want to make it crystal clear that I have never actually actively took part in the supply of drugs to anyone. I never profited from my behaviour and I was never working for these people. The only two benefits I received were my debts being wiped, and they would give me a consistent amount of drugs to use myself.”

54. He later refers to himself as being taken advantage of and blames the major reason for why he is before the Court in relation to this is simply because of his decades of drug use.

55. As I have referred to, these were very significant quantities of drugs. The offender was an active participant in the manufacture of drugs. Even on his own account, he refers to being required to keep watch over the drugs as they were boiling in the process of being manufactured; he assisted in taking equipment into his own premises, and could hardly have not been aware of the significant nature of what was occurring and if he wished to be regarded, as submitted by his legal representative, as a “minnow”, he needed to provide information the Court could rely on that might establish that he was a minnow. He has not done so. On the information before me, there was no‑one else involved in this matter other than himself and Mr Ayshow.

56. I do not accept his unsworn assertions as to his role and how he came to participate. In my view, and what I know of his record of interview, and having read his letter to the Court, I am of the view that from the outset, when interviewed by the police, the offender has deliberately tried to diminish his role in the offending, as well as to protect Mr Ayshow, and with the exception of some personal circumstances, nothing he has said can be relied on.

57. I accept that he is one of three children, being the youngest of the three and having two older sisters, who apparently severed their connection with him for a period of approximately 15 years, and have only since he has been arrested in relation to this matter re‑established at least some connection.

58. He is apparently a single man with no children and was not formally employed at the time of the offending or for some period before that. He was not in receipt of Centrelink benefits. His last work was approximately four months before his arrest, when he had been working over a period of six months as a mechanic.

59. His parents apparently broke up when he was approximately 16 years of age. Following the breakup and his leaving school, his father made him work with him in his motor business as a mechanic. He apparently had suffered from behavioural disturbances while at school and was eventually asked to leave after being suspended, which is when he went to work for his father.

60. He has had one six‑year relationship in the past in respect of which an Apprehended Violence Order was taken out, the relationship being described as dysfunctional, and he has been single for a sustained period. Having commenced an apprenticeship as a mechanic at his father’s wrecking yard, he is a qualified mechanic. He has worked in the past as a truck driver, in his late 30s to his early 40s, and previously worked in freight and as an import clerk in a warehouse, although he fell into conflict with the management. His longest job was in freight for eight years, working night shifts, when he was abusing stimulants in order to work.

61. He claims to have developed a significant drug habit, having commenced using cannabis in his teens from the age of about 16, and continuing over many years, including during the time leading up to his arrest. In his 20s, he also used amphetamines, and in his 30s, mainly MDMA. In his 40s, he was frequently using stimulants, including speed, ice and cocaine, and using cannabis on a daily basis. In his 40s, he was using ice every day. He denies any intravenous drug use or use of heroin. He apparently had sustained periods of heavy drinking, particularly when using methamphetamine.

62. He has not prior to being in custody engaged in drug or alcohol rehabilitation. He has reasonable physical health and has no history of any major head injury or neurological problem. There was some difficulty for him when his parents broke up when he was about 16, and on examination by Dr Martin by way of an audio-visual link, as he was in custody on remand at the time, he apparently did not present as depressed and was assessed as being of reasonable intelligence.

63. Dr Martin appears to have accepted the offender’s explanation as to how he came to be involved, that is, through debts arising from drug use, and states, taking into account the offender’s claims, that

“it is likely that he was suffering from mental health impairment from the context of substance use disorder and gambling disorder (essentially both addictions). This is based on his narrative account which appears plausible and likely, in my view.”

64. Taking those matters into account, Dr Martin opined:

“In my view, there is a direct link between the addictions Mr Catanuto was experiencing prior to and at the time of the offending, and his involvement in the offending through a combination of generally impaired judgment associated with the use of drugs and compulsive gambling causing low mood, as well as being indebted to those who apparently organised the offending, and where he was likely to have been vulnerable to coercion or to have perceived threat if he did not comply. I assume that in the context of his drug addiction, that he was associating with antisocial peers and others involved in the drug trade, leading to a situation where he became indebted and, in my view, it is plausible and likely that he was susceptible to engaging in offending behaviour, for reasons noted above.”

65. I have no doubt that at all times during the offender’s participation in these offences, that he was fully aware of the adverse impact that drugs have on the community. According to him, they had had adverse effects on him. He knew at all times that what he was doing was illegal, and that assisting in doing this, that is, manufacturing prohibited drugs, and/or storing precursors and other related material, as well as providing the manufacturing hub, he was committing very serious crimes which would seriously impact on the community and other citizens. I do not accept that this is something that he has only now realised, as he has been incarcerated since being arrested and has made observations of other persons in prison, as is suggested in his letter to the Court.

66. In my view, the offender knew he was participating in a major way in a major criminal scheme. Whether or not there were any other persons involved or more significantly involved than him, his role was a major one, and he participated knowing that.

67. I note his mother has provided a reference which supports that he had a normal childhood at least until the age of 16, but after ceasing work with his father, he later developed drug problems, and I note that his mother’s reference indicates that she was not aware that he had a gambling problem until after he had been arrested in relation to this matter. Apparently, as a result of his offending, because his mother’s name was on the lease of the Mortdale premises, she had to pay $20,000 to the owners of the premises for the rehabilitation of the premises made necessary by the fact that they had been used as a clandestine laboratory.

68. I accept that he has expressed to her that he has regretted his conduct and claimed to have learnt important lessons and expressed to her that he has accepted responsibility. I accept that his mother and his sister continue to regard him well; his sister, Anne Catanuto, having re‑established contact by way of AVL links since he was arrested. I accept, as referred to, that his father never showed any appreciation for him and would often speak down to him and never showed him any care or love. That, however, is not sufficient to bring into play the principles referred to in Bugmy as reducing his moral culpability. In my view, the offender’s moral culpability is very high.

69. At least, in custody, he has spent quite a bit of time attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and I note that his past criminal history is not, in comparison with most who usually come before this Court in relation to matters such as this, a particularly bad one. He has had convictions for matters such as offensive conduct, driving with high‑range PCA, stalk, intimidate, middle‑range PCA, contravening AVOs, use carriage service to menace, harass, offend, drive whilst suspended, drive while disqualified. The most significant offence on his record is use false document to obtain financial advantage, for which he received a Community Correction Order.

70. I note that he continued during the course of the interview with the community corrections officer to continue with what I regard on the evidence before me as a false story about how he came to be participating in this offending. Even on his story, he was to receive as a benefit prohibited drugs and also the financial benefit of wiping his debt. I have difficulty in accepting, in the absence of sworn evidence, that he is genuinely remorseful and contrite, rather than simply prepared to espouse that he regrets what he has done because he understands the seriousness of it and the likely consequences of his participation in this serious offending. Having said that, of course, I have already indicated that I accept that his mother and sister accept his assurances that he is remorseful and regrets his participation.

71. His past criminal history is, in my view, not one which significantly disentitles him to a degree of leniency, but that is in the face of what are very serious offences in which he played a major role.

72. The Sentence Assessment Report does not include any assessment of his likelihood of reoffending or rehabilitation. However, considering that his criminal history is comparatively minor in relation to the commission of these offences, his age and the sentence that will be imposed, in my view, there is at least a reasonable prospect that he can be rehabilitated, and a reasonable prospect that he will not reoffend in this manner in the future, as the consequences of doing so will be entirely apparent from the sentence to be imposed.

73. I have taken all of those matters into account, including the statutory 25% discount for the early plea. I have also taken into account that the maximum sentence provided in relation to each of the three offences is life imprisonment, and that the statutory non‑parole period of 15 years in respect of each is more applicable to a matter where the sentence is the result of a conviction after trial. It nonetheless remains as a guidepost.

74. I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence and it is accordingly necessary for me to provide an indicative sentence. If I did not note it before, I note that the 90 grams of cocaine which is to be taken into account when dealing with him for Sequence 7, supply prohibited drug, large commercial quantity, that the 90 grams of cocaine is, in fact, 30 times the trafficable quantity which is 3 grams. I have already referred to it as being 18 times more than the indictable quantity: that is, it is not an insignificant quantity.

75. I note that while there is evidence of remorse and contrition, contained in the various references and reports, in my view, it is not remorse and contrition that I can rely on as genuine rather than expressed as a result of his realisation of his current difficulties arising from his outrageous conduct.

76. In relation to Sequence 4, being the 30.46 kilograms of 3, 4‑MDMA at Mortdale, the indicative sentence is 15 years’ imprisonment. It is necessary to provide an indicative non‑parole period as there is a standard non‑parole period that applies. The indicative non‑parole period for Sequence 4 will be 11 years and three months.

77. In respect of Sequence 7, being supply a prohibited drug, large commercial quantity, 223.5 kilograms of 1, 4‑Butanediol, taking into account the matter contained on the Form 1, being 90 grams of cocaine, the indicative sentence is, again, 15 years, and the indicative non‑parole period is 11 years and three months.

78. As to Sequence 9, being supply prohibited drug, large commercial quantity, 223.5 kilograms of 1, 4‑butanediol, the indicative sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment, and the indicative non‑parole period is ten years, six months.

79. It will be apparent that I have not found special circumstances, and I note each of the indicative non‑parole periods I have referred to represents 75% of the total sentence.

80. The aggregate sentence, having taken totality into account, will be 18 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 13 years and six months. I will backdate the commencement of the sentence to the date of his arrest which was 13 September 2023, he having been in custody since then and only in relation to these matters.

81. So, the sentence is 18 years. The non‑parole period, 13 years, six months. The balance of term is four years, six months. The non‑parole period means that he will be first eligible for parole on 12 March 2037 and the total sentence of 18 years will expire on 12 September 2041.

82. I note in relation to special circumstances, that although this is the offender’s first time in custody, that in itself is not a reason for finding special circumstances. Special circumstances is in general provided to assist particularly with rehabilitation. The offender has some 13 years and six months to spend in gaol before he might be released on parole. Parole itself is four years and six months. The maximum period of parole for which supervision is normally provided is three years, so the non‑parole period provided by applying the statutory relationship is already 18 months more than might be reasonably expected when released, and, of course, as referred to, the offender has already embarked on rehabilitation by attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings while in custody and may continue to do that, and once in fact in full‑time custody rather than on remand, he will have other programmes available to him which might assist him.

83. That completes my reasons on sentence.