R v George

District Court of NSW|2023-04-04

Remarks on sentence

The offender appeared at the Downing Centre Local Court on 2 February 2023 and pleaded guilty to one charge of supply prohibited drug, namely 2 kg of Gamma-Butyrolactone ("GBL"), an amount not less than the commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing on 4 April 2023. Accordingly, the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.
The maximum penalty for the offence of supply prohibited drug not less than the commercial quantity is 20 years. In accordance with Pt 4 Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the offence has a standard non-parole period of 10 years. The maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of 10 years is an indication of its seriousness and acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.
In addition to the one substantive matter, the offender asks that when passing sentence, the court take into account an additional offence of supply prohibited drug, namely 2kg of GBL, an amount not less than the commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).
In dealing with matters on the Form 1 I will need to ensure that I apply the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.

Agreed facts

A Strike Force was established by the South Sydney Police Area Command Detectives in September 2021, to target the ongoing supply of prohibited drugs in the Waterloo Area. On 6 September 2021, a controlled operation was granted targeting drug supply activities by the co-offender Karanouh and or any other person associated with him. There were a number of co-accused involved in the operation including the offender and the co-offenders. As part of the controlled operation Police used an authorised person ("Witness A") to contact and participate in the supply of illicit drugs.

Sequence 2 - Supply Prohibited Drug not less than the commercial quantity (6 - 7 December 2021)

The offender used one phone service number throughout the operation.
On 6 December 2021, the offender agreed to supply the co-offender, Karanouh, with two bottles of GBL. At 10:55am, Karanouh called the offender, who said "that her guy has 4 of them, 4k each" to which Karanouh responded that he had "enough for 2".
Later that day Karanouh called the offender and discussed the collection of the drugs. The offender then met Karanouh in a carpark in Bankstown, where she worked. The offender was seen entering a taxi being driven by Alam. The offender received a wad of $50 notes from Karanouh and shortly after, returned with two white bottles in a clear plastic bag which contained GBL which was passed over the seat to Karanouh. The bottles contained an amount that was not less than the commercial quantity of GBL. It is agreed these were purported to be at least 2L of GBL.

Sequence 1 (Form 1) - Supply Prohibited Drug not less than the commercial quantity - (8-10 December 2021)

On 8 December 2021, the offender engaged in negotiation with Karanouh about the supply of 2L of GBL, asking "are you taking both Ls". The following day the offender contacted Karanouh to say that "her guy" had two bottles ready for the next day. Karanouh confirmed he would come straight away. The offender then told Karanouh she wanted "food, full ones". Karanouh indicated he was charged "three four for a half" to which the offender asked for the "price of a full one".
On 10 December 2021 the offender arranged the supply of 2L from an unknown associate to Karanouh. At 12:06pm Karanouh asked Alam if he had seen the offender. Alam confirmed he had not. Alam was then asked by Karanouh to see the offender.
At 2:24pm, Karanouh called Alam who said he was coming upstairs. At 2:32pm the co-offenders were seen in conversation on CCTV footage during which time Karanouh counted out bundles of $50 notes. Between 3:14pm - 3:16pm, the co-offenders were waiting on Griffiths Street, Punchbowl whilst on the phone to the offender. Alam stated that he could see a silver Toyota Camry, to which the offender confirmed that "this is the car".
An unknown male then came to the window and Karanouh told him the offender was on the phone before handing the phone to him. Karanouh handed the male a bag of cash and shortly after CCTV captured a drug supply of at least 2kg of GBL. It is agreed that the offender anticipated the supply to Karanouh would be in keeping with the amount she negotiated with the unknown supplier of 2L of GBL, an amount not less than the commercial quantity.
At 3:23pm that afternoon, Alam drive Karanouh to meet with the offender. The offender and Karanouh were seen smoking in the back of the vehicle. Karanouh discussed with the offender his desire to resell the GBL in 50ml bottles to customers for $10 per ml.
Between 11 November 2021 and 14 December 2021, the offender was involved in numerous activities with Karanouh and Alam relating to supply. Over the span of these days there were various discussions between the offender, Karanouh and Alam in relation to the organisation of multiple transactions.

Arrest

The offender was subsequently arrested on 21 December 2021 at 12:25pm in Burwood. The offender was searched, and an ice pipe and LG mobile phone were found and seized. The offender was then conveyed to Burwood Police Station where she declined to participate in an ERISP, but did participate in a forensic procedure, including a buccal swap and photographs.

Criminal history

The offender has a relatively limited criminal history. In December 2020 the offender committed the offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst suspended (first offence). The offender has three previous convictions for possess prohibited drug and a conviction for possess a prohibited weapon.

Psychologist's report of Kerry Watson dated 31 March 2023

The offender was assessed by Ms Watson via AVL on 27 March 2023 for approximately 90 minutes. Ms Watson observed that the offender presented as an "honest historian who provided an open account of her relevant life experiences".
The offender is a 36 year old woman who was born in New Zealand as the eldest of two children born to her parents' union. She also has three younger half-siblings that are born to her mother. She was raised by her maternal grandparents until the passing of her grandmother when the offender was aged 10, after which time her mother assumed her care. The offender reported that this living arrangement came about due to her mother "not wanting" her. The offender reported that her maternal grandparents provided her with a loving family environment, and that whilst living with them she had sporadic contact with her biological mother, and even more so with her biological father.
After turning 10, the offender returned to the care of her mother. She describes this as a pivotal moment in that it preceded a dramatic change in her life and the loss of any sense of stability and security she had experienced in the care of her grandparents. The offender described feeling as if she did not a have a home throughout her developmental years. She recounted that her mother and stepfather "drank a lot", "did drugs" and engaged in almost daily physical and verbal altercations, all of which the offender was exposed to. The offender reflected that she would often try and intervene in the physical altercations and would often be stuck in the crossfire. The offender described an unhealthy home environment of instability and dysfunction that was in contrast to the home provided by her grandparents.
The offender reported that from the age of 11 to 12 she was regularly subjected to sexual abuse by an older cousin. This, alongside the described toxicity of the home environment, caused the offender to regularly run away from home.
The offender stated that whilst she "loved school" in her primary years the same could not be said for her experience of high school which was marred by behavioural issues and frequent truanting. Ms Watson observed that the offender's high school experience coincided with her transition to her mother's home.
The offender commenced a range of courses, however, did not complete any of them. Between the ages of 16 and 17 she worked as a kiwi fruit picker before having her son at 17. Her son is now 18. The offender stated that the paternal grandparents of her son assumed his primary custody and care from the age of 12 months, a decision made by her arising out of her inability to care for the child due to her drug addiction. The offender had irregular contact with her son up until recently.
At the age of 18, having obtained her Liquor Licence Controller qualification, the offender worked in various licensed establishments whilst doing intermittent kiwifruit picking.
In 2018, in a bid to "start a new fresh life", the offender, at the age of 31, relocated to Australia and performed bar and cleaning work over a period of 12 months.
From the age of 32, until she was remanded for the current offences, the offender worked as an escort in the sex industry. She described herself as homeless for the three years preceding her remand during which time she lived at the brothel where she worked. The offender said that she had "lost everything for drugs".
The offender described having been involved in a number of abusive relationships recurrently subjected to domestic violence.
The offender has a lengthy history of significant drug use commencing at the age 12. The offender used cannabis daily until the age of 31, after which the offender smoked cannabis irregularly. Between 12 and 14 the offender would also "sniff" glue and paint to achieve a regular high.
From the age of 12 the offender also began drinking alcohol heavily, achieving intoxication most weekends. This pattern continued up until approximately three years prior to her arrest.
From the age of 15 the offender started using Methamphetamines to which she rapidly developed an addiction. She reported having "smoked it for breakfast, lunch and tea", a pattern which she continued for two decades up until her arrest for these offences.
The offender also reported having used GBL at least once weekly from the age of 34. The offender has never received any substance use intervention or rehabilitation.
Ms Watson observed that the offender's history was indicative of declined mental health functioning since she was aged 12 which had seemingly developed in accordance with the transition from a stable environment with her grandparents to a dysfunctional environment with her mother and stepfather. The offender was exposed to domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and was a victim of sexual abuse when aged 11 and 12.
The offender described relying on drugs and alcohol to subdue her psychological turmoil since her early adolescence. Ms Watson observed that the offender's reliance on drugs as a means to self-medicate had served to contribute and complicate her mental health by way of mood altering intoxication and withdrawal. Ms Watson provided insight into the relationship between the offender's psychological symptomology, history, and substance abuse.
Ms Watson considered that the offender's history was indicative of chronic and significant psychological distress and impairment consistent with a Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress and a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This was relevant at the time of the offender's conduct, considering the offender's report that she was heavily addicted to methamphetamines and regularly abusing GBL.
The offender reported being in full remission of all substance abuse whilst in custody and had experienced a reduction in her psychological symptomology. Whilst being in custody she had been reflecting over her life with significant regret.
Whilst the offender had not received any targeted mental health treatment or substance abuse intervention in the past, she had expressed willingness to undertake regular psychological counselling to address her mental health as well as interest in a residential rehabilitation program.
Ms Watson considered that the offender's comorbid mental health conditions of Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and Methamphetamine Dependence were "relevant and severe at the commission of her offending conduct and [had] likely served to considerably compromise her judgement and restraint; reduce her inhibitions and obscure her logical thinking" which "[had] more than likely contributed to her offending conduct."
The offender's prospects of rehabilitation would significantly improve with the implementation of rehabilitation and treatment, noting that the offender required psychological support and intervention. The offender would benefit from participation in a long term residential rehabilitation program in order to address her propensity to substance abuse and to formulate the coping mechanisms that would assist in maintaining her remission in the community.
Ms Watson recommended participation in a residential drug and alcohol program such as the Odyssey House Program, followed by engagement with the Local District Drug Health Counselling Service. This would provide the offender with ongoing support and counselling that was drug specific and link her with other AOD supports. Further, regular psychological counselling with a therapeutic focus on at least a fortnightly basis for at least 9-12 months, or a time frame deemed suitable by the treating psychologist, would be of assistance.

Letter from Anne Seward

The offender also relies upon an undated letter of support written by Ms Anne Seward, the Senior Assessment / Intake and Case Worker for the Women's Justice Network. Ms Seward noted that the Women's Justice Network is "a not-for-profit community based organisation that aims to support women through their encounters with the criminal justice system, by providing them with guidance and support through case management and mentoring."
The offender was referred to the Women's Justice Network in February 2022, and in September 2022 a formal assessment was undertaken. During her assessment, the offender provided a history of her childhood and the difficulties she experienced through the transition of care from her grandparents to her biological mother, before leaving her mother's care at 15.
Ms Seward had worked with the offender since November 2022, during which time she had regular contact with the offender. Ms Seward found the offender to be sincere in her desire to rehabilitate and become a contributing member of society, noting that the offender had undertaken a remand addictions program whilst in custody.
Ms Seward noted that mentoring was primarily a post release service and most effective when applied in the community.

Letter from Dillwynia Services and Programs dated 29 March 2023

The letter from the Dillwynia Services and Programs Division confirmed the offender's attendance at the Addiction Support Program on three separate occasions. The program consisted of twenty sessions aimed to help identify and increase strengths that support lifestyle choices that do not include drugs or alcohol. The letter also noted that participants entered the program voluntarily.

Summary of Corrective Services programs completed

The offender has attended a number of programs throughout March whilst in custody. Although it is unclear from the record what type of programs the offender attended, the offender was described by the Corrections Staff as being consistently engaged on all occasions and demonstrating a high level of understanding. On each occasion of attendance, the offender was praised for her excellent progress, great attitude to learning and ability to focus on tasks. The offender has been described as a "fast learner", an "excellent student" and "a pleasure to have in the class".

Letter of offender

The offender acknowledged that she "was fully accountable" for her actions, was "ashamed and disappointed" with herself, and understood the negative impacts of her offending on individuals, their families, and the wider community. In highlighting the difficulties of being locked in her cell for 93 days as result of Covid and the floods, the offender claimed that she has had a lot of time to reflect on her behaviour. The offender described her offending behaviour as "reckless".
The offender wrote that during her time in custody she had been employed by Corrective Service Industries and was currently working as a sweeper at Dillwynia Correctional Centre. She had completed a Remands Addictions Program in September 2022 and continued to engage in the program. The offender had seen positive changes in herself from the modules and planned to undertake any programs that Corrective Services NSW would offer. The offender described herself as drug free and rehabilitated, claiming that she could see a positive future for herself upon her release.
The offender stated that the Women's Justice Network had been a great support and upon her release from custody she intended to keep in contact for further support. The offender's plan for her release included engaging in further education with the goal of gaining employment to create a positive lifestyle for herself as well as volunteering time to the community.

Remand Addictions Letter of Attendance

The letter confirmed the offender's attendance at the Remand Addictions session on 16 September 2022.

Crown submissions

The Crown concedes that the offender is entitled to a discount of 25% for the early plea of guilty. As at the date of the sentence hearing the offender has spent 1 year, 1 month and 25 days in custody solely referable to the index offending. The Crown conceded that any sentence imposed should reflect this period of imprisonment already served by the offender.
The Crown referred to several authorities (Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242; Koh v R [2013] NSWCCA 287; Huang v R [2017] NSWCCA 312) and contended that the quantity of drugs involved, and the role played by the offender were significant considerations in assessing objective seriousness. Further, the fact that the drugs were not actually disseminated into the community did not reduce the moral culpability of the offender; Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25 at 24; Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146 at 47.
The Crown contended that the offence fell within the mid-range of offending, noting that the quantity of 2kg was double the commercial quantity of this prohibited drug (1kg).
The Crown submitted that the offender was an "up-line" supplier to the co-offender Karanouh. She was able to access and provide large quantities of GBL to Karanouh at his request. It was contended that the text message exchanges, and intercepted phone calls demonstrated that the offender was intricately involved in the supply process.
The Crown submitted that the reliance placed upon the offender to source and supply the GBL further demonstrated her importance in the chain of supply, and therefore resisted any submission that the offender was a "low-level street dealer".
In relation to the Form 1 offence, the Crown referred to Van Ryn v R [2016] NSWCCA 1, submitting that the presence of an offence on a Form 1 increased the need for personal deterrence and should result in an increase in the sentenced imposed for the principal offence. The Crown observed that the offender has a criminal history in NSW which extends back to 2020, and that she was subject to two separate conditional release orders at the time of reoffending. Noting that the offender moved to Australia in 2018, the Crown submitted that the need for specific and general deterrence should be highlighted in the sentence.
With respect to the offender's subjective case, the Crown noted that the psychologist report on behalf of the offender contained an entirely self-reported history, warning that the content of that report should be treated with caution. Further, the report contained no reference to the offender's attitude towards the offending, or remorse. The Crown submitted that the court had limited bases on which to assess the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, given that no clinical testing had been performed. The Crown contended that prospects of rehabilitation were guarded given the absence of any rehabilitation attempts.
The Crown contended that the offender's reported usage of GBL once per week was limited, supporting the submission that the supply was for financial gain.
In oral submissions the Crown contended that the offender was able to quickly access and make available the drugs to the co-offender Karanouh and therefore the offender was "an important player". Further, the facts which form the offence on the Form 1 were not isolated in circumstances where there was ongoing exchange between the offender and Karanouh over several weeks.

Offender's submissions

The offender contended that the amount of GBL supplied, being 2kg, was under the mid-point for a commercial quantity (2.5kg). In terms of the offender's role, it was submitted that the offender was a conduit for higher up suppliers, and that there is no direct evidence as to financial gain for the offender.
It was submitted that the offender was entitled to a 25% discount for her plea of guilty and that the sentence should be backdated to 10 February 2022 to take into account the offender's time in custody solely referable to the index offending. The Crown conceded these points.
The submissions refer to the history provided by the offender to Ms Kerry Watson, psychologist and contended that with reference to this history, Bugmy factors were to be considered.
The offender referred to the principles set out in DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177]-[178] and contended that the offender's mental health, as assessed by psychologist Ms Kerry Watson, be considered in the sentencing process.
The submissions highlighted the offender's remorse, demonstrated by the offender's early plea of guilty in the Local Court, and as expressed to psychologist, Ms Kerry Watson. It was submitted that due to her remission from drugs, period in custody and reduction in psychological symptomology, the offender's prospects of rehabilitation is good, if helped.
It was contended that the offender's need for rehabilitation, it being the offender's first time in custody, and the offender having pleaded guilty are all factors which enable special circumstances to be found by the court.
In oral submissions counsel for the offender maintained that the offence fell below the mid-range. The evidence established that the offender was having to source the drugs from someone else. The offender's letter of remorse was corroborative of other subjective material in respect to the offender's history. There was no parity with the co-offender Sowaid. Given the period already spent in custody the term of imprisonment may not exceed two years such that an intensive corrections order was a sentencing option. Special circumstances would be found.

Consideration

The court is not entitled to take an account of facts adverse to the interests of the offender unless they have been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, circumstances favourable to the accused need only be proven on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270; 73 ALJR 1550.
The offence for which the offender is to be sentenced involved the supply of 2kg of GBL, being double the commercial quantity of the prohibited drug for this offence. In addition, the offender asked, when passing sentence, the court take into account the additional offence of supply a further 2 kg of GBL which is similarly double the commercial quantity. There is no evidence of the purity of the either supply.
In Pham v R [2013] NSWCCA 217 McCallum J concluded at [27] that: "The critical proposition is that the quantity of the drug is a relevant but not determinative measure of the degree of seriousness of the offending. The Court must consider all of the circumstances informing that issue, including the role played by the offender, his or her state of knowledge, the reward to be received and any other relevant indicator of moral culpability or lack of it. That said, as recently explained by Latham J, the quantity of the drug remains a very material consideration in assessing the objective seriousness of a State offence against the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act."
The offence for which the offender is to be sentenced involved the supply of the prohibited drug to a co-offender, as is the offence on the Form 1. In the circumstances, the offender was essentially an upline supplier to the co-offender and was able to promptly meet the co offender's request to supply a commercial quantity of GBL.
The agreed facts detail further drug supply activity in which the offender was engaged with two co offenders from 11 November 2021 to 14 December 2021. That activity further demonstrates that over a protracted period the offender was involved in the upline supply of prohibited drugs. She was responsive to further requests for the supply of such drugs.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied the offender was more than low level street dealer. However, I note that the circumstances of the supply was such that she was more exposed to law enforcement. I am satisfied that the offence fell within the mid-range of subjective seriousness for an offence of this type.
Prohibited drugs circulating in the community have a profound effect. As has been consistently observed by the Courts, in respect of sentencing for drug-related matters, there are significant consequences from the circulation of drugs in the community. In NGO v R [2017] WASCA 3, the Western Australian Court of Appeal observed that the illicit drug trade is a "scourge" inflicting significant damage on those who consume the drugs.
I am satisfied that the offence was committed for financial gain. The offender has a record of previous drug related convictions. Whilst not an aggravating factor the record disentitles the offender to the leniency afforded to an offender with no record.
It is apparent, given the history provided by the offender to Kerry Watson psychologist, that she had a difficult upbringing from the age of 10. She was returned to the care of her biological mother and exposed to her mother's and stepfather's excessive use of alcohol and drugs as well as physical and verbal altercations between them. The offender also described the unstable and dysfunctional home environment. Further, from the age of 11 to 12 she was regularly subjected to sexual abuse by an older cousin which, together with the dysfunctional home environment, resulted in the offender regularly running away from home.
Caution is required when assessing out-of-court representations for the purpose of determining sentence, as was noted by Smart AJ in R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353. His Honour's observations in this respect were the subject of further consideration by Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144. Her Honour discussed the care required, with reference to Qutami amongst other authorities. Beginning at [57], her Honour summarised the statements that are derived from the authorities to which she referred and once more reminded sentencing courts of the caution one must bring to bear when dealing with factual matters drawing upon representations that are not affirmed or unsworn and remain untested.
However, in Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 McCallum JA (with whom Hamill and Cavanagh JJ agreed) noted that the observations of Smart AJ in Qutami are sometimes mistaken for principle, and that the weight and cogency of such evidence is a matter for the individual assessment of the sentencing judge. Her Honour observed at [47] that there is no principle of law that requires a sentencing judge to exercise "very considerable caution" before relying on the contents of an expert report absent evidence from the offender. In this respect her Honour acknowledged that the court is not the only forum in which a reliable medical history can be obtained.
The psychologist was satisfied that the offender was an honest historian who provided an open account of her life experiences. She diagnosed the offender as suffering a major depressive disorder with anxious distress and post-traumatic stress disorder. I accept the psychologist's opinion in this regard, and I accept the history provided by the offender to the psychologist leading to this diagnosis.
To this extent I accept that due to the offender's disadvantaged upbringing her moral culpability is reduced; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37; Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169.
Further, I accept the opinion of the psychologist that the various conditions diagnosed by the psychologist likely compromised the offender's judgement and restraint to the extent that it reduced her inhibitions and obscured her logical thinking. Further I accept the opinion that these conditions more than likely contributed to her offending conduct. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the offender's moral culpability in respect to the offences be reduced and as a consequence that general deterrence is less of a factor in the sentencing process; DPP v De La Rosa at [177] - [178].
It is necessary to take into account the difficulties experienced by the offender whilst in custody, including being locked in her cell for a period of 93 days as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the floods: Rakielbakhour v DPP [2020] NSWSC 323.
I accept the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, given the history provided to the psychologist, the offender's contact with the Women's Justice Network, the offender's attendance at the Dillwynia Services and Programs Division, and the programs undertaken by the offender whilst in custody. The offender has expressed remorse in respect to her offending to the psychologist and in her statement to the court, both of which I accept.
The offender has entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to the full 25% discount reflecting this plea.
The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment. I am satisfied that the s 5 threshold has been crossed and having considered all possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.
The parity principle is one of equal justice, requiring that like offenders should be treated in a like manner and allows for different sentences to be imposed on co‑offenders where it is justified for some reason, for example, a differing role and/or differing personal circumstances, such as for example age, background, criminal history, findings that have been made in terms of their prospects of rehabilitation or mental health issues. If there are differences, the question is always one of due proportion being maintained between the sentences having regard to the different circumstances of the co‑offenders and having regard to their different degrees of criminality.
In terms of differing charges faced by differing offenders, the majority of the High Court (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) stated in Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462 at [30]: "The foundation of the parity principle in the norm of equality before the law requires that its application be governed by consideration of substance rather than form. Formal identity of charges against the offenders whose sentences are compared is not a necessary condition of its application. Nevertheless, as Campbell JA recognised in Jimmy v R, [48] there can be significant practical difficulties, particularly where disparity is said to arise out of a sentence imposed on a co-offender who has been charged with an offence that is less serious than that of the appellant. The existence of those difficulties may be accepted. So too may the inability of a court of criminal appeal to undertake, under the parity rubric, a de facto review of prosecutorial charging discretions. Those practical difficulties and limitation, however, do not exclude the operation of the parity principle. The effect given to it may vary according to the circumstances of the case, including differences between the offences with which co-offenders are charged.' (Emphasis added)
I have applied the parity principle considering the different offences for which the offender and co-offenders are to be sentenced, the differing criminal histories, subjective features, moral culpability, and general deterrence. The offender is being sentenced for a lesser offence than the co-offenders, although the offender has the same offence on the Form 1 as the primary offence. Further the offender supplied twice the quantity specified for this offence. The same observation applies in respect to the offence on the Form 1. The offender's criminal history is limited. The offender was on a conditional release order at the time of the offending. There are strong subjective features favouring the offender. Moral culpability and general deterrence are reduced given mental health and by the application of Bugmy principles. The offender has expressed remorse and there are good prospects of rehabilitation.
The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years. Whilst I am sentencing for the relevant principal offence, I take into account the further offence for which the offender has admitted her guilt on the Form 1, with a view to increase the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the principal offence. The additional offence warrants a slight increase in the sentence that is otherwise appropriate, taking into account the subjective matters and the reduced need for deterrence. The appropriate sentence is 4 years 6 months from which is to be deducted the 25% for the plea of guilty, resulting in a sentence of 3 years 4 months (rounded down from 3 years 4 months 15 days).
I find special circumstances given the mental health issues and subjective circumstances traversed in this sentence, the fact that it is the offender's first time in custody, the hardship suffered whilst in custody during the Covid-19 pandemic and the offender's need for rehabilitation which will be more readily accessed and available upon release from full time custody. In the circumstances, the standard non-parole period will be reduced.
The offender has spent a total of 443 days in custody referrable to the offence. The court will backdate the sentence to take this into account.

Orders 1. In respect of the offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty, the offender is convicted. 2. I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, 4 months to commence on 9 February 2022 and expire on 8 June 2025. 3. I impose a non-parole period of 1 year, 10 months to expire on 8 December 2023. 4. The earliest date the offender is eligible for release to parole is 8 December 2023.

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: 08 May 2023

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (17 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (22)