HURSTVILLE POST OFFICE
17. On 11 February 2022, the offender sent a message to a mobile phone in respect of which the recipient is unknown. The message contained the name:
"Christopher Davey Employer:
Alpha and Omega Construction
Role: builder
Super MTA
$2,763 per fortnight"
18. Following his arrest, Kennedy was in contact with Asplonde requesting she pick up a package under the name of Christopher Davey from the Hurstville Post Office. The telephone conversations in relation to this are summarised in the facts, and I will summarise them further by simply indicating that in effect, Asplonde was to arrange through Airtasker for someone to attend with credentials, or apparent credentials, to collect a package for Christopher Davey. Apparently, the person who attended was unable to obtain the package because it could not be located at the post office at the time.
19. On 7 March 2022, police obtained a search warrant for the Hurstville Post Office and seized two cardboard boxes addressed to Christopher Davey at the Forest Road, Hurstville, address. The two boxes were opened, and each contained ten white plastic bottles covered in bubble wrap. Each bottle contained liquid.
20. The packages were addressed to Christopher Davey at premises in Forest Road, Hurstville, with an iPhone number supplied. The contents of the packages were described as decolouriser.
21. The liquid was analysed to be 1,4-butanediol and of a total weight of 1,883 grams (Sequence 14).
22. On 9 March 2022, a person I will refer to as "AS" saw a job on Airtasker to collect a package from Hurstville Post Office and deliver it to someone by the name of 'Christopher D', due to him having COVID. The due date of the job was 9 March 2022. AS had a text message conversation with "Christopher" using a number 0422 424 656 and provided him his driver's licence so that Christopher D could provide him with a permission slip to collect the parcel on his behalf. The permission slip was produced by Christopher with the address of a unit at specified premises in Forest Road, Hurstville. AS attended the post office to collect the package, though staff informed him that they could not locate the package, which had previously been seized by police. AS informed Christopher and waited at the post office should the package be located. During that time, AS then received a cancellation request on the Airtasker application, which he accepted.
23. Police obtained information from Airtasker confirming AS's account. The job was posted by "Christopher D" on 9 March 2022 for $111.
24. An investigation into the IP address responsible for creating the Airtasker job request confirmed that it was done from the address of 'Asplonde.' CCTV from Asplonde's address confirms that Asplonde and a person called Austin were at the address at the time of the advertisement on Airtasker being posted.
25. On 6 April 2022 at Tamworth Police Station, the offender was arrested. He consented to the police undertaking a buccal swab and taking photographs of him. The offender declined participating in an electronically recorded interview.
- As to the offence of possess prohibited weapon, being the Taser, I note that the offender was clearly aware of its presence and has admitted the offence. Indeed, his fingerprints were on the batteries inside the device.
- Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act defines prohibited weapons and includes a wide variety of items of varying dangerousness. They include flick knives, ballistic knives and a variety of other kinds of obviously dangerous knives, bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles and mines in the nature of explosives or incendiaries, flame throwers, darts, dart projectors and devices capable of administering electric shocks.
- In my view, a Taser-type device falls significantly below the midrange of objective seriousness when taking into account the range of prohibited weapons covered by the schedule, as referred to in Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183 at para 23.
- As to the offence of supply prohibited drug in respect of the 1,883 grams of 1,4-butanediol, I note that this is a commercial quantity, and the next more serious category in relation to this prohibited drug is a large commercial quantity, which is 4,000 grams. Accordingly, the offence related to approximately half of a large commercial quantity, which is not an insignificant amount.
- The offender's role as disclosed by the telephone messages was a senior role in relation to trying to organise the collection of the drug which had been sent in the name of another person. Relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness is that the amount was well above a commercial quantity, and, as I have said, close to half the large commercial quantity. It was the offender who was directing and providing the detailed instructions to his associates to obtain the drugs, at a time when he was in fact in custody. This is indicative of his senior role within the syndicate.
- The scheme to collect the drugs involved evading police detection by using the identity of an unknown person for the package to be delivered to, and also utilising someone from Airtasker to collect the drugs. While the quantity of drugs is not a sole or principal determinative for sentencing in relation to a drug offence, the offender's role and level of participation was a significant one, and it is reasonable to refer to him as a principal in relation to that particular offence.
- No drugs were in fact obtained, although that was because of the fortuitous interception by the police. In my view, the offending can be said to fall within the midrange of objective seriousness.
- As to the third offence, involving 15.75 grams of heroin, a trafficable quantity heroin is 3 grams, an indictable quantity is 5 grams, and the next more serious level of seriousness is a commercial quantity, which is 250 grams. 15.75 grams is significantly less and falls at the lower end of the range before one reaches a commercial quantity. The offender was asked to supply on two occasions and agreed to supply.
- On the second occasion, the half-ounce was to be supplied for $2,000. It is evident from the recorded conversation and other conversations that this was not an isolated incident, and it was motivated by the desire to obtain a financial reward, and it was intended to fulfil the order. Although there is no evidence of the actual supply, it is the agreement to supply which is as significant in my view as an actual supply, and again in circumstances where the offender was significantly involved in the arrangements and can be regarded as being in the role of a principal. Again, I would find that it falls in the midrange of objective seriousness, even though the amount, 15.75 grams, is significantly towards the lower end of the range covered by s 25(1).