Three offences of supply prohibited drugsco-offender
Judgment (8 paragraphs)
[1]
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
The offender was committed for sentence on 10 December 2015 from Queanbeyan Local Court on the following three charges, to which he had entered a plea of guilty:
1. Supply prohibited drug - large commercial quantity of MDMA pursuant to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 ("DMTA").
The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment.
1. Supply prohibited drug - commercial quantity of cocaine pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.
The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 10 years imprisonment.
1. Supply prohibited drug - methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.
The maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000.00.
The offences occurred on 27 August 2015 in the circumstances described below. The three charges are in common to three of the offences of a co‑accused, Mr Benjamin Miles.
[2]
The sentence hearing
The sentence hearing took place at Queanbeyan District Court on 26 May 2015. The Crown bundle became Ex A. It included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows.
The offender was born on 9 April 1990 and was 25 years of age at the time of the offending.
In June 2015, New South Wales Police conducted a controlled operation in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs involving the co-offender, Benjamin Miles. At about 12.45pm on 27 August 2015, the offender met with the co‑offender at a McDonalds restaurant in Cooma. Both men were observed to leave the restaurant and drive in separate vehicles to the Bullocks Flat Ski Tube Station where the offender parked in car park A, whereas the co-offender parked his vehicle in car park B. A meeting then took place between the co‑offender and a female known to police in respect of the supply of prohibited drugs. Following that conversation, the co-offender walked to the vehicle occupied by the offender, and the offender then drove that vehicle to car park B, where the co-offender exited the vehicle with a brown paper bag in his possession. The offender then drove back to car park A. During further conversations with the female, the co-offender referred to the offender as his "partner". The following three transactions took place:
1. At 2pm, the co-offender supplied 681.5 grams of 3/4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine ("MDMA") to the female in exchange for $91,200.00. A large commercial quantity of MDMA as defined in the DMTA is 500 grams.
2. At about 2.06pm, the co-offender supplied 284 grams of cocaine to the female in exchange for $75,000.00. The indictable quantity is 5 grams, the commercial quantity is 250 grams, and the large commercial quantity is 1,000 grams.
3. At approximately 2.06pm, the co-offender supplied 56.8 grams of methylamphetamine to a female known to police in exchange for $23,800.00. The indictable quantity is 1.25 grams, the commercial quantity is 125 grams, and the large commercial quantity is 500 grams.
At 2pm on 27 August 2015, the offender was arrested in car park A. He declined to answer any questions in an electronically recorded interview.
Exhibit A contained a New South Wales Police search which confirmed that the offender had no prior criminal convictions. He has been in custody since his arrest on 27 August 2015.
Exhibit B was a pre-sentence report prepared by Rebecca Francis, dated 9 February 2016. The report noted under the heading "Family/Social Circumstances", that the offender is the younger of two children and had a stable childhood. His mother engaged in illicit drug use resulting in an overdose when he was young, requiring her hospitalisation. The offender has the ongoing support of both his parents, who are now separated, and extended family. The offender is in a relationship that commenced in April 2015 and his partner continues to support him. The offender commenced a university course in 2015 and was doing well at his studies. He had previously enjoyed sponsorship to compete internationally in the sport of skiing. He had been a heavy user of multiple illicit drugs including cannabis, cocaine, ketamine and MDMA. He reported an increase in his drug use in the several weeks leading up to his arrest, however, he had reported abstinence from illicit drugs since entering custody, following his arrest.
The offender reported that he had acquired a substantial drug debt and was subsequently pressured into selling large amounts of illicit drugs by his dealer in a bid to recompense his outstanding debt. The offender reported that he would skim off the top of these drugs to support his addiction.
The offender claimed that he felt intimidated by threats of physical harm from his own supplier.
Under the heading "Attitude to Offending", the offender was able to identify the impact of his offending on the community if the drugs had not been intercepted by New South Wales Police. He stated to the author that he was "naïve to think his drug use would only affect him", and that he was "pretty ashamed" of himself due to the effect that this had had on his own family and subsequent community perceptions. The author then stated:
"Mr Abraham opined his reasons for committing the offence were to reduce his financial liabilities to outstanding illicit drug debts in an attempt to commence a fresh start with his new partner. Despite this aim, the offender's entrenched drug use had escalated leading up to the offence."
The offender was assessed as being a low/medium risk of re-offending. His identified criminogenic needs are:
Companions
Alcohol/drug problems
Emotional/personal
Attitude/orientation
The author noted that the offender had his own mental health issues in the past for which he sought treatment from a psychiatrist in 2012. The offender was, however, willing to participate in programs to assist him remaining abstinent from illicit drugs. He is focussed on achieving educational aspirations for his employment opportunities in the future and wished to remove himself from negative influences when released from custody. It was considered that he would benefit from a period of supervision by Community Corrections and that case management strategies would include alcohol and drug counselling, together with mental health assessment and referral. He was assessed as unsuitable for a Community Service Order.
Exhibit 1 was a letter from the offender to the court. The offender stated that since his incarceration he has had time to explore himself and analyse the roots of the issues that led him to his current situation. He described the events as having:
"Betrayed my morals, shamed myself and my family, cost me my hopes of a career in nursing, and threatened to corrode the community I live in, all in the pursuit of satisfying my own selfish addictions."
He now realised that drugs affect everyone in the community.
The offender described his time in gaol so far as being the first step in his new clean life. It represented the longest period of sobriety he has had since he left school in 2007.
The offender plans to start an apprenticeship following his release from prison, and is determined to make positive changes in his life to remain sober. The offender gave evidence and confirmed that what he told Professor Ogloff was truthful. He was cross-examined about his role in the offending, which he described was to drive down to Jindabyne and help the co-offender in the transactions. The supplier was from Canberra and the offender brought the drugs down and met the co-offender at Cooma. He was asked whether he did so for financial reward and said that it was only to obtain drugs for his own use. He had been a friend of the co-offender's for seven years, and they were both involved in snow sports. He had travelled overseas on several occasions and had seen the co-offender overseas on one of those trips.
The offender was also cross-examined about his description of his positive relationship with his partner who discouraged his illicit drug use. He said that he had tried to hide his use from her. He had suffered depression for a long time and his drug use was a way to cope without seeking help. When asked why he increased his drug use, he said because the drugs "were in front of me" and "I couldn't help myself". He had used a lot of cocaine, and used MDMA heavily for one year. Otherwise, he was prone to experiment with all kinds of illicit drugs, taking "whatever was around".
The offender gave evidence that he had been clean since his arrest. He had made a decision on that day that it was not going to impact on his life again. He described his time in custody as the darkest time in his life, but saw it as a perfect opportunity to turn his life around.
[3]
Evidence of Matilda Abraham
The offender's sister, Matilda Abraham, gave evidence on his behalf. She was the author of one of the character references in Ex 3. She was aware that her brother had suffered depression and anxiety, but she now had a better understanding. Although being 17 months older, she was close to the offender, particularly since their mother became ill in 2012. She described the offender as being very supportive during his mother's illness, and had offered financial, logistical and emotional support to family members during that time. His financial support came from earnings from his part-time work at the supermarket. He was described as being hard-working and responsible for his mother and grandparents.
Ms Abraham had visited her brother frequently since his arrest. She had observed a profound positive change in him, and had absolute faith in his remorse and contrition for his offending. His first message was that he wanted everyone to know how sorry he was for his offending. In relation to his secrecy as to his drug use and mental health issues, Ms Abraham conceded that he was not open about his drug use because the offender knew it would be a blow to her. Since his arrest, he had been completely honest and she now felt that she had her brother back. He was being proactive in his mental health and had told her that he never wants anything to do with drugs again. She described his relationship with his partner and how previously the offender had been very lonely at times. She was of the opinion that his partner was genuinely committed to him.
[4]
The Crown submissions
The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending here concerned the role played by the offender, namely, that he transported the drugs from Canberra to Jindabyne. Whereas his co-offender was receiving a small profit and drugs, the offender here was only paid by way of drugs. The objective seriousness of the offender was therefore significantly lower than that of his co-offender.
The Crown conceded that by his early plea of guilty the offender was entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence.
[5]
Submissions of the offender
Learned Queen's Counsel for the offender relied on a detailed written outline of submissions incorporating the general principles of sentencing, together with submissions relevant to the individual sentencing of the offender.
It was submitted that there were major factors which distinguished the offender's criminal conduct from that of his co-offender, namely, a different number of offences charged, different antecedent history of each charge which impacted on both the subjective and objective cases. There was no conflict as between the two offenders as in respect of the three offences that were common to each, and the objective aspects of the offending were indistinguishable. However, each had to be sentenced by a separate exercise of discretion and it was submitted that this was not a situation where the court would be "much concerned with considerations of parity".
The offender had previous good character and had suffered an extensive history of Dysthymia and co-morbid Poly Substance abuse. Professor Ogloff had identified that he had few classical criminogenic features.
It was submitted that this psychological determinant would incline the court more strongly to the exercise of non-custodial sentencing options and provided a strong case of "exceptional circumstances" of the kind required for the exercise of a non-custodial sentence, invoking the principle of gaol as a last resort.
The process of rehabilitation was a significant matter in the offender's sentencing. His time on remand had led to a substantial re-assessment of his life, and his relationship with his girlfriend had led to a positive presentation. He was clearly remorseful, and had not offended whilst in prison. Nonetheless, it was submitted that his mental health was recognised as being fragile and he required mental health care and substance abuse rehabilitation. It was submitted that it was in the public interest that the process of rehabilitation is fostered rather than impeded by the imposition of a harsh sentence.
It was submitted that his objective participation in the offending was that of a non-principal and the description of him as a facilitator was apt. A proper assessment of the level of objective seriousness of his offending was at the lower end, if not the bottom, of the scale. There were no aggravating features which the court is required to reflect by way of increase in sentence appropriate to the objective gravity of the offences.
There was significant subjective factors to be taken into account, given the offender's background as set out in the report of Professor Ogloff. He had not been in trouble prior to the present matters and there was little likelihood of his re-offending. There was no element of greed involving the offences, which proceeded from a combination of need to support his habit and fear of recrimination from the supplier whose drugs were being supplied.
Learned Queen's Counsel submitted that this was an appropriate case where the court should lean towards mercy, especially given the combination of his youthful age, prior good character, improbability of re-offending, and positive rehabilitative prospects. The additional factors of the plea at the earliest possible time and substantial and genuine remorse and contrition would also incline the court to impose a short sentence.
Those written submissions were highlighted in learned Counsel's oral submissions to the court. According to the report of Professor Ogloff, the offender had acknowledged his part in the offending and accepted responsibility for his actions. It was clear contrition and remorse, and the offender had not passed on blame to his co-offender. His prospects of rehabilitation were good, and he was not a vehicle for condign punishment.
Learned Queen's Counsel noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment in Briouzguine v R [2014] NSWCCA 264 could be distinguished from the present offending. In that matter there had been four offences involving a wide range of drugs and the amounts supplied exceeded commercial or large commercial quantities. Here, the amounts of cocaine and MDMA, whilst exceeding the commercial quantities respectively, did not exceed those quantities by a large factor. However, the subjective features taken into account by the Court of Criminal Appeal were very similar, namely, the age of the offender, the lack of prior offending, and the positive prospects for rehabilitation. Also, the offender here could be properly described as a facilitator or conduit for the offences. His offending was clearly borne by his addiction and therefore the level of criminality involved was lower than that of a trafficker motivated by greed. Further, the offender's moral culpability was reduced by reason of his suffering from a mental disorder at the time of his offending, and that should be taken into account in determining that general deterrence, retribution and denouncement should be given lesser weight. In this case, particularly, like in Briouzguine v R, supra, there was causal relationship between the offender's mental illness and the offending, and that that had impacted upon his appreciation of the gravity of the offences. The successful treatment of his mental illness was therefore a relevant factor for rehabilitation here, and would be a basis for finding special circumstances pursuant to s 44 of C(SP)A.
[6]
Determination
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."
I accept the Crown's submission that the objective seriousness of the offending here was less than that of his co-offender in respect of each of the three counts.
The offender's role was to transport the drugs from Canberra to Jindabyne where he met his co-offender, and thereafter, to further assist in the process of supply in each case, by driving his vehicle to the Perisher Ski Tube Station where he waited with the prohibited drugs in a different area of the car park, while the preliminary part of the transaction was carried out by the co-offender. This was no doubt done in an attempt to avoid detection by the co-offender. I accept, however, that the offender's role here was that of a facilitator or conduit only, and that the offending was borne of the offender's addiction to drugs. I also accept that the offender is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence for his early plea of guilty. I further accept that he was previously a person of good character, and that may be taken into account in sentencing here. I further accept that the offender is clearly remorseful for his offending.
Notwithstanding that the objective seriousness of the offending in respect of the first and second offences was below the mid-range of offending, each offence still constituted serious offending. However, given the offender's role as a facilitator or conduit, the objective seriousness of his offending in respect of each of those two offences is towards the lower end of the range for offences pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA. The objective seriousness of his offending in respect of Count 3 is towards the lower level of the range for an offence pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.
I accept that the offending here was borne of the offender's addiction to illicit drugs, and was carried out under threat of reprisals from his suppliers.
Having regard to the evidence of Professor Ogloff, I accept that the offender has accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.
I further accept the submission made on behalf of the offender that his moral culpability was reduced by reason of his suffering from a mental disorder at the time of his offending. He had been diagnosed in 2012 with Dysthymia, or a Persistent Depressive Disorder, which diagnosis was confirmed by Professor Ogloff. Whilst it is well settled that general deterrence must play a role in sentencing for drug supply offences, the offender's moral culpability was reduced by his mental disorder, to an extent that general deterrence, retribution and denouncement should be given less weight here.
I am further impressed by the offender's efforts to rehabilitate to date. There has been no offending whilst he has been in custody on remand, and he has denied any drug use during that time.
I have taken into account, as guideposts in the sentencing process, the following maximum penalties for the offences, and the standard non-parole period for Counts 1 and 2 as follows:
1. Count 1 - Maximum penalty is life imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment.
2. Count 2 - Maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000.00. There is a standard non-parole period of 10 years imprisonment.
3. Count 3 - Maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000.00.
I also have taken into account that most of the offender's incarceration has been spent at Goulburn Correctional Centre in protective custody. Any sentence of imprisonment will be backdated to 27 August 2015.
I accept the evidence of Professor Ogloff, that the offender's risk of re‑offending is a medium/low risk and that the offender will benefit from intensive substance abuse treatment and mental health care. I am satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate pursuant to s 5 of the C(SP)A.
This is an appropriate matter for an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("C(SP)A"). Section 53A provides as follows:
"S 53A Aggregate sentences of imprisonment
(1) A court may in sentencing an offender for more than one offence, impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment with respect to all or any 2 or more of those offences instead of imposing a separate sentence of imprisonment for each.
(2) A court that imposes an aggregate sentence of imprisonment under this section on an offender must indicate to the offender, and make a record of, the following:
(a) The fact that an aggregate sentence is being imposed,
(b) The sentence that would have been imposed for each offence (after taking into account such matters as are relevant under Part 3 or any other provision of this Act) had separate sentences been imposed instead of an aggregate sentence.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit any requirement that a court has, apart from that subsection, to record the reasons for its decisions.
(4) The term, and any non-parole period, set under this Division in relation to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment is not revoked or varied by a later sentence of imprisonment that the same or some other court subsequently imposes in relation another offence.
(5) An aggregate sentence of imprisonment is not invalidated by a failure to comply with this section."
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."
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."
See also R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55.
For those offences which carry a standard non-parole period, s 54B of the C(SP)A is also relevant. It provides as follows:
"54B Consideration of standard non-parole period in sentencing
(1) This section applies when a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for an offence, or an aggregate sentence of imprisonment with respect to one or more offences, set out in the Table to this Division.
(2) The standard non-parole period for an offence is a matter to be taken into account by a court in determining the appropriate sentence for an offender, without limiting the matters that are otherwise required or permitted to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for an offender.
(3) The court must make a record of its reasons for setting a non‑parole period that is longer or shorter than the standard non‑parole period and must identify in the record of its reasons each factor that it took into account."
I find special circumstances made out pursuant to s 44(2B) based on the offender's young age, the fact that this is his first time in prison, his demonstrated need for rehabilitation, and the progress that he has made to date. Therefore, the ratio between any non-parole period and the total term will be varied.
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].
The indicative sentences that I would have imposed in respect of each of the three offences, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending, the strong subjective matters to be taken into account, and the sentencing principles outlined above, are as follows:
1. Count 1 - On 27 August 2015 supply prohibited drug, being a large quantity of MDMA pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA - 2 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment.
2. Count 2 - On 27 August 2015 supply commercial quantity of cocaine pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA - 2 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 12 months imprisonment.
3. Count 3 - On 27 August 2015 supply prohibited drug being methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA - 12 months imprisonment.
I accept the submission made on behalf of the offender, that principles of parity in sentencing the offender and his co-offender do not have much of a role to play here, given the objective seriousness of the offending here was considerably less than that of the co-offender, and that the subjective features are necessarily different. Having regard to all of the circumstances, and having found special circumstances under s 44(2B) of the C(SP)A, I intend to sentence the offender to an aggregate non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, commencing on 27 August 2015, with a balance of term of 2 years, expiring on 26 February 2020.
[7]
Orders
I make the following orders:
1. You are convicted of the following offences:
Count 1 - Supply prohibited drug - large commercial quantity of MDMA on 27 August 2015 pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.
Count 2 - Supply prohibited drug - commercial quantity of cocaine on 27 August 2015 pursuant to s 25(2) of the DMTA.
Count 3 - Supply prohibited drug being methylamphetamine pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.
1. I sentence you to an aggregate non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months commencing on 27 August 2015 and expiring on 26 February 2018.
2. I sentence you to a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 27 February 2018 and expiring on 26 February 2020.
3. The total term of imprisonment will be 4 years and 6 months.
You should understand that release to parole is not automatic. The State Parole Authority will hold a hearing sometime before that date and decide whether they are going to release you to parole on that date or some later date. You should understand that your parole will be subject to stringent conditions, one of which is not to commit offences whilst on parole. Other conditions will include things such as who you associate with, where you live and doing what your parole officers direct. If, during the time you are on parole, you breach any condition of parole, the State Parole Authority will revoke your parole and you will have to go back to gaol to serve the balance of your sentence.
I further order that all prohibited drugs the subject of these offences be destroyed.
[8]
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: 10 June 2016
Exhibit 2 was a report of Professor Ogloff dated 11 March 2016. Professor Ogloff had assessed the offender at Goulburn Correctional Centre on 24 February 2016 and had spoken to his mother by phone. He had a good upbringing and did well at school until he was approximately 13 years of age, when he fell out with his peer group, which significantly affected him. He experienced depression during his high school years and although he was able to complete year 12, he did less well academically in years 11 and 12. He deferred university studies, but eventually commenced a Bachelor of Nursing and Paramedics in January 2015.
The offender worked part-time in a local supermarket on or off for seven years, and also qualified to work as a ski instructor. His mother's drug addiction had had a large impact on the offender's life, as did his parents separation when he was 22 years of age. In 2012, the offender had been referred to a clinical psychologist, Mr John Corcoran, who had made a diagnosis of Dysthymia co-morbid with cannabis addiction. Dysthymia is now known as Persistent Depressive Disorder.
The offender began drinking alcohol at 16 years of age and began using marijuana at 17 years. That quickly became daily use and from approximately 18 years of age onwards, he developed a problematic history of substance misuse. He denied injecting any drugs, but was regularly using speed and MDMA.
On psychological testing, Professor Ogloff described the offender's inter-personal style as being "warm, friendly and sympathetic to others". He values harmonious relationships in his life. The testing suggested he was quite an unassertive person who had difficulty standing up for himself, even when assertiveness was warranted. He had acknowledged a need for therapeutic treatment and had a positive attitude towards personal change, the value of therapy and the importance of personal responsibility.
Since the offender's incarceration he has experienced considerable violence and had been the victim of two assaults. He stated that he feels overwhelmed by the violence that he has seen in prison.
Professor Ogloff confirmed the offender's diagnosis of a Persistent Depressive Disorder, together with a Poly Substance Use Disorder, which was in partial remission.
In respect of the offending, the offender reported to Professor Ogloff that he had accrued very large drug debts which he was unable to pay. He got caught up in the moment, having drug debts hanging over his head from two separate drug dealers, and the promise of a quick deal was very difficult for him to resist at the time. He is now fully aware of the detrimental consequences of his behaviour.
Professor Ogloff tested the offender's level of risk for re-offending and offending violently, and assessed him as a medium/low risk of re‑offending into the future. He was a low risk for engaging in violent behaviour in the future.
Professor Ogloff noted that since he had been incarcerated, the offender has not been charged with any infractions and he has not produced any positive urine screenings. In Professor Ogloff's opinion, the primary cause of the offending was his Poly Substance Disorder. His use of drugs and alcohol was likely related to his ongoing underlying mood disorder. The combination of depression and substance dependence clearly affected his reasoning, decision making and ultimately his judgment. Professor Ogloff was of the opinion that the offender's positive presentation is due to the fact that he believes he is in a long-term relationship that will help him turn his life around. That relationship is protective and has filled him with hope and promise for his future. Professor Ogloff was of the opinion that he would benefit from intensive substance abuse treatment and mental health care. The offender's mental state would almost certainly deteriorate if his current relationship with his partner deteriorates or ends. He is, however, motivated to undergo treatment for substance abuse rehabilitation and his mental health.
Exhibit 3 was a bundle of six character references from family members, relatives and others who have known the offender for a long time, including his previous employer. The testimonials speak to his good character and to his dedication to his family. They also attest to his remorse for his criminal offending and the level of the support he has from family and friends. He excelled at skiing and was clearly suited to his studies in nursing. Ex 4 contained three certificates that the offender had attained since being on remand.