R v Daniel Lico

The sentence hearing

1. The sentence hearing took place on 15 May 2017 at Wagga Wagga District Court. The Crown bundle (Ex A) included a Statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows.
2. In April 2016, Griffith Police conducted a controlled operation into the supply of prohibited drugs in the Griffith area. The offender's phone number was given to an undercover police officer and on 11 May 2016 the offender agreed to supply cannabis to that officer at the old Pizza Hut car park, off Belford Street, Griffith. He supplied the officer with 34.82 grams of cannabis for $270.
3. On 12 May 2016 the officer negotiated with the offender the purchase of an amount of cannabis and methylamphetamine. The offender was monitored via both audio and physical surveillance, and on the same day he supplied the officer with 0.92 grams of methylamphetamine for an amount of $600, and 33 grams of cannabis for the amount of $270.
4. On 18 May 2016, another call was made to the offender and an officer negotiated the purchase of cannabis and methylamphetamine. The officer was requested to attend the offender's home address in Belford Street, Griffith. The offender supplied the officer with 3.54 grams of methylamphetamine for $1,500 and 41.2 grams of cannabis for $270.
5. On 19 May 2016, an officer negotiated another purchase of cannabis and methylamphetamine and arrangements were made for the officer to attend the offender's home. The offender then supplied the officer with 3.36 grams of methylamphetamine for $1,500 and 33.2 grams of cannabis for $270.
6. On 25 May 2016, another call was made to the offender and arrangements were made to purchase cannabis and methylamphetamine. On the same day, the offender supplied the officer with 3.4 grams of methylamphetamine for an amount of $1,300 and 228 grams of cannabis for an amount of $2,000.

Count 1 - supply MDMA in greater than indictable quantity

1. On 31 May 2016, the undercover officer made a monitored call to the offender and negotiated the purchase of cannabis, methylamphetamine and a number of ecstasy tablets. The price was agreed and arrangements were made for the officer to attend the offender's home. On this occasion, the offender supplied the officer with 3.4 grams of methylamphetamine for $1,300, 30 MDMA tablets for $690, and 228 grams of cannabis for $1,900. The MDMA tablets weighed 7.93 grams.
2. On 16 June 2016, the offender was monitored when he attended a motel room in Griffith. Inside that hotel room, the offender supplied the officer with 27.8 grams of MDMA, and 30.5 grams of methylamphetamine for the total amount of $7,600.
3. The total amount of cannabis supplied by the offender between 11 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 is 598.2 grams. The total amount of MDMA supplied by the offender between 31 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 is 35.73 grams. This is the conduct referred to in Count 1 on the Indictment.

Count 2 - ongoing supply

1. Between 18 May 2016 and 16 June 2016, the offender supplied methylamphetamine on no less than three occasions within a 30 day period, for financial or material reward.

Count 3 - offer to supply prohibited drug in greater than commercial quantity (MDMA)

1. Between 16 June 2016 and 22 June 2016, numerous conversations between the offender and the undercover officer were monitored. During these conversations, the offender offered to supply the officer with 1,000 MDMA tablets for between $18 and $20 a tablet An agreement was reached and tentative arrangements were made for the transaction to occur on 21 June 2016.
2. Through the monitoring of lawfully intercepted telephone calls, the offender was monitored as he spoke with a number of persons and confirmed his ability to supply the prohibited drugs. The offender and the officer agreed to delay the transaction until 24 June 2016. It was clear from the offender's telephone calls that he had a genuine intention to supply 1,000 MDMA tablets. A decision was made not to conduct the pre-planned transaction on 24 June 2016, and the offender was arrested on 12 August 2016.
3. The commercial quantity proscribed for MDMA is 125 grams. One thousand tablets of MDMA would weigh approximately 250 grams.

The section 166 Certificate charges

1. Following his arrest and charging, the police executed a search warrant at the offender's usual place of abode in Griffith. Police located the following during the search:

• Twenty capsules (5.3 grams) of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA). Of the 20 capsules located, 19 were located in a locked safe;
• 6.8 grams of methylamphetamine (ice). The methylamphetamine was packaged in five separate bags;
• 686 grams of cannabis leaf. Some of this cannabis was located in two locked safes; and
• $3,200 in Australian currency inside a safe. These are the subject of sequences 2, 4, 6 and 7 set out in the s 166 Certificate.

1. Exhibit A also contained the offender's criminal antecedents. On 12 August 2015, he had been convicted at Griffith Local Court in respect of two offences which occurred on 15 January 2015 of possess prohibited drug (s 10A conviction with no other penalty), and drive vehicle under influence of alcohol - first offence (for which he was fined $500 and disqualified for six months).
2. On 20 January 2016, the offender was convicted of an offence which occurred on 27 August 2015 of drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - second offence, for which he was placed on a bond pursuant to s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("CSPA") to be of good behaviour for 18 months. The offender was therefore on conditional liberty at the time of the offending here.
3. Exhibit B on sentence hearing was a Pre-Sentence Report under the hand of Ms Barbara Kennedy, dated 3 May 2017. At the time of the report, the offender had been living in Dubbo for a period of 12 months with his parents, and had established positive community contacts by way of sport and employment in Dubbo.
4. The author of the report noted that the offender reported he began using cannabis on a daily basis at age 17, and later progressed to dealing with drugs to make money. He had attended the Western Health Alcohol and Drug Service on 19 August 2016 and had completed a number of counselling interventions. He was discharged from the program on 24 March 2017, due to a positive response and abstinence from illicit drug use.
5. The offender's general practitioner had confirmed that he had suffered prior episodes of depression and anxiety. At the time of the offending he had stopped using his prescribed medication and had been self-medicating with illicit substances. His mental health was now stable and he was compliant with treatment regimes. The author also noted that the offender appeared to have insight into the adverse effects of his actions, particularly on himself and his family. He had made several pro-social changes since being charged and was demonstrating commitment to maintaining positive goals. He was assessed as a low risk of re-offending.
6. The offender's identified criminogenic needs are drug problems.
7. The offender was assessed as being unlikely to benefit from a period of supervision by Community Corrections, as he appeared to have addressed the contributing factors of his offending, and was maintaining positive lifestyle changes. He was also assessed as suitable for a Community Service Order.
8. Exhibit 1 on the sentence hearing was a bundle of testimonials and references tendered on behalf of the offender. They included references from his present employer, a past employer, friends of the family, and members of sporting organisations with whom the offender has been associated, together with family members. The testimonials speak to the good character of the offender, his work ethic and strong family support. They also speak of the progress the offender has made with his own rehabilitation since being charged.
9. Exhibit 2 comprised a letter from the offender's general practitioner, which outlined that in 2014 and 2015 he was suffering from depression and an anxiety disorder. He had been medicated and referred to a psychologist under a mental health treatment plan, and had been compliant with his treatment. Exhibit 2 also contained a statement from the Western New South Wales Local Health District Drug and Alcohol Service confirming the offender's attendance at that service for assessment and counselling between 19 August 2016 and 24 March 2017. It confirmed that the offender had willingly engaged with the service to assist him with his goal of ceasing cannabis intake.
10. The offender's mother, Mrs Davina Lico, also gave evidence on his behalf. She confirmed that the offender was born on 12 February 1995 and was 21 years at the time of the offending. He was the third of three children and had two older sisters, who are in gainful employment. Since leaving school, after successfully completing Year 10, the offender had completed an apprenticeship as a small engine mechanic, and had always been in work.
11. In 2014, the offender's father had taken a position in Dubbo which involved the offender's parents moving from Griffith to Dubbo. The offender stayed in the family home with his two older sisters until late 2015. At that time, it was arranged for the offender to live by himself in a unit in Griffith. Thereafter, the offender's mother saw him once a month. She was concerned about him not taking his medication for anxiety and depression, otherwise she had some suspicion that he was smoking cannabis, but she was not sure how much.
12. Following his arrest, the offender had been successful in obtaining work in Dubbo, and his current employer spoke highly of his work performance.
13. There was no signs of the offender living a high life prior to his arrest. Mrs Lico had controlled his wages whilst he was working and he had a substantial car loan, for which she was monitoring the repayments.
14. Mrs Lico gave evidence that the offender was really remorseful for his offending, that he had caused a lot of pain to himself and his family, and that she was confident he would not re-offend.
15. In cross-examination, Mrs Lico agreed that she was aware the Pre-Sentence Report had noted that the offender had consumed cannabis on a daily basis from the age of 17 years, however, she was not aware of that.

The offender's submissions

1. Learned Counsel for the offender conceded that the offending constituted drug trafficking to a substantial degree. The offender had crossed the threshold pursuant to s 5 of the CSPA and therefore a form of custodial sentence was required. It was submitted, however, a matter for the discretion of the Court whether the sentence should be served by way of full time custody. Here, there was a "cross-roads" issue for the offender.
2. Although the medical evidence was limited, it was clear that the offender was, at the time of the offending, suffering from anxiety and depression, for which he is being treated. He was then 20 years of age and was living unsupervised and was not compliant with his medication regime. However, since his arrest, the offender had been living in Dubbo where he was subject to supervision by his parents, he was in full time employment, and he was compliant with his medication regime. He had not offended since. It was clear that the offender had learnt his lesson and that specific deterrence may be tempered in the sentencing process.
3. Counsel acknowledged that general deterrence was important in the sentencing process for drug trafficking offences. However, the court would have available to it, if a period of custodial sentence was less than 2 years, the option of an Intensive Correction Order, or adjournment pursuant to s 11 of the CSPA, for a period time to allow the offender to be supervised and monitored.
4. The offender was entitled to a full 25% discount on sentence. He was remorseful for his offending. His prior criminal history would have little impact as it represented a different level of criminality, although it was acknowledged that he was on conditional liberty by way of the s 10 bond at the time of this offending.
5. The offending constituted a course of conduct in which the offender had engaged in for financial gain. However, financial gain was not an element of Counts 1 and 3 on the Indictment. It was acknowledged that the court could sentence by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the CSPA.
6. It was also submitted that the court would find special circumstances pursuant to s 44 of the CSPA, based on the relative youth of the offender at the time of the offending, the fact that it would be his first time in full time custody, his need for supervision, and further rehabilitation by way of relapse prevention. It was submitted that no drugs were disseminated into the community as a result of his offending which would also temper the penalty imposed "a little".
7. Counsel referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision in R v Ejefekaire [2016] NSWCCA 308, where the offender had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and 10 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order pursuant to s 7(2) of the CSPA. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that an offender who is involved in the supply of prohibited drugs "to a substantial degree" must receive a full time custodial sentence unless "exceptional circumstances" can be demonstrated. The Court went on to find that the sentencing judge erred in making a finding of exceptional circumstances in that case, and was satisfied that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Criminal Appeal then re-sentenced the offender to a non-parole period of 1 years and 9 months, and a balance of term of 7 months; the total sentence was one of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months.
8. Here, it was submitted that there were exceptional circumstances constituted not by one particular matter, but by an accumulation of the following matters, namely, that the offender had been offence free since his arrest; he had successfully engaged in rehabilitation; he had good prospects of not re‑offending and living a law abiding life; he was employed and had a very supportive family. The offender had done all that he could to rehabilitate himself and thus, he was at the cross-roads. For those reasons the court should consider a non-custodial sentence for the offender.

The Crown submissions

1. The Crown properly agreed that special circumstances were established here. However, the offending was exceptionally serious and amounted to drug trafficking to a substantial degree, warranting full time custody. There were no exceptional circumstances demonstrated.
2. The Crown submitted that the offending arose from a combination of the offender's use of illicit drugs and living away from his parents for the first time. Although he had made progress with his rehabilitation, there was no ongoing relapse prevention program in place for him. Further, his medical condition did not contribute to his offending, given that he voluntarily stopped being compliant with his medication regime. The Pre-Sentence Report made it clear that he had been using cannabis on a daily basis since he was 17 years of age, and that he progressed to dealing drugs to make money. The Crown submitted that sentencing by way of s 11 of the CSPA was not appropriate here. The only appropriate sentence was a significant sentence of full time custody. At the time of the offending, the offender had been on a good behaviour bond. This was not a one-off offence, rather, the offending took place over a substantial period of time.
3. It was noted that in respect of Counts 1 and 3, a trafficable quantity of MDMA was 7.5 grams, an indictable quantity was 1.25 grams, and a commercial quantity was 125 grams.
4. The Crown confirmed that the offences on the s 166 Certificate were related offences for which the offender was to be sentenced. It relied on the Court of Criminal Appeal decision in R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 as authority for those matters to be part of an aggregate sentence to be imposed by the court. The Crown also provided a bundle of sentencing case summaries prepared by the Public Defenders' Office, which I have perused.

Determination

1. Section 3A of the C(SP)A sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows: "3A The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows: (a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, (b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences, (c) To protect the community from the offender, (d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender, (e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions, (f) To denounce the conduct of the offender, (g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community."
2. The objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 1 on the Indictment lies below the mid-range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA. The quantity involved of MDMA, namely, 35.73 grams, was higher than a traffickable quantity (7.5 grams), but well below the commercial quantity of 125 grams for that prohibited drug. The offending, however, fell just below the mid-range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 25(1), and still constituted serious offending.
3. The objective seriousness of the offending in respect of Count 2, being an offence of ongoing supply of methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25A(1) of DMTA, also fell just below the mid-range of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 25A(1) of the DMTA. The supply took place over a relatively short period of time (less than one month).
4. The offending in respect of Count 3 fell below the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA, only because the conduct involved an agreement being made for the supply of 1,000 tablets, and, on the basis of the lawfully intercepted telephone calls, the confirmation of the offender's ability to supply prohibited drugs. No actual transaction took place, although the offender had a genuine intention to supply the prohibited drugs, but was arrested before he did so. In those circumstances, no drugs were disseminated into the community. The offending still, on any view of it, given the number of tablets involved, constituted serious offending and amounted to substantial trafficking in prohibited drugs.
5. I have taken into account, as guideposts in the sentencing process, the maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units in respect of Count 1, the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units in respect of Count 2, and also the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units, together with the Standard Non-Parole Period of 10 years in respect of Count 3.
6. I have also taken into account the two matters on the Form 1, being sequence 1, an offence involving the supply of 598.2 grams of cannabis, and sequence 2, which involved the supply of 0.92 grams of methylamphetamine. The offender had admitted his guilt in respect of those offences, and there must be some accumulation on sentence in relation to them
7. I have also taken into account the maximum penalties for the related offences set out in the certificate pursuant to s 166 of the CPA, and will refer to these matters below.
8. The offender is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence in respect of his early plea of guilty. I accept that he has expressed remorse for his offending, and in particular, for its effect on his family. I also accept that his prior criminal history would have little impact on the sentencing process, although what must be taken into account is that he was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending by way of a s 10 bond to be of good behaviour, and his offending represented a breach of that bond.
9. I find that the offending was borne of the offender's early participation in drug taking by way of smoking cannabis from age 17, which led onto trafficking in drugs. The offender was involved in that trafficking only for financial gain, and there was no suggestion that he was involved to fund or feed his own drug addiction. I note that financial gain is not an element of Counts 1 and 3 on the Indictment.
10. I do not find that the offender's diagnosis as suffering from anxiety and depression prior to his offending led to the offending. He voluntarily became non-compliant with his medication regime. Rather, it was his involvement in drugs as a user, and the fact that he was living unsupervised for the first time which led to his involvement in trafficking to a substantial degree.
11. There are a number of strong subjective factors which have to be taken into account in the sentencing process here. The offender was age 21 at the time of his offending, and is still a young man, from a loving and supportive family. He has taken full responsibility for his criminal behaviour and has made significant progress with his rehabilitation since moving to live with his parents in Dubbo for a period of some 12 months prior to the sentence hearing. He has established positive community contacts by way of sport and employment in Dubbo and the testimonials contained in Ex 1 speak highly as to his character, his work ethic and the progress that he has made with his own rehabilitation since being charged. In particular, he has been compliant with a medication regime under a mental health treatment plan, and has attended successfully the drug and alcohol program referred to in Ex 2 between 19 August 2016 and 24 March 2017. I accept that he has achieved his goal of ceasing to use cannabis, but that he will require further assistance with relapse prevention.
12. I was impressed with the evidence given by the offender's mother, Mrs Lico, which demonstrated the extent to which his family had responded to the fact of their only son's involvement with drug trafficking. However, while I accept that he has been remorseful for his offending in relation to the pain that he has caused himself and his family, he had been consuming illicit drugs whilst living with his family for a number of years, prior to this offending.
13. The achievement of rehabilitation whilst awaiting sentence does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. In R v Harmouche (2005) 158 A Crim R 357 at [52], Hulme J (with whom Sully and Latham JJ agreed), said: "I would add that the achievement of rehabilitation does not of itself constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence other than full time custody, albeit, if there is evidence that full time custody is likely to have the effect of nullifying rehabilitation previously effected, the situation may be different - R v Thompson (unreported CCA, 4 April 1991)."
14. Here, there is no evidence that full time custody will have the effect of nullifying the offender's rehabilitation. Rather, he will have access to rehabilitation programs that will assist his return to the community. I am satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate pursuant to s 5 of the CSPA.
15. I am further satisfied that this is an appropriate matter for an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the CSPA.
16. In R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1, the court had regard to the following summary of the correct approach to the assessment of sentence for multiple offences, with proper regard to the totality of the criminality involved: "[228] Street CJ described the principle of totality in sentencing in R v Holder; R v Johnstone (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 as follows: The principle of totality is a convenient phrase, descriptive of the significant practical consideration confronting a sentencing judge when sentencing for two or more offences. Not infrequently, a straightforward arithmetical addition of sentences appropriate for each individual offence considered separately will arrive at an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in the whole of the circumstances. In such a situation, a sentencing judge will evaluate, in a broad sense, the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and, having done so, will determine what, if any, downward adjustment is necessary, whether by telescoping or otherwise, in the aggregate sentences in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences."
17. The court went on to emphasise the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice when sentencing for multiple offences, and also referred to the judgment of Howie J in R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 ACrimR 41 at [27]: "There is no general rule that determines whether sentences ought to be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The issue is determined by the application of the principle of totality of criminality: can the sentence for one offence comprehend and reflect criminality for the other offence? If it can, the sentences ought to be concurrent otherwise there is a risk that the combined sentences will exceed what is warranted to reflect the total criminality of the two offences. If not, the sentences should be at least partly cumulative, otherwise there is a risk that the total sentence will fail to reflect the total criminality of two offences. … Similarly, where they are part of a single episode of criminality with common factors, it is more likely that the sentence for one of the offences will reflect the criminality of both."
18. I am further satisfied that pursuant to R v Price, supra, the matters referred to in the certificate pursuant to s 166 of the CPA, may be dealt with by way of an aggregate sentence. As related offences that could have been dealt with in the lower court, the objective seriousness for each of the four offences falls within the lower range for such offences.
19. I find special circumstances have been established here pursuant to s 44 based on the offender's young age, the fact that this will be his first time in prison, his demonstrated need for rehabilitation by way of relapse prevention, and the progress that he has made to date. Therefore the statutory ratio between any non-parole period and the total term will be varied.
20. The Court is required to indicate the sentence that would have been imposed for each offence had separate sentences been imposed instead of an aggregate sentence. This provides transparency in the sentencing process - see McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184 at [135]. It is clear that in indicating the sentences, there is no requirement to specify non-parole periods unless the offence is one for which a Standard Non-Parole Period is proscribed - see McIntosh v R, supra at [142], JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 at [8].
21. General deterrence is important in the sentencing for drug supply offences - see R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420. A strong message must be sent to other like-minded persons in a community that Parliament has proscribed very lengthy maximum sentences for offences involving drug trafficking, and that the courts are required, by well-established authority, to impose full time custodial sentences for those involved in substantial drug trafficking, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. I am not satisfied that such circumstances have been made out here. To that extent I reject the submission made on behalf of the offender that the accumulation of the matters referred to above amount to exceptional circumstances.
22. Learned Counsel submitted that a combination of the subjective circumstances here, including the offender's youth, the fact that he had no relevant prior convictions, his early plea of guilty, his remorse, and his good prospects of rehabilitation, were so exceptional so as to warrant a non-custodial sentence. In R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178 at 181. Priestley JA had said at 182: " … A combination of subjective circumstances each strong in itself does not add up to exceptional circumstances unless the aggregate of all those circumstances point to the case being one of real difference from the general run of cases."
23. The subjective matters here are somewhat typical of cases of this kind, and are not, either alone or in combination, so exceptional as to make any real difference. I therefore reject the submission. Given the seriousness of the offending here, the court could not consider a custodial sentence of two years or less, and therefore the option of sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order is not available. Further, it would not be an appropriate use of s 11 of the CSPA to merely adjourn the matter and leave the ultimate sentence to be imposed hanging over the head of the offender.
24. In an aggregate sentence there must be some accumulation of sentence reflecting the seriousness of the offending - see R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9. I have also certified that I have taken into account the two matters on the Form 1, which also has to be reflected in some accumulation of the sentences.
25. The indicative sentences that I would have imposed in respect of each of the three counts on the Indictment, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending, the 25% utilitarian discount, and the strong subjective matters that I have taken into account are as follows: 1. Count 1 - that between 31 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 supplied MDMA pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA - 18 months imprisonment. 2. Count 2 - that between 18 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 ongoing supply of methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25A(1) of the DMTA - 1 year and 9 months imprisonment. 3. Count 3 - that between 16 June 2016 and 22 June 2016 did offer to supply 1,000 tablets of MDMA pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA - 2 years and 3 months imprisonment. The non-parole period is 1 year and 3 months.
26. As to the four matters referred to in the s 166 certificate, the indicative sentences I would have imposed, having regard to the jurisdiction of the Local Court, the objective seriousness of the offending, and the 25% utilitarian discount, are as follows: 1. Sequence 2 - possession of 20 capsules of MDMA - 3 months imprisonment. 2. Sequence 4 - possession of 6.8 grams of methylamphetamine - 4 months imprisonment. 3. Sequence 6 - possession of 686 grams of cannabis leaf - 4 months imprisonment. 4. Sequence 7 - goods in custody - 3 months imprisonment.
27. I have considered carefully the principles of sentencing outlined in the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Ejefekaire, as referred to above, together with the principles of totality, and proportionality in sentencing as set out by the High Court in Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [45].
28. Having applied a discount of 25% for the offender's early pleas of guilty, and having found special circumstances pursuant to s 44(2B) of the CSPA, I intend to sentence the offender to an aggregate non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months, commencing on 1 June 2017 and expiring on 31 August 2018, with a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months, commencing on 1 September 2018 and expiring on 30 November 2019. The total term will be 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Orders

1. I make the following orders: 1. You are convicted of the following offences: Count 1 - between 31 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 at Griffith, in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely, 35.73 grams of MDMA pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA. Count 2 - between 18 May 2016 and 16 June 2016 at Griffith, in the State of New South Wales, you did on three or more separate occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days, supply methylamphetamine with a financial or material reward pursuant to s 25A(1) of the DMTA. Count 3 - between 16 June 2016 and 22 June 2016 at Griffith, in the State of New South Wales, you did offer to supply a prohibited drug, namely, 1,000 tablets of MDMA, being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug, pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA. 1. I have taken into account the matters on the Form 1 which I have certified. I have also taken into account by way of indicative sentences, the four matters the subject of the s 166 Certificate. 2. I sentence you to an aggregate non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months commencing on 1 June 2017 and expiring on 31 August 2018. 3. I sentence you to a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months, commencing on 1 September 2018 and expiring on 30 November 2019. 4. The total term will be 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. 5. Your parole eligibility date will be 31 August 2018. 6. I further order: 1. Pursuant to s 18(1) the sum of $3,200 be forfeited to the State. 2. Pursuant to s 29 of the Confiscation and Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 that you pay to the State of New South Wales a drug proceeds order in the sum of $19,370.00, and I have signed the Short Minute of Order to that effect. 1. I further order that all prohibited drugs the subject of these offences be destroyed.

---

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: 02 June 2017