R v Losco

Related matters

1. A number of other drugs and items were seized following his arrest. They are on a s166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 certificate. Guilt has been admitted and sentences will be indicated as part of an aggregate sentence. Those matters indicate that Losco was dealing for personal profit but he was also using his own products. He was prepared to provide whatever was needed to drug users in the community in order to make a profit. He says that he was motivated to pay off a large debt. He says he was also motivated because of his own drug use. I am prepared to accept that, not that it mitigates his crimes. It is also clear from all the material before me that he was without moral compass and acted without thought of the consequences. He was seeking to profit from the drug use of others and gain the substantial profits, the material profits, that those who supply drugs have come to expect.

Seriousness of offending

1. Objectively Losco was the principal in his own supply operation. He was buying in bulk and supplying himself. He was supplying, and using Ryan to supply others. He used a hotel room; understandably given he was living with his pro‑social sister and deceiving her as to his drug use. He was the regular supplier of small amounts and was in possession of drugs for supply and money the product of his supply operation. He had a store of MDMA available for retail distribution. He had just purchased his next supply of methylamphetamine.
2. Losco was still engaged with the people he had met in gaol and was proposing to engage in supplying drugs within the gaol environment, a particularly serious crime in itself. He was after easy money and he wanted to establish himself without the need for hard work. If ever there was a definition of greed it is that. The fact that he was not as greedy as some other drug suppliers I have dealt with is the only thing that could be said to his advantage.

Maximum Penalties

1. A s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act supply of a large commercial quantity offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is a standard non‑parole period of 15 years. One of the ways in which drug offences are structured is the quantity of drugs. The rolled up quantity here was very close to the bottom level cut‑off for a large commercial supply offence. The other end of the scale is unlimited. People sentenced to life imprisonment are generally involved with significantly greater sums than this offender.
2. Losco is also to be sentenced for two s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 offences relating to the supply of the MDMA and the Buprenorphine. There are also the six matters on the s 166 certificate to be dealt with. Each if dealt with in the Local Court, in all the circumstances, would have justified a short custodial sentence. Each requires a short sentence be indicated.
3. I have to pay particular attention to the maximum penalties and the standard non‑parole periods. They are sentencing measures that have to be balanced with all other relevant matters. There needs to be a comparison between this case and other cases but I do not start simply with the maximum and make proportional deductions from it, particularly in cases where as here there are significant head sentences potentially available. The standard non‑parole period is one matter I take into account but I do not compare this offence with some abstract one.

Other related matters

1. As Mr Fraser points out there are some unusual features of this case. One does not simply go to the quantity and compare like quantities with other like quantities. I have to give content to the standard non‑parole period but there are reasons here, in the subjective case, the plea of guilty and the quantity of drugs, for a substantial variation from it.
2. Each of the three counts that were committed for sentence has a Form 1 attached to it. Those matters have to be taken into account but I do so as directed by the High Court in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 as part of my synthesis of all relevant factors. I do not sentence for those Form I matters but they do mean that greater weight has to be given to personal deterrence and retribution.
3. Losco pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. I will reduce each indicated sentence by 25% to reflect his early plea. I will take care when I accumulate the various sentences that that benefit is not eroded.
4. Losco has a criminal record. It is an extensive criminal record, and he has offended against the community on many occasions. He is not to be punished because of that record but it does mean that greater weight has to be given to community protection when I come to formulate the appropriate sentence.

Subjective matters

1. Losco is now old enough to have made a number of important choices in his life. When he was released to parole, he made promises to his family, the State Parole Authority and himself not to offend but he has not kept those promises. He breached his parole by re- offending very shortly after being released. I cannot find that he left gaol intending to offend but the short period of time between when he left gaol and when he commenced reoffending indicates that he had failed to learn the lessons meant to be taught by a custodial sentence. Again, that is not unusual. All of the research that I am aware of shows that harsher and longer punishments often fail to deter offenders, particularly where they have a longstanding problem with drug addiction. That longstanding problem is reflected in the material before me.
2. Losco came from a solid but conservative home. His childhood is described in the report from the psychosocial report of Ms Jelen as difficult: exhibit 1. Both his mother and father were not physically well. As a young man he experimented, and used, on a regular basis illicit drugs. He had problems with school, particularly with the English language aspect of it. He left school at Year 10. That said, he was a hard working young man and he was able to establish his own business and form two important relationships. It is not clear what business problems occurred but it is not unsurprising that problems did arise because drug use and running a successful business are incompatible; his drug use won out, his relationships broke down and he ended up in gaol.
3. It is clear from all the material, including the telephone intercepts that are set out in the agreed facts, that he has failed to break associations with those in gaol when he was released, both on this occasion and previously. And, once he started using illicit drugs in the community, it was very easy for him to make what he calls a "stupid call" and commence the supply and distribution of drugs in the community.
4. His supply operation was not elaborate. It was obviously easily detected by police. As a regular drug user he was not focusing on right or wrong or even self protection. He had lost the capacity for rational and moral decision making.
5. The report of Ms Jelen indicates that with the help of the EQUIPS programs he now has some insight and motivation. His sister is his one pro‑social support in the community and she is still here for him. He has family he would like to re‑establish relationship with.
6. He will need to prove himself in the community. To date he has failed, and failed dismally and criminally, in those efforts. Ms Jelen indicates that he will need psycho‑educative drug programs. What that means in laymen's terms is psychological help, probably Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and help getting it through to him that he needs help. He has some insight into his problem and now appears remorseful but it is hard to gauge whether it is regret for the position he has put himself rather than remorse for those to whom he supplied in the community.
7. Each count involves discrete acts of criminality, however, each count related to the business he was running and had many common features.
8. The purposes of sentencing apply to every matter I must sentence him for. Those purposes overlap. The sentences for the three principal offences should be partly cumulative but there can be substantial concurrence. The aggregation of all the sentences must be a just and appropriate measure of his total criminality. The severity of the sentence should not operate to destroy his prospects of working towards rehabilitation and reform but he will have to spend a substantial period in custody before he has that opportunity.
9. His progress to date is encouraging. There is one discipline matter on his record but given his prior history that one matter pales into insignificance as against the certificates that have been provided.
10. He went into custody on 9 January 2019. He is serving balance of parole until 27 May 2020. His fresh offending requires that I increase the otherwise appropriate sentence to reflect that it was in breach of parole. I have to be careful not to double punish. There should, however, be some discrete, punishment for his failures on parole that are not related to this offending. I propose to commence the sentence after a few months have been served.

Special circumstances

1. I will make a finding of special circumstances. He has some motivation to change his ways. It is in his interests that he engages in rehabilitation programs while he is in custody. It is in his interests that he engages in a treatment plan in custody and on release. He, as Ms Jelen indicates, will need to participate to all programs available in the prison system. He will have to wake up to himself.
2. The programs are designed for people such as himself and designed to address addictive behaviour. If he does not address those problems he will not get parole. When he is on parole he will be required to be supervised for as long as possible because for quite a number of years he has been unable to live or adjust to normal community life and he will need help in doing so. I also need to take into account the effective accumulation of these sentences. That said the aggregate sentence and its minimum term must also reflect all the relevant purpose of sentence including the seriousness of the crimes he committed.

Submissions

1. I received comprehensive submissions from Mr Fraser, Public Defender who appears for Losco, and Ms Bird, Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope this judgment has done justice to them. I have sought to take into account all of the matters that they raised with me in their written and oral submissions.

Synthesis

1. The offender's used the profits from his drug supply to purchase more drugs, which he was to use to supply to others in the community. He chose to fund his own drug use by supplying to others. He also sought to make a profit. He sought to make money, much more money than he could have obtained by hard work in the community. His own drug usage and his time in gaol did not leave him with a clear head to think about the consequences for himself or for others. He was operating a business in a clandestine and apparently efficient manner.
2. He chose to operate, as his sister said, in a "different world" but it is not the world that anyone in the community should think is either attractive or one that is without risk. One risk is that you will spend significant portions of your life in custody. Sending that message is one reason given for the significant sentences that must be imposed for matters such as this. The retail distribution of drugs in our community, and here a number of different drugs, and the attempt to distribute drugs in a custodial setting, require a considerable custodial penalty.
3. There is always community interest in appropriate and just punishment in matters such as this. The market for illicit drugs provides an incentive, an economic incentive for others to engage in behaviour such as Losco's. Everyone in the community has to understand the consequences, for that reason the gaol door must close, and close for a considerable amount of time.

ORDERS

1. I have to indicate sentences for each of the nine matters. Each of the indicated sentences reflect a reduction of 25%.
2. For the large commercial supply I indicate a sentence of six years and nine months with a non‑parole period of four years.
3. For the supply of MDMA I indicate a sentence of three years.
4. For the supply of Buprenorphine I indicate a sentence of one year and ten months.
5. For the s 166 matters:

• for possess cannabis a sentence of one month;
• for possess MDMA a sentence of one month;
• for supplying a quantity of Gamma butyrolactone I indicate a sentence of nine months;
• for the three prohibited weapons matters I indicate individually sentences of nine months.

1. There will be a total aggregate sentence in this matter of eight years and three months. It will commence on 9 April. There will be a non‑parole period of five years and five months. You will be eligible for release to parole on 8 September 2024. There will be a parole period of two years and ten months reflecting the finding of special circumstances. The sentence will expire on 8 July 2027. Total sentence starting on 9 April 2019 expiring on 8 July 27.
2. Liberty to restore if there is an issue with regard to any freezing orders.

---

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: 03 March 2020