R v Michael Peter Christiansen

SENTENCE 1On 8 November 2010, the offender, Michael Peter Christiansen, pleaded guilty to four offences, namely that he did murder Paul Elliott on 6 December 2008, that he did possess a shortened firearm without being authorised to do so on 16 December 2008, that he did supply 2985.5 gms of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) on 16 December 2008 and that he did supply 327.58 gms of a prohibited drug (cocaine) on 16 December 2008. The offender was convicted of each of those offences on that date. 2There are a further 21 offences on a Form One that the offender wishes to have taken into account when sentenced in respect of the murder charge. Those offences consist of 9 firearms offences, 9 possession of prescribed restricted substances offences, one offence of destroying property by fire, one offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime and one offence of drive whilst disqualified. 3The offence of murder and the offence of supply methylamphetamine each carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The firearms offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The supply cocaine offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. 4It should be noted that, when the offender pleaded guilty and was convicted, count 3 in the indictment was expressed in terms that the offender supplied not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, and that the stated Law Part Code (3183) corresponded to that offence under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, for which a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment applied. 5However, the quantity averred in count 3 clearly exceeded the prescribed large commercial quantity of the relevant drug. The Law Part Code corresponding to that offence is 63588. When this discrepancy was brought to the Crown's attention, the Court was informed that the offender always understood that he was to be sentenced for supply of a large commercial quantity and that there was no impediment to the amendment of the indictment to reflect the correct Law Part Code. The Court Attendance Notice for the offence that became count 3 referred to supply of a prohibited drug "being an amount which was not less than the large commercial quantity", although it too stated the incorrect Law Part Code (3183). 6The form of count 3 is technically correct, although it does not specifically aver "not less than the large commercial quantity". Whilst that particular should have been part of the charge, it is a matter of form, not substance. Similarly, the allocation of an incorrect Law Part Code on an indictment does not determine the basis upon which an offender is to be sentenced. The prevailing consideration is whether a circumstance of aggravation converts a lesser offence into a greater offence, or simply increases the maximum available penalty without altering the nature of the charge. In the latter case, of which count 3 is an example, a failure to comply with the rule of practice that the circumstance ought be charged does not give rise to a miscarriage of justice, unless the offender pleads guilty in the belief that the lower maximum penalty applies : see Warby v R [2007] NSWCCA 173 at [14] - [20]. 7Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 allows for the amendment of an indictment with the consent of the offender or with the leave of the Court, on the application of the prosecution. Section 21 grants a power to the Court to order the amendment of an indictment if it is defective and the amendment does not cause an injustice. The Crown now makes an application under s 20 to amend the Law Part Code with respect to count 3. The offender does not oppose the application. In my view, the amendment is warranted, either under s 20 or s 21. 8Accordingly, I granted the Crown leave under s 20 to amend count 3 of the indictment to the extent that the Law Part Code should read "63588". Following that amendment, the offender adhered to his plea of guilty to count 3. 9The agreed facts upon which the offender stands to be sentenced establish that the offender was contracted by a man named Tran to go to a house to provide protection for Tran, when he met with the deceased for the purpose of attempting a resolution of a dispute between Tran and the deceased over Tran's supply to the deceased of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The agreement between the offender and Tran involved taking a large steel box to the house with the intention, if the dispute was not resolved, of possibly having to remove the body of the deceased from the house. The offender went to the house knowing that there was a very real prospect that the deceased might be killed by him. Before going to the house, Tran gave the offender the large quantity of methylamphetamine which had earlier been returned by the deceased. The offender was tasked with the safe storage of the drug in anticipation that Tran might be able to persuade the deceased to take the drug back, in settlement of the dispute, together with a sum of money. Tran agreed to reward the offender for his services by an introduction to his uncle who imported cocaine and later, told the offender that he would be given some of the proceeds of sale of the methylamphetamine. The detail of the offender's activities are as follows. 10On Thursday 4 December 2008, the offender met Tran, to whom he was introduced by Jeremy Postlewaight. The offender had been informed that Tran was arranging to meet with a person from Melbourne (the deceased) about a drug debt. 11At about 2:30 p.m. that afternoon, the offender removed a handgun from a store room at Kennard Storage Unit in Camperdown. The storage unit was being used by the offender to store drugs and firearms. He had leased the unit under the false name of Michael Euros. 12At 5:40 p.m. that day the offender placed a yellow duty-free shopping bag containing 2985 g of methylamphetamine into the storage unit. 13On Friday 5 December 2008 the offender purchased a large metal tool box with wheels and hydraulic struts for $880 from a sheet metal business in St Peters. The same evening, an associate of Postlewaight made enquiries about borrowing a boat for New Year's Eve. 14The deceased, Paul Elliott, was seen in the company of Tran on Friday 5 December 2008 in suburban Melbourne. Elliot later told his partner that he had picked this person up from the airport and was to take him back to the airport. The deceased further said "I have just got news I have to go to Sydney, to a meeting. If this doesn't go right, you might not see me again ". The deceased indicated to his partner that he was chasing up an outstanding debt, which was owed to him by Tran, who had earlier sold him a large quantity of methylamphetamine of low grade purity. 15In the evening of Friday 5 December 2008, the deceased hired a black Holden statesman from Budget at Tullamarine Airport. It was due to be returned at 9:30 p.m. on 8 December 2008. The deceased regularly hired cars from this company. 16Early on 6 December 2008, the deceased drove his black utility to a factory unit at Airport West. The deceased's partner followed in the hire car. During preparations for their departure to Sydney, the deceased moved a package, wrapped in a towel, from the tray of his black utility into the Holden statesman. The deceased's partner had seen the deceased in possession of a gun in about March or April 2008 and knew that he kept it wrapped in a black sock in the driver's side door of his car. 17The deceased had previously been convicted and served a sentence for aggravated burglary, relating to the theft of methylamphetamine from a pharmacology factory laboratory, estimated to be worth $161 million. The deceased committed this offence in the company of others, whilst armed with semiautomatic weapons and carrying four extra magazines. The offender had been informed that the deceased was known to always carry a gun and was a known "stand over man" from Melbourne. 18At 11:30 a.m. on 6 December 2008, the offender went to the house of Marcello Urriola and said that he had a big job to do. He asked Urriola to look after some phones until he got back. 19Meanwhile, the deceased and his partner travelled to Sydney in the hired Holden statesman, arriving in the afternoon of Saturday 6 December 2008. On arrival, the deceased checked into the Mercure Hotel at Wolli Creek. Shortly thereafter the deceased told his partner he had to meet someone and that he would be back within the hour. When he left, the deceased was carrying a black shoulder bag. The deceased left the hotel at 4:10 p.m. 20In the afternoon of 6 December 2008 the offender drove his van, with Tran as a passenger, to General Holmes Drive in Brighton Le Sands. A house on that street had been leased by Tran and another man approximately 1 month earlier for the purpose of carrying on a hydroponic cannabis cultivation. 21Tran told the offender that he hoped to persuade the person from Melbourne to settle their dispute by taking back the balance of the methyl amphetamine which the deceased had returned to Tran, after having cut and sold some, in addition to Tran paying the deceased a sum of money. 22Tran and the offender waited for the deceased. The offender went inside and to the back of the house and Tran waited outside. Sometime later, the deceased arrived and Tran and he had a discussion which continued inside the house and became acrimonious. The deceased began to loudly question whether there was someone else in the house and started moving further into the house. 23The offender had his firearm drawn as the deceased was searching the house. The deceased ultimately came into the room and confronted the offender. The deceased drew a gun but before he could fire the offender shot him in the chest. The offender then moved forward and fired a second bullet into the deceased's head. In all, three shots were fired by the offender. No shots were fired by the deceased. 24Whilst the offender states that he feared for his own safety at the time that he fired the first shot, his plea to the offence of murder accepts that he was not acting in self-defence when he fired a second time. 25The offender then placed the deceased's body inside plastic garbage bags to stop him bleeding onto the floor. These bags were already in the house, together with a bucket and other cleaning materials. Tran wheeled the tool box into the house and the offender and Tran placed the deceased into the toolbox. They then placed the toolbox into the rear of the offender's van. The offender was also in possession of a pair of plastic gloves. 26At some time in the course of the following day, the underlay and carpet was cut from the floor of the room where the deceased had been killed. The offender played no part in this activity. 27The offender drove his van from the house. Tran took the deceased's vehicle. The offender returned to his residence in Annandale Street, Annandale and left the metal tool box in the rear of his van. Jeremy Postlewaight, who was at the offender's home, was informed of the murder and arrangements were made for Postlewaight to return the next day with his boat in order to dispose of the deceased's body at sea. 28After 8 p.m. on 6 December 2008 the offender rang Urriola and asked him to bring the phones back. Urriola met with the offender at the latter's home that evening. The offender told Urriola that he "had done a job with the Asian guy". The offender told him that there was a body in a heavy toolbox in the back of his van. Urriola asked the offender how much he was paid to do the job and the offender replied that he was paid with 12 pounds of "base" or methylamphetamine. 29On Sunday 7 December 2008, Urriola returned to the offender's residence. They both went to Kennards at Camperdown, where the offender returned the handgun, a Smith & Wesson self loading pistol that was used to murder the deceased, to the storage unit. They then returned to the offender's home. Shortly afterwards, Jeremy Postlewaight arrived driving a tipper truck towing a large boat. 30The offender and Urriola removed the large toolbox from the rear of the offender's van and lifted it into the boat, with assistance from Postlewaight. While moving the toolbox from the van to the boat, some blood spilt from the toolbox on the roadway and onto the side of the boat. The blood on the roadway was cleaned by the offender and the blood on the boat was cleaned by Postlewaight. 31The offender and Postlewaight travelled to Drummoyne towing the boat. Urriola followed in the offender's van. Postlewaight launched the boat at Drummoyne and all three men travelled past the heads of Sydney Harbour until they arrived at a spot where the sea reached a depth of approximately 130 m. The offender used a cordless drill to drill two holes in the toolbox. Postlewaight tied an anchor to the toolbox. All three men lifted the toolbox containing the deceased's body and pushed it into the water. The toolbox sank within seconds. The deceased's gun was also thrown into the water. All three men returned to the boat ramp and made their way back to the offender's premises. 32The offender moved the deceased's hire vehicle to a street in Alexandria. At about 9:30 p.m. on 7 December 2008, Urriola and the offender returned to Alexandria where they set fire to the hire vehicle, using petrol that the offender had purchased earlier that morning. 33Following the burning of the car, the offender and Urriola drove to Perth. On 13 December 2008 the offender returned to Sydney on a Qantas flight under the alias Michael Euros. 34In the morning of Sunday 14 December 2008, the offender went to the storage room at Kennards and placed the deceased's shoulder bag containing his wallet and identification into the store room. Two days later, the offender again attended the storage unit and moved Elliott's bag onto the top right-hand corner of a cardboard box. He was arrested in possession of the keys to the storage unit, which had been rented by him from June 2008 in the false name of Michael Euros. 35At the time of his arrest, the offender was in possession of the 2985 g of methylamphetamine that had been placed in the storage unit on 4 December 2008. This quantity of methylamphetamine is the subject of count 3 in the indictment. 36A subsequent search of the storage unit revealed a bag that belonged to the deceased. Numerous items of identification belonging to the deceased were found within the bag. 37Drugs found within the storage unit were later analysed and found to be cocaine. A double barrel sawn off shot gun, a single barrel Winchester pump action shotgun, a number of boxes of ammunition, a Smith & Wesson self loading pistol, a quantity of vials and tablets of anabolic steroids and $24,900 in cash were also found inside various containers within the storage unit. The firearms, ammunition, steroids and cash are the subject of the offences on the Form One. 38A search of the offender's van also located a quantity of cocaine which, when combined with the cocaine found in the storage unit, makes up the quantity of that prohibited drug in count 4 of the indictment. 39On Wednesday 17 December 2008, police established that Paul Elliott was missing. The offender was interviewed in relation to this matter on 21 January 2009 and made detailed admissions. In particular, the offender told police that he had shot and killed Paul Elliott and participated in the disposal of his body. He told police where the shooting occurred and informed police of the names of those persons who were involved in the deceased's death and/or the disposal of his body. The offender made a statement on 26 February 2009 which confirmed the detail of the admissions made in the record of interview. 40Notwithstanding these admissions, the offender was committed for trial on the offence of murder on 20 April 2010. A trial was fixed for 1 November 2010. However, on that day, the offender indicated an intention to plead guilty, subject to settlement of the agreed facts. The offender's plea to murder therefore came very late in the criminal trial process and has limited utilitarian value. Taking these factors into account, I would allow a discount of 10% for the plea of guilty to murder. 41The pleas with respect to counts 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment stand in a somewhat different position. The offender entered pleas to those counts and to two Form One offences on 20 April 2010. The Crown concedes that these pleas were entered at the earliest opportunity and that the offender is entitled to a discount of 25% on account of the utilitarian value of those pleas. 42An assessment of the objective gravity of the offence of murder begins with the recognition that the offence involves the felonious taking of a human life, no matter what the reputation or criminal antecedents of the victim. This principle is also practically demonstrated by the contents of two victim impact statements to which the Court has had regard for the purposes of recognizing the trauma inflicted on the deceased's immediate family. 43The Crown does not press for a life sentence, recognizing, in my view appropriately, that the offence does not fall within the worst category. The Crown's submission is that the murder falls well above the mid range of objective seriousness, at the higher range of seriousness, for the following reasons :- (a)The offender effectively contracted with Tran to attend a meeting between Tran and the deceased, knowing there was a high likelihood that he might be required to shoot and kill the deceased. (b)The offender went to this meeting armed with a loaded pistol. (c)The offender undertook preparatory steps, indicating that he was prepared to kill the deceased, including the purchase of the toolbox. (d)The offender secreted himself in a back room of the house. (e)The offender had his loaded firearm drawn and at the ready as the deceased walked through the door into the room where the offender waited, thereby giving the deceased no opportunity to negotiate, flee or protect himself. (f)Having shot the deceased with the intention of killing him, the offender callously and methodically disposed of the body, burnt out the deceased's motor vehicle and fled to Perth. (g)The offender received payment for murdering the deceased by way of a large quantity of methylamphetamine and was offered an opportunity to be introduced to Tran's uncle who imported cocaine. 44In summary, the Crown submits that the offence was in essence a contract killing. It is submitted that there is little to distinguish a person who is contracted as a "hitman" and a person who is hired to provide protection to a drug dealer, contemplating that in all likelihood they will be required to shoot and kill on behalf of the person who has engaged their services. The Crown relies upon the fact that the sole reason for the offender's involvement was to kill the deceased if called upon to do so. 45The offender takes issue with the submission that the offender knew that there was a "high likelihood" that he might be required to kill the deceased. In effect, the offender seeks to draw a distinction between "high likelihood" and "a very real prospect". For my part, the use of the latter terminology in the agreed facts is consistent with the former terminology. 46The offender submits that the Court should reject the submission that the murder was "in essence a contract killing". The offender maintains that the agreed facts accept that the disposal of Mr Elliott was not the relevant contract. In that regard the offender relies upon paragraph 8 of the agreed facts which reads :- Tran had agreed to reward the offender for his services by an introduction to his uncle who imported cocaine concealed in rice. In the event, afterwards Tran told the offender that he would give him some, or some of the proceeds of the sale of the methyl amphetamine referred to ... above. This would allow the offender to have a regular supply of cocaine. 47I accept that the essence of the agreement between the offender and Tran was the provision of the offender's services as "muscle", in the event that Tran could not resolve his dispute with the deceased. However, even allowing for the fact that the murder may not be strictly characterised as a contract killing, there is considerable force in the Crown's submission as to the objective gravity of the offence on the basis of the factors outlined at [43] above. 48The offender's decision to provide lethal force in furtherance of Tran's interests as, in effect, a business transaction, at a time when he was fully cognizant of the gravity of his behaviour, exhibits a very high degree of moral culpability. The offender acted in furtherance of the agreement with Tran by killing the deceased and putting into effect the plan that the offender had formulated to conceal the offence and dispose of the body, if that need should arise. 49An assessment of the objective gravity of the offence takes place against the background of the factors established by the evidence on sentence. That assessment is not assisted by enumerating a number of factors, referred to in the offender's submissions, that are not present in the commission of the offence, such as the fact that the offence was not a multiple killing, that it did not involve the shooting of a policeman, that it did not directly involve danger to other members of the public, that it did not involve children, that it was not a family killing, that it was not associated with any sexual assault, that it did not involve kidnapping or torture and that it was not a killing designed to frustrate the course of justice. 50I accept the Crown submission that the offence of murder lies within the upper portion of the range of objective gravity. The sentence imposed for the offence of murder needs to reflect this level of objective gravity, in addition to general deterrence. The murder was committed in broad daylight in circumstances where gunshots were heard by neighbours in suburban Sydney. Gun related violence, as an adjunct of large-scale drug dealing, is sufficiently prevalent to engage general deterrence to a significant degree. 51The standard non parole period of 20 years imprisonment for the offence of murder therefore assumes some relevance as a benchmark or guide in the sentencing exercise. In addition, the offences on the Form One, one of which is a serious offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (destroy property by fire under s 195 Crimes Act 1900), must find some reflection in the sentence to be imposed on count 1 of the indictment. There are of course other factors at play, the most significant of which is the offender's claim to a substantial discount for assistance provided to the authorities. Before passing to a consideration of this issue, I turn to the assessment of the objective gravity of the offences represented by counts 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment. 52The objective gravity of count 3 on the indictment is significant in and of itself. The large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine formed part of the payment the offender received from Tran. The evidence is silent on the question whether the offender intended to supply the methylamphetamine himself or whether he intended to return it to Tran, in the expectation that he would receive some payment. The quantity represents almost three times the prescribed large commercial quantity. 53The presence of a quantity of cocaine in a number of different containers, the discovery of numerous SIM cards, the quantity of cash (the subject of the proceeds of crime charge) and the use by the offender of a false name, together support the conclusion that the offender was already engaged in the business of drug supply. However, given that the possession of the methylamphetamine was a by-product of the contract with Tran that resulted in the murder, the objective gravity of the offence constituted by count 3 on the indictment in my view falls in the upper quartile of the lower half of the range represented by the maximum penalty. The standard non parole period of 15 years for this offence has limited, if any, relevance in these circumstances. 54The possession of the shortened firearm is also an adjunct of the offender's drug dealing business. Nevertheless, it is an offence that requires the imposition of a full-time term of imprisonment. 55The offence represented by count 4 on the indictment is based on the offender's possession for supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine. The drugs found within the offender's van were packaged for supply. The total amount is slightly less than 100 g above the commercial quantity. I regard the objective gravity of this offence as falling slightly below the mid range of objective seriousness and would therefore regard the standard non parole period of 10 years as of minimal relevance to the sentencing exercise. 56I turn to the question of the extent and value of the offender's assistance to the authorities. Section 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 guides the Court in terms of evaluating the discount to be applied where an offender has assisted, or undertaken to assist, law enforcement authorities with respect to any offence. The Court must take into account, relevantly, the effect of the offence committed by the offender on the victim and the family of the victim, the significance and usefulness of the offender's assistance, taking into consideration the evaluation by the authorities themselves of the assistance that is rendered or offered, the veracity, completeness and reliability of the information provided by the offender, the nature and extent of the offender's assistance or promised assistance, the timeliness of the assistance or undertaking to assist, any benefit that the offender has gained or may gain by reason of the assistance, whether the offender will suffer harsher custodial conditions as a result of giving assistance and whether the assistance or promised assistance concerns the offence for which the offender stands to be sentenced or an unrelated offence. There is a limitation on the reduction of the sentence that is otherwise appropriate to reflect the criminality of the offender, namely, that the ultimate penalty must not be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences. 57The Court of Criminal Appeal has stated on a number of occasions that the combined discount for pleas of guilty and assistance should not normally exceed 50%, unless the matter can be described as truly exceptional. It is common ground that the offender's assistance in this case does not fall within that category. The differential in the discount applied to the sentences to be imposed on each of the four counts in order to reflect the pleas of guilty necessarily results in a different combined discount in respect of each offence. In addition, the discounts to be applied for the purposes of s 23 must contain a discrete component relating to the promise of future assistance. 58Exhibits C and D set out the nature and extent of the offender's assistance to authorities. Having regard to Exhibit C, the offender has not fully co-operated with respect to the provision of information in relation to the count 1 offence and in relation to the commission of other unrelated offences. The nature of the assistance provided by the offender is regarded as qualified, in that the offender sought to minimise his own complicity in the commission of the murder and of various other offences, at the expense of nominating others. With regard to exhibit D, and the evidence which was received in the course of sentencing proceedings on this issue, the offender's information is accepted to have been of general assistance in the investigation of unrelated matters. Undoubtedly, the most significant assistance is yet to be provided by the evidence of the offender in the prosecution of Tran who is to stand trial for the murder of Paul Elliott on 29 August 2011. 59It is not disputed that the offender has placed himself and possibly members of his family in jeopardy as a result of the provision of assistance. It is also not in dispute that the offender will serve his sentence in protective custody, which will render his conditions of imprisonment more onerous than they might otherwise have been. It is not possible to determine precisely in what respect and to what extent the offender's custodial conditions will be restricted. However, given the nature of the offender's criminal associations, I accept that there will be significant restrictions placed on the offender's access to programs and facilities within the prison system. 60Having regard to these matters, I have determined that the offender should receive a discount of 20% for his assistance to authorities, of which 12% is attributed to the offender's future assistance. The resulting combined discount on the sentence to be imposed for the murder is one of 30%. The resulting combined discount on the sentence to be imposed for each of the remaining offences on the indictment is one of 45%. 61I turn to a consideration of the subjective circumstances of the offender. The offender has no relevant prior convictions. His criminal history consists entirely of summary traffic matters, but for a goods in custody offence in 2002 for which he received a fine. 62The offender is presently 42 years of age. He is estranged from his father and two adult sisters. He was educated in the Sutherland Shire and left school at the age of 15 years, which coincided with his mother's death and resultant estrangement from his father. 63He commenced a course at TAFE as an electrician but left after two years and undertook work as a male model for the following three years. He was variously employed in the hospitality industry, the security industry and as a personal trainer, the last occupation resulting in the abuse of steroids in the course of training for world titles. The offender has never married and has no children. He has been in a de facto relationship over the past 15 years with Marion Wilford (Ex 3). Ms Wilford has a 21-year-old daughter who has always regarded the offender as her father. Both his partner and her daughter speak highly of the offender as a provider and father figure. 64The offender denies any abuse of alcohol. He used amphetamines in his teenage years in addition to cocaine and ecstasy. He denies having a serious addiction to drugs although it is apparent that he had a constant and regular habit. The offender also consumed cannabis on a daily basis in order to sleep. The offender says that he is now completely free of drugs and he is reflecting more clearly on his current circumstances. A report under the hand of Tim Watson Munro (Ex 2) diagnoses the offender with a Chronic Adjustment Disorder with features of Post-Traumatic Stress. It would appear that this condition has arisen largely as a result of the offender's arrest and incarceration. 65The offender has expressed his remorse in a handwritten letter (Exhibit 1). In the course of that letter the offender states "I take full responsibility for my part in the death of Mr Elliott and expect to be punished accordingly." I accept the letter as a genuine statement of remorse, albeit that it is not tested by cross-examination. The offender's prospects of rehabilitation appears sound, if only on the basis that, by the time of the offender's release from gaol, he will no longer be an associate of those who engage in large-scale drug dealing. The offender's criminality appears to be almost wholly related to his participation in that milieu. 66Having regard to the objective and subjective circumstances in respect of each of the offences, I would impose a head sentence of 30 years imprisonment on count 1 on the indictment, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment on count 2 of the indictment, a sentence of 12 years imprisonment on count 3 of the indictment and a sentence of 8 years imprisonment on count 4 of the indictment. Applying the discounts that I have identified, the sentence for the offence of murder becomes one of 21 years imprisonment, the sentence for the firearms offence is one year and 8 months imprisonment, the sentence for the offence of supply large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is one of 6 years and 7 months imprisonment, and the sentence for the offence of supply commercial quantity of cocaine becomes one of 4 years and 5 months imprisonment. 67I am not persuaded that there is any principled basis for a finding of special circumstances. The fact that this is the offender's first custodial sentence is not compelling and the offender's submission to the effect that his harsh custodial conditions warrant a change in the statutory proportion runs foul of the prohibition on double counting. In any event, the length of the sentence that the offender is to serve will necessarily produce a balance of term that is more than sufficient for the purposes of allowing the offender to reintegrate himself into the community. 68A degree of accumulation is warranted, both to reflect the totality of the offender's criminality, and to reflect the fact that the supply commercial quantity of cocaine offence is unrelated to the remaining counts on the indictment. I accept that the offence represented by count 3 on the indictment is an incident of the offender's agreement with Tran that gave rise to the murder. 69Taking all of these considerations into account, I impose the following sentences:- (1)On count 1 on the indictment, a non parole period of 15 years and 3 months to date from 16 March 2011, expiring 15 June 2026, with a balance of term of 5 years and 9 months expiring 15 March 2032. (2)On count 2 on the indictment, a fixed term of one year and 8 months imprisonment, to date from 16 December 2008, expiring 15 August 2010. (3)On count 3 on the indictment, a non parole period of 5 years to date from 16 December 2008, expiring 15 December 2013, with a balance of term of one year and 7 months, expiring 15 July 2015. (4)On count 4 on the indictment, a non parole period of 2 years and 3 months to date from 16 December 2008, expiring 15 March 2011, with a balance of term of 2 years and 2 months, expiring 15 May 2013. 70The offender is eligible for release on 16 June 2026. 71I order that the drugs the subject of the offences be destroyed; save for the 2985.5 grams methylamphetamine the subject of Count 3 on the Indictment"