Each sentence was concurrent by reason of s.16(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, making a total effective sentence of three years' imprisonment. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of 20 months. His Honour made a declaration that 36 days' pre-sentence detention be taken into account as already served.
11 It is necessary to note that there was a co-accused, namely, John Mark Zagrovic, who pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a substance for trafficking in a drug of dependence. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months on each count and the court directed that three months on Count 2 be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on Count 1. This resulted in an effective term of 12 months' imprisonment. His Honour ordered that Mr Zagrovic serve his term of imprisonment by way of an intensive correction order. It was clear that he played a lesser role in the activities than the two Langdons. An order was signed that day but on 28 November 2003 Mr Zagrovic was brought back to court, it was proven that he breached the order, it was cancelled and he was ordered to serve 332 days' imprisonment.
12 On 4 September 2003, Mr and Mrs Langdon filed an application for leave to appeal against their sentences and on 12 March 2004, this Court granted both applicants leave to appeal against their sentences. On 21 May 2004, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal granted Mr and Mrs Langdon an extension of time for leave to appeal against their convictions. Mr Langdon alleged that the conviction and sentence on Count 4 was erroneous in that the facts relied upon were the facts relied upon to prove Count 3. He also alleged that the same argument applied in relation to Count 9, namely, that the facts to prove Count 9 were the facts relied upon to prove Count 3. These grounds raise issues of double jeopardy in respect to prosecution and conviction and also sentence. Mrs Langdon argues that the convictions and imposition of sentences in respect of Counts 5, 8 and/or 9 were erroneous because the facts relied upon were the facts that proved Count 3. On 4 August 2004, the Registrar granted the applicants leave to amend their grounds of appeal against sentence. Mr Langdon has relied upon 12 grounds of appeal against sentence and Mrs Langdon, ten.
13 On the plea, the Crown tendered two documents, namely, a business receipts book prepared by Mr and Mrs Langdon, and the diary of David Langdon. The defence tendered in evidence references regarding Mr and Mrs Langdon, reports relating to Mrs Langdon, and a statement of Mr Langdon and Mrs Langdon. Mr Langdon also gave evidence before his Honour in an effort to establish that their involvement in the manufacture and sale of amphetamines was minor and was at the direction of a Mr Pierpoint.
14 The facts concerning the commission of the offences can be briefly summarised.
15 On 9 March 2001 a burglary was committed at a residential property at Baranduda.
16 The property stolen comprised a Hewlett Packard computer system and printer valued at $2,300, jewellery valued at $3,200 and a Diner's Club credit card in the name of "R.R. Herrin".
17 The credit card was used to purchase a number of items on the Internet, namely, A Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 81st edition, and the Merck Index: CDROM Windows Version 12.3 using the e-mail address of "speedieau@iprimus.com.au". The address for delivery was "Andrew Gibbs, 4/1 Railway Street, Wodonga". At that time Mr and Mrs Langdon were residing at 1 Hugh Court, Wodonga. Investigations revealed that the e-mail address was used via a telephone number and the subscriber for the number was Mrs Langdon. These facts constituted the first two counts involving Mr Langdon, being offences of handling stolen goods.
18 On 22 and 23 March 2001, Alpha Chemicals in Dee Why, New South Wales, received telephone enquiries purporting to come from a company called Electrons Pty Ltd of Wodonga and Alistair Moyle of Tallangatta in the State of Victoria concerning the possible purchase of 10 kilograms of sodium hypophosphite. The company received an order via facsimile from A.J. and C.E. Moyle requesting the supply of 10 kilograms of the chemical to be delivered to Mrs Langdon at 1 Hugh Court, Wodonga. The enquiry and order were referred to the police and the supplier was directed to proceed with the transaction. A postal order in the sum of $401.50 was received for payment and the chemical was forwarded with a delivery docket made out to Susan Langdon of 1 Hugh Court, Wodonga. Delivery was effected on 20 April 2001 and Mrs Langdon signed the delivery document.
19 On 7 August 2001 a search warrant was executed at 1 Hugh Court, Wodonga. In the dining room the police found the stolen printer (being Count 1), and the Merck Index CD located nearby (Count 2). Mr Langdon stated he had purchased the printer from a John Pierpoint for $50 and that Pierpoint had purchased the CD and left it behind. The police ascertained on Mr Langdon's computer that the e-mail name "speedieau" was used by Mr Langdon on a number of occasions.
20 Count 3 concerns the serious criminal conduct of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely, amphetamine. The count was joint involving Mr and Mrs Langdon. This count carried a maximum sentence of 15 years and a fine of up to $100,000.
21 The police found a ledger-style notebook in which details of sales of amphetamines to persons locally and also to persons interstate were recorded. Both Mr and Mrs Langdon were responsible for recording the entries. Both denied trafficking in amphetamine and stated that a John Pierpoint conducted the sale of the drugs and that they were merely keeping records of his transactions. The police discovered e-mail messages to a person in Tasmania which related to the transactions recorded in the notebook. Records of the Bank of Melbourne confirmed that between 3 April 2001 and 14 September 2001 a total of $32,350 was deposited into Susan Langdon's savings account. The amounts deposited ranged from $280 to $5,000. The deposit slips reveal that the depositors used false identities. The deposits included sums deposited in branches in Tasmania and South Australia. At that time both Mr and Mrs Langdon were unemployed and were receiving Centrelink payments and a Family Allowance benefit. Investigation revealed that the sums deposited and the dates tallied with entries made in the ledger notebook and a diary kept by Mr Langdon. The entries in the notebook listed names, dates, sizes and amounts owing and paid for drug transactions. Mr and Mrs Langdon made entries recording the sales in the book. The records disclose total sales of approximately 335 grams of high grade amphetamines which were sold for a total of approximately $31,380.
22 Scientific testing of the amphetamines found disclosed an average purity of 30% and if the amphetamines sold by Mr and Mrs Langdon were of that level of purity, it was calculated that the total street value would be in the order of $100,620 to $301,860.
23 Mr and Mrs Langdon denied being engaged in the manufacture of amphetamines and nominated John Pierpoint as their supplier. It was the case put by the Crown that whilst not denying either the existence of Mr Pierpoint or his involvement in the criminal enterprise, Mr and Mrs Langdon were involved in the manufacture and sale and the Crown relied upon the evidence summarised in support of Counts 4, 5, 8 and 9.
24 The police also found quantities of a variety of chemicals which are ingredients for the manufacture of amphetamines, namely, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, ammonium nitrate and acetone, along with receipts for specialised chemistry glassware, receipts for manufacturing amphetamines, other production documents and an order for the supply of 250 kilogram drum of hydrophosphorus acid on 27 July 2001. Recorded on Mr Langdon's computer were receipts for the manufacture of amphetamines, Internet purchases of 1,800 pseudoephedrine tablets from overseas pharmaceutical companies, lists of local chemists for the purchase of pseudoephedrine products and records of engaging persons to attend at chemists to purchase pseudoephedrine products.
25 Further investigations revealed that Mr Langdon and Mr Zagrovic had purchased a 250 kilogram drum of hydrophosphorus acid on 27 July 2001 from Kendon Chemicals in Thornbury for approximately $5,090, paid in cash.
26 On that day Mr Langdon and Mr Zagrovic attended at the company's premises. Mr Langdon, using his own name, told the office manager that he worked for Northwest Bay Seafood and that the chemical was used by the Tasmanian fishing industry for cleaning metal nets. Kendon Chemicals subsequently received an order by facsimile for the supply of a 250 kilogram drum of the acid to Northwest Bay Seafood of "1 Hugh Court, Wodonga". That same day the drum was collected by Mr Langdon and Mr Zagrovic. The contents of the drum are worth approximately $250,000 on the black market if sold in bulk. It could also be sold in one kilogram quantities at $2,000 per kilogram, in which case the total contents could be sold for a total of $500,000. The contents of the drum were sufficient for the manufacture of approximately 140 kilograms of pure amphetamines with a street value amounting to millions of dollars. Mr Langdon admitted collecting the drum knowing it was to be used for the manufacture of amphetamines, but again stated he did it for John Pierpoint and received cash and drugs as payment. He further stated that the drum was collected from his front yard and had not been seen since. That evidence supports Count 4.
27 The police, when they searched the premises at Wodonga, found other items of computer equipment, parts and software and Mr Langdon gave varying accounts of where each item came from, stating that he had acquired them lawfully. He stated that in respect of a printer and some software, they belonged to his previous employer, Tony Horner, and that he had permission to keep them. Mr Horner denied that he had any right. He stated that almost all the computer equipment and software belonged to his company, Network Solutions. This was the evidence in relation to Count 6.
28 Also during the search, a Rowa DVD player was found in the loungeroom. Mrs Langdon stated she had purchased it for $100. She stated at the time she thought it may have been stolen but she purchased it anyway and she said it was worth about $250. This was the evidence in relation to Count 7 against Mrs Langdon.
29 The police also found a plastic container containing 28 grams of pseudoephedrine in Mrs Langdon's bedroom. This is used as an ingredient for the manufacture of amphetamines. This was the evidence of Count 8 against Mrs Langdon.
30 In the spare bedroom at their home the police found a number of plastic bags containing amphetamines. The total content was 7.3 grams with a purity of 30%. Mrs Langdon told the police that the amphetamine was purchased for her own personal use. Mr Langdon stated he was using amphetamines. That was the evidence in support of Count 9.
31 Both Mr and Mrs Langdon pleaded guilty to the counts. By pleading guilty to the counts each admitted the elements of each of the counts. It is clear from the plea made on their behalf that they sought to distance themselves from the involvement in any major way in manufacturing and distribution and stated that they were manufacturing and supplying on behalf of Mr John Pierpoint. Evidence was given by Mr Langdon to support this. His Honour considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that both Mr and Mrs Langdon were deeply involved in the manufacture and sale. His Honour rejected Mr Lagndon's version and said at p.100 of the transcript the following: