R v NE [2015] ACTSC 352

[2015] ACTSC 352

1. NE be convicted of importing a marketable quantity of MDMA.

2. NE be sentenced to three years imprisonment from today.

4. NE be sentenced to 20 months imprisonment to commence today that is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing marketable quantity of MDMA.

5. NE be convicted of importing 10.1 grams of MDMA.

6. NE be sentenced to two years imprisonment to commence today. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing cocaine.

8. NE be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence today. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing 10.1 grams of MDMA.

10. NE be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence today, that is to be wholly concurrent upon the sentence for importing 0.5 grams of MDMA.

11. NE be convicted of importing of seven grams of MDMA.

12. NE be sentenced to two years imprisonment to commence today. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing one gram of LSD.

13. NE be subject to a recognizance release order. NE be released today upon giving security in the sum of $100.00 to be of good behaviour for four years.

15. NE be sentenced to two years imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be cumulative as to one year on the sentence for importing a marketable quantity of MDMA.

17. NE be sentenced to 20 months imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for trafficking in cannabis.

19. NE be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be wholly concurrernt on the sentence for trafficking in MDMA.

20. NE be convicted of possessing the proceeds of crime.

21. NE be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for trafficking in LSD.

22. The sentence be suspended on the 2 November 2016 for 12 months. NE is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations under the Crimes Sentence Administration Act for a period of 2 years from the 2 November 2016.

23. The sentence for importing a marketable quantity of MDMA is reduced by 12 months for the assistance that NE has undertaken to provide [redacted for legal reasons].

CRIMINAL LAW - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - judgment and punishment - sentencing- drug offences - importing MDMA - importing a marketable quantity of MDMA - importing cocaine - importing LSD - trafficking in cannabis - trafficking in MDMA - trafficking in LSD - possessing the proceeds of crime - purchasing drugs online - recognizance release order - suspended sentence - Good Behaviour Order - young offender - role of rehabilitation - inter-jurisdictional sentencing - offender against Commonwealth law punished as if the offence was against ACT law - recommendations of Youth Justice officer

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 114C

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(c), Pt 1B

Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33, 133C, Ch 8A

Gilson v The Queen [1991] HCA 24; (1991) 172 CLR 353

Moran and Byrnes (1987) 31 A Crim R 248

OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148

R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22

R v M (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Douglas J, 16 October 2014)

R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24

R v Slater [2014] ACTSC 300

R v Smith [1964] Crim LR 70

R v Tabone [2006] VSCA 238; (2006) 167 A Crim R 18

R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; (2004) 149 A Crim R 167

Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)

1. The wide availability of internet access has brought many benefits, including significant expansion of eCommerce which has improved the lives of many.

2. A very significant downside, however, is in the increase in fraudulent activity, the access to and dissemination of child pornography and, as in this case, access to online purchasing of illicit drugs.

3. The accused, NE, has pleaded guilty to six offences of importing drugs, three offences of trafficking in drugs and one offence of possessing property suspected of being proceeds of crime.

4. Importing a marketable quantity of a lawfully imported border-controlled drug is an offence contrary to s 307(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and 5,000 penalty units (that is a fine of $900,000.00).

5. Importing a substance which is a border-controlled drug is an offence under s 307(3) of the Criminal Code Act and is punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years and 2,000 penalty units (that is a fine of $360,000.00).

6. Trafficking in a traffickable quantity of cannabis is an offence prohibited by s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), providing for a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units (that is a fine of $150,000.00) and imprisonment for 10 years.

7. Trafficking in a controlled drug, other than cannabis is made an offence by s 603(7) of the Criminal Code which renders NE liable for a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units (that is a fine of $150,000.00) and imprisonment for 10 years.

8. Possession of property reasonably suspected of being from the proceeds of crime is an offence against s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), for which the maximum penalty is 200 penalty units (that is a fine of $30,000.00) and imprisonment for two years.

9. Certainly the most serious offence, namely importing a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug, is a very serious offence indeed, as marked out by the maximum penalty. The courts have long-held that the maximum penalty provided by the legislature is an indication of the seriousness of the offence. See, for example, Gilson v The Queen [1991] HCA 24; (1991) 172 CLR 353 at 364.

10. By about September 2014, NE, it appears, had, for some time, been purchasing cannabis from a fellow student at his school. He sold the cannabis to other students and used the profits that he made to purchase further cannabis and later to purchase drugs online, which were imported.

11. In about September 2014, he applied for and obtained a post office box at Dickson Post Office. He then ordered various drugs: LSD, that is D-lysergic acid diethylamide, and MDMA, that is 3,4-methylenedioxy methylamphetamine, sometimes known as Ecstasy, from an online supplier.

12. In order to engage in the purchase of the drugs he deposited funds with a bank and obtained virtual currency, known as Bitcoins, with which he paid for the drugs.

13. The drugs were then sent to the post office box or the post office box of his friend. NE was aware that it was illegal to import those drugs into Australia.

14. The following importations were noted and the subject to these offences.

A. On 17 September 2014, police intercepted a package containing 1.21 grams of cocaine purchased by NE for delivery at his home address.

B. On 5 October 2014, police intercepted a package of international mail addressed to NE at his post office box. The package was analysed and shown to contain 10.1 grams of MDMA.

C. On 23 November 2014, police intercepted another package for delivery to NE's post office box. Analysis of the drug contained in the package showed that it consisted of 0.5 grams of MDMA.

D. On 20 February 2015, police intercepted an international mail package addressed to NE but at his friend's post office box in Dickson. Analysis of the contents of the package showed that it contained one gram of LSD.

E. On 27 February 2015, police intercepted a further international mail package, also addressed to NE at his friend's post office. Analysis of the contents of the package showed that it contained seven grams of MDMA.

F. On 11 June 2015, police attended the Dickson Post Office and seized an international mail package addressed to NE at his friend's post office box. Analysis of the contents of the package showed that it contained 46.8 grams of MDMA, that is a traffickable quantity.

15. Each of these constituted one of the offences of unlawfully importing border-controlled drugs, to which NE has pleaded guilty.

16. On 19 May 2015, police executed a search warrant at NE's home and seized a number of controlled drugs, cash and items associated with the trafficking of controlled drugs.

17. Amongst the drugs seized was an amount of cannabis located in clear clip-seal bags in a Woolworth's shopping bag and also a boot bag with a white plastic container. The contents of these bags were shown to be cannabis and the total amount of cannabis seized during the course of the execution of the search warrant was 700 grams. A traffickable quantity of cannabis is 300 grams. This constituted the offence of trafficking in a traffickable quantity of cannabis.

18. In addition, police seized items commonly used in the trafficking of cannabis, namely, multiple clip-seal bags, cling wrap, which NE admitted he used to attempt to cover the smell of the cannabis, and two sets of silver digital electronic scales.

19. NE was interviewed in the presence of his father and made admissions to purchasing cannabis and then to selling it to fellow students at his school. He also explained how he would divide up the cannabis and other drugs, weighing it out into clip-seal bags. He would sell less than a gram of cannabis for $10.00 and larger amounts of 1.6 grams of cannabis for $20.00. He would make approximately $3,000.00 profit for his purchase, that is $3,000.00 per pound for cannabis.

20. Police also seized 2.082 grams of MDMA which were in gel-cap capsules as well as MDMA in powder form, gel-caps and a solid tablet.

21. NE admitted purchasing the MDMA online and selling each gel-cap for $20.00. The five grams of MDMA that he purchased cost $200.00 which he financed from his sale of cannabis. This constituted the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug, other than cannabis, namely MDMA.

22. Police also seized a total amount of 0.27 grams of LSD. NE admitted to police that he would place pieces of blotting paper containing LSD into clip-seal bags and would sell each bag for $20.00 each. The drug had been purchased from the online website. This constituted the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely LSD.

23. Finally, in executing the search warrant, police also seized cash, some of which was found in what was called "a small black safe disguised as a dictionary", and some in a brown camouflage backpack. The total amount of money seized was $14,035.00. NE admitted to police that this amount was the proceeds of selling cannabis over the last six months.

24. The operation was rather sophisticated but also naïve. It involved receipt of drugs from overseas, their repackaging, both in clip seal bags and in gel capsules, and covering them up to contain the smell. It involved weighing and, in so far as the cannabis was concerned, packaging in a specially obtained smell-free plastic.

25. On the other hand, for the first relevant importation NE used his own home address. He applied for the post office box in his own name and the packaging, including those that went later to his friend's post office box, were all addressed to him in his own name. He also used his own mobile phone. This showed a degree of naïvety or unsophistication in the enterprise.

26. While there was some covert holding of the money that is not entirely unsurprising, as ordinarily large amounts of money would be reasonably secreted.

27. The evidence was that NE saved all the money. He certainly did not live an expensive lifestyle and, for example, there was no purchase of items, such as clothes, bikes, electronic equipment or other material goods.

28. The other indicia of a somewhat naïve enterprise was that the intercepted packages, which it appears from the evidence were ultimately not delivered, for example, in a fake delivery, did not seem to cause NE to make enquiry or to institute any protective procedures. It may be, and the evidence does not enable me to say one way or the other, that he did not have a sophisticated method of tracking what he had paid for and marrying that with what he had received.

29. Police made an estimate of the value of the drugs involved in this matter, both those intercepted by police and those seized during the execution of the search warrant.

30. First, an estimate was made of the drugs intercepted by police.

1. The total amount of MDMA would, if sold at the lowest estimated street price, be valued at $9,600.00 and at $32,300.00 if sold at the highest estimated street value. If sold for the price which NE sold it at, its value would be $12,880.00.

2. The total amount of cocaine would, on the same basis, range in value between $302.50 and $554.50. NE was not asked how much he charged for the cocaine he sold.

3. The total amount of LSD would, on the same basis, range in value between $1,000.00 and $5,000.00 and, if sold for the amount NE charged, would be valued at $2,000.00.

31. Thus, the total value of the drugs intercepted would be between $10,962.50 and $34,744.50 and at NE's price $14,880.00.

32. Second, as to the drugs seized during the execution of the search warrant, the value was ascertained by police on the same basis as follows.

1. The total amount of cannabis would range in value between $8,400.00 and $35,000.00 and the value, if sold by NE. be $7,000.00.

2. The total amount of MDMA would range in value between $312.00 and $1,040.00 and, at NE's price, $416.00.

3. The total amount of LSD would range in value between $250.00 and $1,250.00 and, at NE's price, $500.00.

33. Thus, the drugs seized in the execution of the search warrant were valued at between $8,962.00 and $37,290.00 but at NE's value, $7,916.00.

34. NE made full admissions when interviewed by police. [Redacted for legal reasons]

35. I had a detailed and helpful Pre-Sentence Report and the author also gave oral evidence. I had a letter from his father and a letter from his mother. From these I can make the following findings.

36. NE is 17 and was 16 and 17 during the commission of these offences. He is the only child born to his parents and, although born in Cooma, lived in Dalgety for the first four years of his life.

37. His parents separated when he was around four years old and this had a significant impact on him, resulting in some issues with anger playing out at the family day care. His mother patiently discussed the matter with him and he seemed to understand, his behaviour moderating thereafter.

38. Until he was about 12, NE lived with his mother in Cooma, but, so as to have access to better educational facilities, he moved to his father's home in Canberra when he started high school.

39. He seemed to have a happy childhood and a relatively stable upbringing. He was rarely in trouble. His father described him as well-behaved, kind-hearted and level-headed.

40. NE is currently a Year 11 student at a local college. He is clearly a bright boy but, while he did well at primary school, his grades fell when he went to high school, because, he told his mother, he could not be bothered trying. His mother put this down to being in a new town, needing to find new friends and that "the cool kids don't like the smart kids".

41. Nevertheless, once he made it to college his grades returned to their above-average status. He is currently completing a tertiary package and his school attendance is consistent. He wants to go to university and, while his educational achievements seem to make this very possible, these offences may impact on his future after that.

42. His teachers report that he is polite, helpful and well-mannered and an attentive student and on track with all his assignments. He is motivated and he is interested in studying at university in accounting, business or economics.

43. NE is not currently employed, though he has in the past had casual employment as a retail assistant. He has also been a soccer referee "on and off" for about eight years, a sport about which he has always been passionate.

44. He has also travelled with his mother to various markets where he has assisted his mother who sells items at such markets but has also set up his own stall from time to time to sell items; in those cases, however, not drugs.

46. NE is currently in good health. He was, however, born with a medical condition called arteriovenous malformation. I understand that this involves a malformation of the blood vessels of the brain whereby a "tangle" of blood vessels in the brain and on its surface bypass the normal brain tissue and directly divert blood from the arteries to the veins. It can result in intracranial haemorrhaging, focal or general seizures, pain in the head and sometimes difficulties with movement, speech or vision.

47. He was diagnosed in about April 2014 after a skiing accident. The condition is monitored by a neuro-surgeon in Melbourne and I had various reports from the neuro-surgeon. NE is currently treated with medication to alleviate the occurrence of nightmares brought on by the condition. He no longer suffers nightmares but does experience persistent headaches almost every day which, it appears, he must overcome to achieve his present level of success at school.

49. There is a risk of him developing seizures, though it is said to be a small one, but the major concern is of intra-cerebral bleeding. The risk appears to be low. Various treatments, including surgery, are possible but, at present, surgery is risky. It has meant that NE must refrain from contact sports. He is, however, considering surgery despite the risks that could be serious, even catastrophic.

50. The material available to me shows that this offending appears to involve NE misusing his talents, through a combination of immaturity and youthful enthusiasm. As became clear and attested to by his mother he really did not understand how serious was his offending.

51. His mother's description of him shows that he is something of an entrepreneur which, of course, our community supports and needs. He did not, however, recognise the legal boundaries that he so seriously crossed.

52. NE has always, according to his mother, been an honest child and that is reinforced by the ready, frank and complete admissions he made to police.

54. NE has no prior convictions and is assessed as at a low risk of re-offending. He has limited insight into effects that his offending had on those to whom he sold the drugs, taking a rather somewhat immature perspective that it was simply their choice to participate. This may have been strengthened by his perception of how rife drug use is amongst his peers. This is a little worrying and suggests that he needs some reminder that he has some personal responsibility for the distribution of the drugs and an insight into its effects.

55. Drug abuse is a serious problem in our community. NE now begins to see that in the attitude he has expressed that he sold to people who use drugs recreationally and would refuse to sell to those who appeared to him to be addicted or, in his words, "a junkie".

56. There are many statements of courts, including courts of appeal, as to the seriousness of such offending, the burden it causes to society and the need for stern and deterrent sentences. I was referred to R v Tabone [2006] VSCA 238; (2006) 167 A Crim R 18, where the court noted that the detrimental effects of the offending are so grave that it is necessary, other than in exceptional circumstances, to impose an immediate term of imprisonment. See also Moran and Byrnes (1987) 31 A Crim R 248 at 254.

57. In this case, the seriousness of the offending was marked by the length of time over which it was conducted, the rather sophisticated nature of the enterprise, though that sophistication was at a relatively low level and somewhat naïve, as I have described it, and that it was conducted purely for financial gain.

58. The courts do look seriously on those who profit from the consequences of the drug trade which, despite NE's intentions, usually lead to destructive consequences for users, especially over time. The amount of profit made, too, was not inconsiderable, though it was not the greatest amount by any stretch that this Court has ever seen. NE did not cease the drug trafficking until he was arrested but there is no suggestion of continued offending of any kind.

59. While the Territory offences are separate offences they are all intimately connected with the drug trafficking. The cannabis trafficking was the genesis of the offending and provided the initial capital for the trafficking in harder drugs.

60. I suggested to Mr T Shepherd, who appeared for the Crown, that the drugs seized at NE's home were drugs previously imported, so as to form part of the importing enterprise, and he did not demur. The money found on the premises was clearly from the trafficking consequent upon the importation.

61. The offences all remain separate acts of criminality but very much part of the same enterprise which, as indicated, did extend for some significant period of time.

62. Section 20(c) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), provides that young offenders against Commonwealth laws may be punished as if the offence for which they are to be punished were an offence, in this case, against the law of this Territory. This brings into operation the special regime under Ch 8A of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT). I have described that regime in R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24 at [43]- [65]. The approach that I there described was approved in the R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22 at [43].

63. What is clear is that provisions of that Act do match the common law position that, generally, rehabilitation plays a more prominent role in the sentencing of young offenders than in the sentencing of adults. See R v Smith [1964] Crim LR 70. That is not to say that, in appropriate cases, deterrent sentences cannot be imposed but always with an eye on the opportunity to recognise the particular status of young offenders, and their immaturity, as I have explained in OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148 at [72]- [76] and the need to create an appropriately crafted sentence to achieve ultimate reform.

64. With respect, Penfold J summed the matter up well when her Honour said in R v Slater [2014] ACTSC 300 at [11]:

[T]here is no doubt that young people and perhaps, particularly young men, can make very silly decisions under stressors that most adults would be able to deal with more constructively. This decision-making immaturity as well as the very great importance to the community of rehabilitating young offenders, if at all possible, requires a careful approach to the sentencing of such offenders. See, for instance, the R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 at 242 and Murray Walter Hearn [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 at 459; [27].

65. I note that, while this case is not one of silly decisions under stressors, it is a situation where decisions were made, the consequences of which were obviously not foreseen and that comes similarly within what her Honour described.

66. Mr Shepherd did submit, however, that, so far as the Commonwealth offences were concerned, I should use the provisions of Pt 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, rather than that of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, because of the difficulties that would otherwise be caused by the relevant legislative provisions for enforcement of community-based sentences. I accept that.

67. I have regard to the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, as moderated by s 133C of that Act. I accept that, in this case, there is a role for general deterrence and punishment but there is also greater room for rehabilitation.

68. I note that NE has been on strict bail conditions since his arrest. They were not inappropriately, if slightly inaccurately, described by his father as "home detention". This would have been a significant limitation on a young man who has been active in sport and whose mother lives in Cooma and who was inaccessible to him until there were some bail changes. Such strict conditions can be relevant to sentencing as identified in the R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; (2004) 149 A Crim R 167 at 170; [18], and I take them into account.

69. I have had regard to the seriousness of the offences as I have described them above. I accept that they were generally part of the same enterprise as I have explained also.

70. I am required to have regard to the factors mentioned in s 33 of the Crimes Sentencing Act, in so far as I know them they are set out in these reasons.

71. NE has been described as at some risk of relapse into reoffending but there are a number of strengths that are very likely to weigh heavily against that. These include the strong and stable relationships that he has with his parents, his conscientious involvement in education and his commitment to his goal to engage in further education and then in useful employment. I mention, also, as a response to his arrest, the change in his peer group and the significant deterrence that the arrest itself has had on him.

72. I note that NE has had no prior involvement in the criminal justice system and that entitles him to some leniency. See, for example, the comments to that effect by Kirby J in Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629 at 647-648; [58]- [59].

73. Given his educational level, the evidence suggested to me that there would be some, not insignificant, disruption to NE's education at the very least, initially, were he to be sentenced to a period of full time custody.

74. I was impressed with the opinion of Ms Emma Carmichael, the Youth Justice officer who prepared the Pre-Sentence Report. She had clearly spent considerable time with NE and, as well as administering the relevant assessment tool and inventory, she gave careful and helpful thought to the results of her interviews and to the opinions she expressed.

75. She was strongly of the view that a custodial sentence would impede NE's rehabilitation, especially as it would bring him into contact with offenders whose attitudes would be likely to prejudice the current progress he was making towards reform. These would also be impediments to the continuing influence of the current protective factors that are supporting that reform and to which I have already referred.

76. She also suggested that some of the same considerations, especially the unhelpful influences of other offenders, made performance of community service where conditioned to a good behaviour order inappropriate.

77. This is always a curious paradox in sentencing that a protective factor to avoid further offending is to have offenders not associate with other offenders and yet that is what many of our serious dispositions achieve, indeed, mandate. There is no obvious solution to this paradox but the negative side of it is something that can be considered carefully in relation to the sentencing of young offenders and I do so.

78. I note that there are significant assessments of a low-level of criminogenic needs for NE and those where he has a moderate level of such need or is at a moderate risk of reoffending and ones that can be addressed. But taking all of them into account he is at a low risk of recidivism.

79. As to sentencing practice I had a helpful conspectus of decisions from Queensland and Victoria and also from this jurisdiction. I do not need to discuss them in detail. It is clear from the principles that I can take from those decisions that, for such serious offending, a term of imprisonment is inevitable. It can also be seen from them, as Mr Shepherd properly accepted, that the term of imprisonment does not have to be served in full-time custody. I was particularly influenced by the decision of R v M (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Douglas J, 16 October 2014), though I carefully considered the other decisions to which my attention was drawn.

80. I propose, therefore to release NE. I note that almost, invariably, but not on every occasion, conditional liberty ordered by courts is accompanied by supervision. In this case, a careful and cogent opinion was expressed by Ms Carmichael that supervision was not necessary and may be positively detrimental. With some hesitation I am prepared to accept that advice.

81. A sentencing exercise is complicated because of the inter-jurisdictional and complex legislative issues but also because of the multiplicity of offending. In my view, no other sentence than a sentence of imprisonment is required but I do not require NE to spend any period in full-time custody.

82. I have carefully considered the length of each of the sentences to ensure that, where there are overlapping common elements between any offences, NE is not punished twice. I have also considered where the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are part of the same enterprise or otherwise and have concluded that in this case, for the most part, they should be wholly concurrent.

83. I have then reviewed the length of the term of imprisonment arrived at and ensured that the principle of totality is respected and that the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed but not more than that, so the total sentence is not too severe. Where necessary to achieve this I have adjusted the cumulation or concurrency of the individual sentence.

1. I convict you of importing a marketable quantity of MDMA. I sentence you to three years imprisonment from today. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to four years and three months imprisonment.

2. I convict you of importing cocaine. I sentence you to 20 months imprisonment to commence today that is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing marketable quantity of MDMA. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to two years and three months imprisonment.

3. I convict you of importing 10.1 grams of MDMA. I sentence you to two years imprisonment to commence today. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing cocaine. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to three years imprisonment.

4. I convict you of importing 0.5 grams MDMA. I sentence you to 18 months imprisonment to commence today. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing 10.1 grams of MDMA. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to two years and three months imprisonment.

5. I convict you of importing one gram of LSD. I sentence you to 18 months imprisonment to commence today, that is to be wholly concurrent upon the sentence for importing 0.5 grams of MDMA. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to two years and three months imprisonment.

6. I convict you of importing of seven grams of MDMA. I sentence you to two years imprisonment to commence today. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for importing one gram of LSD. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to three years imprisonment.

7. I make a recognizance release order. I direct that you be released today upon giving security in the sum of $100.00 to be of good behaviour for four years.

8. I convict you of trafficking in cannabis. I sentence you to two years imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be cumulative as to one year on the sentence for importing a marketable quantity of MDMA. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to three years imprisonment.

9. I convict you of trafficking in MDMA. I sentence you to 20 months imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for trafficking in cannabis. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to two years and six months imprisonment.

10. I convict you of trafficking in LSD. I sentence you to 12 months imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be wholly concurrernt on the sentence for trafficking in MDMA. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to 18 months imprisonment.

11. I convict you of possessing the proceeds of crime. I sentence you to six months imprisonment to commence on the 2 November 2016. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for trafficking in LSD. Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to nine months imprisonment.

12. I suspend that sentence on the 2 November 2016 for 12 months. I require you to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations under the Crimes Sentence Administration Act for a period of 2 years from the 2 November 2016.

13. I note that I have reduced the sentence for importing a marketable quantity of MDMA by 12 months for the assistance that you have undertaken to provide [redacted for legal reasons].

76. NE, that is the formal order. That is the legal "mumbo-jumbo" I suppose that imposes the sentence on you. What I have basically done is I have said that the total of this criminality justifies a sentence of four years imprisonment and that is certainly the minimum that, if you had been an adult, you would have been facing.

77. I have considered in all the circumstances that you are not required to serve any period in full-time custody and that is a message to you to show that your good behaviour to date, your response to the arrest and your other personal circumstances justify the community putting trust in you. This is a massive breach of criminality to the community but one which I am confident you will put behind you and will be able to avoid replicating at any time in the future.

78. Your instincts are obviously good. We do need, as I said, in the sentencing remarks, entrepreneurs in our community but they must be aware of the criminality that the community does not allow.

79. You have taken, I have to say, a somewhat simplistic view of drug-trafficking. I sit here day-in day-out in the courts and see people's lives that have been completely wrecked by drug use. Many of the people that you sold to, no doubt, will not be in that category but many would become those kind of wrecks to themselves, wasted lives and burdens on the community. This is a very serious matter that you need now to understand has very serious consequences, obviously for you, but also for the community.

80. I have taken the opinion of Ms Carmichael very seriously. Ordinarily, a community order such as this would automatically be required to have supervision, but your parents obviously are able to provide much of that and I am confident that if you succeed in finding your way through this period of conditional liberty, which is a long time, four years, then the criminal courts will not see you again.

81. What I need to remind you is that during that period of time, if you commit any further offences punishable by imprisonment, you will be brought back before me or another judge and you can be resentenced and that can include a period of imprisonment, including the whole of the four years that has now been suspended

I certify that the preceding eighty-one [81] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Chief Justice Refshauge.