R v Pantaleo

The first offence

1. The circumstances of the first offence are these. On 19 November 2015 a consignment arrived in Sydney from Hong Kong. The consignee was said to be Joe Wilson, 3165 The Broadway, Punchbowl, New South Wales, 2196. The contents of the consignment was described as "Monitor The Power Supply". It in fact contained a number of AC/DC power adaptors. There were 72 such items, shrink wrapped in the consignment but the interior of 14 of those adaptors had been stripped of its contents and, concealed inside each of the ostensible adaptors, was a rectangular plastic package containing methamphetamine. The gross weight of the methamphetamine was 1081.4 grams with a purity of 79.1 per cent equalling a total of 855.3 grams of pure methamphetamine.
2. The actual consignee was Wilson. A phone number contained on the consignment docket was one used by Wilson. The address at Punchbowl does not exist. It is clear from the facts I am about to cite that the offender had a substantial role to play in bringing this consignment including the methamphetamine into Australia. On 5 November 2015 the offender had departed Sydney on a Thai Airways flight that eventually continued on to Italy. On 27 November 2015, after the consignment had arrived, the offender phoned Wilson from Italy. There was a discussion in which the offender asked Wilson "Something arrived" and when Wilson queried whether anything had arrived at some address, the offender volunteered to send him the address and details, including the tracking details, and asked Wilson to "chase it up for me". During the same conversation there was a discussion about email addresses and the offender asked if Wilson could provide him with Fabian's telephone number. On the following day there was another call from the offender, who was still in Italy, to Wilson. In that conversation the offender told Wilson: "I checked it up, it's all cleared. It just needs to, they're just waiting on customer instructions. So you need to call them." Later that day another phone call was made by the offender to Wilson. The offender asked Wilson whether he had made the call but Wilson told him that it was the weekend and the offender told him to phone on the following Monday. He also gave this instruction to Wilson: "Whatever they say, confirm from me first before anything, don't go there, if they ask you to come, confirm from me first..."
3. On 29 November there was another communication between the offender in Italy and Wilson, discussing how to overcome a communication difficulty that they had encountered in exchanging mail electronically. On 30 November the offender, still in Italy, called Wilson confirming he had sent an appropriate email to Wilson and that if Wilson wanted to check the information that had been sent to him, he should and the offender would call him back. Later on that day the offender did call Wilson back and discussed with Wilson dealing with the international freight company Clemenger. Pantaleo said that he would send Wilson its telephone number and the relevant shipping number. The offender added this advice at the end: "Let me send it to you, but if they ask you to go there, don't go there. Just call them. If the goods is in Clemenger, tell them to deliver it somewhere, you know? And pay them. Whatever they say you let me know."
4. Eleven minutes later the offender, using another communication device, sent details of the shipment to Wilson. At 4pm local time on that day Wilson called Toll Global Priority, provided the shipment number and was told to call another telephone number and quote a reference. When Wilson called that number, the person answering the telephone identified himself or herself as "the Department of Immigration, Border Controlled Cargo Support Line". That caused Wilson to hang up.
5. The offender arrived in Sydney on 7 December 2015 and had a conversation with Wilson on 10 December 2015 in which Wilson said that he was not going to deal with "Customs" and that therefore he made no attempt to pick up the consignment. The agreed facts do not tell me of any attempt made by anyone to pick up the consignment.
6. It is clear to me from the agreed facts which I have sought to abbreviate that the offender was involved in organising this consignment. However the Crown concedes that the extent of the offender's involvement is not able to be ascertained on the available evidence. In paragraph 14 of the Crown's written submissions it is accepted that in relation to all of the offences that it is accepted by the Crown the offender's various roles were not those of a principal. However he was certainly highly placed in the organisation of the importation and clearly recruited Wilson to assist him in that regard.
7. Although the offender's role in the importation is significant, the amount of methamphetamine actually imported is not significant. For example, in R v Okosi [2017] NSWDC 400 the offender was involved in trying to possess a commercial quantity of methamphetamine that had been imported into Australia. That offence, like the offence here in question, carried a sentence of life imprisonment. However, the amount of methamphetamine in that case was 10.96 kilograms gross with a purity of 80.3 per cent, equating to 8.8 kilograms of pure methamphetamine. That importation was more than eleven and a half times the commercial quantity. I held that the role of Okosi in that attempted possession of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine was less than midrange but certainly not towards the bottom end of the range of seriousness. In respect of that offence, I commenced my sentencing exercise with a theoretical head sentence of 10 years before any discount. The amount of the drug imported is a significant matter.

The second offence

1. The trafficking offence, an offence contrary to s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code can be divided into two parts. The first part covered the period from 17 March to 25 March 2016. The estimated amount for this part of the offence was 485 grams gross of methamphetamine. On 17 March 2016 the offender used a telephone service which was subscribed to someone named Noujanh Skoolbunthit at an address in Edensor Park. The offender lived at all material times at Russell Lea. He made a call to Wilson. Using the term "food" to describe methamphetamine the offender asked Wilson to find for him 500 grams of methamphetamine in order to enable the offender to sell it to others whom he had "lined up" Wilson agreed to obtain the methamphetamine and arrangements were made for the offender to collect the substance from Wilson at Wilson's place of work. In this conversation on St Patrick's Day they also discussed financial arrangements for the provision of the methamphetamine.
2. The first phone call was at 4.41pm. At 5.57pm the offender called Wilson who told him that an unnamed person was going to deliver an amount of methamphetamine to Wilson at his workplace. The offender agreed to take a taxi to pick up the substance from Wilson's workplace. In that conversation Wilson referred to, I assume, his source, as being "one of our Ghanaian guys". Later on that evening there was a further phone call between the offender and Wilson making arrangements to contact each other for the provision of the methamphetamine to the offender. Between 11.54pm on St Patrick's Day and 56 minutes after midnight on the following morning, Wilson finished his work and travelled to the offender's address in Russell Lea and gave him 485 grams gross of methamphetamine, leaving it with the offender's partner, a Chinese lady (Ms Lok) who was then aged 48 years.
3. Immediately after that supply the offender called Wilson and Wilson confirmed that he had dropped it off to the offender's "lady", and that Wilson was then going home. Wilson confirmed that the offender's "lady" had given him "two grand", which I assume means $2,000. Approximately two hours later, the offender called Wilson and told him that the amount supplied was 485 grams, slightly less than the 500 grams ordered.
4. The second half of the supply was between 1 and 8 April 2016. The amount this time was estimated to be 200 grams gross of methamphetamine. On 1 April, Wilson called Fabian. The pair discussed that Fabian had just received an amount of a controlled drug and that this offender was going to contact Fabian about it. The pair then discussed monetary amounts related to the sale of drugs and the amount of money that this offender currently owed to each of them. The agreed facts set out the conversation. Code is used and it is a little unclear to me exactly how much money was owed by this offender to either Wilson or Fabian. It matters little.
5. On 3 April 2016, Fabian called this offender. During that call, Fabian asked the offender about a sample of methamphetamine that had previously been supplied to the offender, and the offender advised that the quality was only "average", to use words used by the offender in the conversation, "Nothin' to write home about". Later on that day, Fabian called the offender. He confirmed that he had access to between 200 and 300 grams of methamphetamine, the same methamphetamine that the offender had previously tested and described as "Nothin' to write home about". Fabian agreed to provide it to the offender for $8,500, of which Fabian was himself to take $5,000, and, presumably, the balance was what the drug actually cost Fabian.
6. On 5 April 2016, Fabian called the offender in order to organise a time to collect payment for the methamphetamine which the offender was going to sell to others. The offender told Fabian that he was still waiting for potential buyers to inspect the methamphetamine and Fabian agreed to contact him on the following day. During that call the offender told Fabian that the quality of the methamphetamine was poor and asked Fabian if there was any other drug that could be supplied.
7. In a conversation recorded on 8 April 2016, Fabian called Wilson and told Wilson that he had collected money from the offender on 7 April for the provision of the methamphetamine. There was then a conversation between Fabian and Wilson as to the money being given by the offender to Fabian, for what Fabian supplied to the offender, rather than moneys that the offender owed to Wilson. In that call, Wilson said that he had seen the offender earlier that day and the offender had given him $2,000.

The third offence

1. The following facts relate to the possession offence. On 13 April 2016 the offender was recorded as making over 30 phone calls to various persons in his social circle, trying to contact urgently an associate referred to as Aaron Haynes. The reason that he wished to speak to Haynes was that the offender had a "friend from overseas" who had come to Australia and should have arrived "yesterday or today". He urgently needed to contact Haynes because "somebody needs to be at the house". Presumably this indicates that something had been imported into Australia that had been delivered to Haynes' place of abode and Haynes needed to be there to collect it. Haynes' address was in Smithfield. There was an exchange of text messages between the offender and a Chinese lady (Ms Yuen), and the address at Smithfield was communicated to the offender by her. Shortly before 11pm, Haynes contacted the offender and told him that he had received whatever it was he was expecting. Haynes indicated that he would pick up the consignment the following morning, which caused the offender to say, "Beautiful, you're, fucking, you're a champion".
2. Later, on 14 April 2016, police observed Haynes and the Ms Yuen drive to the offender's apartment and park their car. Police observed a box sitting on the front passenger seat of the car. Haynes and Ms Yuen then met with the offender. That was at 1.10pm.
3. At 6.15pm on the same day the police executed a search warrant at the offender's home address. During the search they located a box of hair straighteners in the master bedroom which had been modified to create spaces to accommodate foreign objects. In the attached walk-in wardrobe, police found ten foil packages containing a white powder. The packages were consistent in size and shape to fit within the spaces in the hair straighteners. Each foil package contained an estimate gross weight of 15 grams of powder. It would appear that this consignment had been sent to Australia from Brazil. Forensic testing revealed that the ten foil packages contained cocaine with a purity of 67.9%. The package contained a total of 128.9 grams of pure cocaine.

Search

1. At the time of the execution of the search warrant the police found a large number of other material, material generally involved in drug supply. The material was this: 1. $3,790 in cash found on the offender's person; 2. one money counter; 3. three sets of digital scales; 4. one pair of nunchucks; 5. 14 SIM cards or discarded SIM card packs, each relating to a unique IMSI code; 6. a further $515 in cash; 7. various handwritten notes containing street addresses, and emails and passwords; 8. four different mobile phones; 9. ten-and-a-half white round tablets depicting a logo of two bananas; 10. a significant amount of drug paraphernalia and smoking implements, including glass pipes, home-made pipes and a bong; 11. multiple receptacles containing drug residue, white crystals or crystalline material; 12. multiple clip-lock bags containing white power or crystal. Samples of various substances were forensically analysed and in total were found to contain 55.4 grams of pure methamphetamine and 0.6 grams of ecstasy.

Seriousness

1. The significance of all that material is that it is clear that the offender was actively involved in drug trafficking. That supports the second offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty, and also that the offender himself was a drug user. It is clear from those two observations that the offender was not only a user but a dealer, and, no doubt, he followed the route taken by many of becoming a dealer in order to minimise the cost of the drugs that he was using. However, the offender's role has escalated beyond that to becoming actively involved in a significant way with importation.
2. Looking at each of the three crimes individually, it appears to me that because of the small amount of drugs actually imported referable to the first offence, that the offence is below the mid-range of objective seriousness, not because of the offender's role but because of the amount of the drug involved.
3. As far as the other two offences are concerned, they appear also to me to be below the mid-range of objective seriousness, considering the amount of drug involved and the circumstances in which the offences were found to have occurred.
4. In relation to the second offence, the Crown made these submissions concerning its approach that the trafficked methamphetamine was approaching the mid-range. The Crown had regard to these factors: 1. the logical conclusion to be drawn from the large amount of the gross weight of the drugs, being 685 grams; 2. the ongoing nature of the trafficking enterprise involving the offender dealing with known associates, both Wilson and Fabian, on an ongoing basis; 3. that the offender paid up front deposits for the methamphetamine, and intended to make the wholesale value, plus additional profit, by on‑selling the methamphetamine, suggesting that the substance he ultimately possessed had a level of wholesale purity; 4. in relation to the second traffic instance, it is accepted that the offender described the quality of the methamphetamine as 'horrible'; however, he was prepared to re-sell it, rather than returning it to the seller, as suggested by Fabian, suggesting it was still of a purity capable of being sold for profit.
5. However, it is common for some drugs to be of very poor purity; often less than half the gross weight of the drug represents pure drug, and sometimes the amount of drug in, for example, a tablet or the like, might be only about 10% or 15%. There are also some unscrupulous dealers who I know have sold "pills" to drug users but there has been no illicit drug in the pill at all, but the purchaser can hardly have recourse to the law to complain about a total failure of consideration. The offender may well have organised others to provide the drug but it may well be that he was not charging them much more than what he was paying, and kept some of the drug for his own use.
6. In those circumstances, I cannot be persuaded that the drug was in the mid-range of the scale of the marketable quantity of methamphetamine, that is, mid-range between 2 grams and 750 grams, and accordingly, I can only accept that it was at the lower range for the quantity of the drug. However, the facts do suggest active drug trafficking, which is the gist of the offence.

Personal circumstances

1. The offender was born on 10 June 1974. He is currently 43 years old and will soon achieve his 44th birthday. He has a criminal record. On 13 October 1993, at the age of 19, he was found to be in possession of a prohibited drug, for which he was fined by the Local Court at Sutherland. On 20 April 2006, at the age of 31, he was again found to be in possession of a prohibited drug, for which he was fined $600 by the Local Court at Sutherland, and an order was made for the destruction of the drugs. On 30 March 2008, when the offender was 33 years old, he was charged with possession or attempting to possess a prescribed restricted substance, possessing a prohibited drug and possessing equipment for administering prohibited drugs. On that occasion substantial fines were imposed by the Local Court at Kogarah. In 2008 the offender was found to be in possession of a prohibited weapon for which he was fined $1,000 by the Local Court at Burwood. That is a disturbing crime, and it may be that the prohibited weapon was something the offender may have been using to protect himself if he were involved in the drug trade at that time.
2. On 31 December 2011 the offender was charged with being in possession of a prohibited drug for which he appeared before the Downing Centre Local Court in January 2012 and was fined $350. Perhaps he was in possession of drugs to celebrate the New Year. On 26 July 2012 he was charged with driving a vehicle with an illicit drug present in his blood. He was 38 years of age at that time. He was given a section 10 bond for six months by the Bankstown Local Court. I have omitted from that list of offences driving offences or offences that do not appear to me to be relevant to the current matters.
3. The effect of this is to show that the offender had a longstanding drug habit, but he cannot be dealt with leniently in the sense that he comes before this Court not as a man of prior good character. Having said that, the offences are all fairly minor.
4. The offender has been interviewed by Professor Stephen James Woods, an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Southern Cross University. Professor Woods is a clinical psychologist. Interestingly enough, his academic appointment is in the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University. Professor Woods obtained this drug and alcohol history.
5. At the age of 14 the offender commenced taking alcohol, but infrequently, and also commenced taking cannabis, which he used with increasing frequency. At the age of 16 his cannabis use escalated and he commenced using amphetamines, hallucinogens and ecstasy, mostly on weekends. His use of those substances continued up until he was about 30 years of age. At the age of 16 his use of alcohol also increased. In his late teens or early twenties the offender commenced using crystal methamphetamine. He was introduced to that substance by his father, who encouraged its use. In his mid to late twenties the offender commenced using cocaine, primarily, but not only, on weekends. At the same time his use of crystal methamphetamine increased. At the time of his arrest he was using large amounts of crystal methamphetamine on a daily basis and that he was also frequently consuming alcohol. However, Professor Woods could only obtain a "vague" history of the amount of alcohol that the offender was consuming.
6. Again, the commencement of smoking cannabis at the age of 14 is not uncommon, and his cannabis use escalating to experimenting with other drugs and his being addicted to other drugs with the passage of time is also not uncommon. However, it is highly unlikely at the age of 14 when he started using cannabis that he realised that that would ultimately lead to drug addiction, which would lead to his current predicament, and it is clear from the authorities that in those circumstances his moral culpability for his addiction is somewhat, but only somewhat, reduced.
7. The offender is the only child of a couple who separated when the offender was, he thought, some four years old. He then remained in his mother's care and did not have any contact with his father until he was about nine or ten years old. However he did not have any regular contact with his father until the age of 18. His lack of having regular contact with his father in the years between 10 and 18 may explain why he turned to drugs when he did and why his use of drugs and alcohol increased with the passage of time. It may be that he had no real father figure, no real male role model to follow.
8. The offender's mother has never had another partner and runs her own business as a beauty therapist. Her role in the offender's life is obviously important from what I shall later say. When the offender had contact with his father, who died last year, the offender found that his father was a chronic heavy user of illicit substances and he encouraged the offender to take crystal methamphetamine. That circumstance, to me, indicates a reduction in the offender's moral culpability for that part of his addiction.
9. When the offender left school at the age of 16 he started working full time in the hospitality industry which he had been working in "part time" when he was in Year 10. It may be that he was working in a fast food outlet when he was still a student. At the age of 20 the offender commenced an apprenticeship as a chef but discontinued that apprenticeship after two years, telling Professor Woods that he became bored, performing manual tasks as an apprentice chef and which tasks he had already mastered, having worked in the hospitality industry since the age of 16. After leaving his apprenticeship the offender worked with his father who operated pizza shops and he worked there with his father for a number of years.
10. At about 23 or 24 years of age he injured his low back whilst working as a cook at the UTS Rowing Club at Haberfield. The evidence strongly suggests that the offender injured either his L4,5 or L5,S1 disc at that time and has been left with chronic low back pain.
11. The offender was in a marital relationship with a lady and, as a result of that relationship, he has two children, a daughter Mia who I am told is aged 11 years and a son Alex who I am told is aged 10 years. The offender separated from his wife but his children remain in his care. He was granted a single parent pension. However he ceased receiving that benefit when he met another lady with whom he was living at the time of his arrest. As mentioned earlier she has been deported to China. Since his arrest the offender's children have been living with his mother, their grandmother. That has been confirmed by offender's mother during an interview conducted between her and Professor Woods by telephone on 7 April 2018. According to the offender's mother, as communicated to Professor Woods, the children and in particular the offender's son are distressed by the separation from their father and the offender's son's school performance has declined.
12. Professor Woods, in his report for this matter: "Mr Pantaleo is or at least appears to be a devoted father. Since his arrest and incarceration he has been forced to reflect on the harm/distress suffered by his children secondary to his offending behaviour. Based on his reported level of concern for his children, the experience of a sudden separation will potentially prove to be the most significant deterrent to resumed drug use and criminal behaviour." One really does not need to be a psychologist to express such a view. Any parent separated forcefully from his or her children would be dissuaded by what caused the separation to repeat it in order to avoid a further separation. The observation of Professor Woods accords with pure common sense.
13. In his letter to me the offender said this: "I have now been clean from drugs for two years. This is how I intend to stay. I will strive to be the best father I can be for my children and a better person in our society. Since coming to gaol I am a changed man. I hope your Honour, the public and my family accept my sincere apology." That was after expressing what I consider to be true remorse. The preceding paragraph of his letter is this: "Coming to gaol and seeing firsthand the effect drugs has had on many of the inmates and how many people are in prison for drugs or drug related offences, I am ashamed to have been involved and deeply regret taking part in such activity which causes this much devastation to the community and peoples' families."
14. Since being in custody the offender has completed a Remand Addictions Program. That was completed on 8 August 2017 but, generally, rehabilitation courses are not available in gaol to those who are merely awaiting sentencing. It is only after sentence that such courses become regularly available. The pre-sentence report dated 12 April 2018 tells me that the offender would benefit from referral to appropriate alcohol or other drug assessment and community based support programs. Presumably in custody AOD courses could be made available to the offender after he has been sentenced. Attempts were made to see if the offender could be placed in a fulltime rehabilitation course prior to his standing for sentence but that has not been able to be achieved.

Risk of re-offending

1. The maker of the pre-sentence report expressed the view that the offender had a medium to low risk of reoffending. His identified criminogenic needs were education/employment, his companions and his alcohol/drug problems and his emotional/personal problems. The offender has obviously had experience in pizzerias and the like. He might find work as a chef on release from custody. He had given that work away prior to his being involved in drug trafficking and the like. He gave the maker of the pre-sentence report a history that for 10 years prior to his arrest he had been self-employed as a painter and gyprock fixer. He also told the maker of the pre-sentence report that in future he might try to find work as a forklift driver but he needed to obtain a licence to that effect, but his long term plan was to eventually open a new restaurant.
2. The offender by now ought know that when he is released on parole he will be under supervision but that his best chance of staying away from drugs is not to mix with those who he previously mixed with, not have anything to do with those involved in drug addiction or drug trafficking. The best thing that he should keep in mind is that if he does get involved with drug trafficking or drug taking again, he will no doubt lose his children because, even if he does not go to gaol, his children will be taken from him by the Department of Family Services.
3. Looking at the matters holistically, it appears to me that the prospects of both rehabilitation and not reoffending are good because of the offender's commitment to being a proper parent for his children and no doubt he desires his children not to go through the same experiences that he has had with the use of drugs.
4. I shall deal briefly with a number of submissions. In [14] of his submissions Mr Crown pointed out that the involvement of the offender in a drug syndicate was significant and planned and relied upon the offender's knowledge of methodology of the syndicate. However, as has been submitted by Mr James, QC for the offender, the syndicate was unsuccessful, indicating that the offender's knowledge and methodology were not so good as to successfully evade the law. In [16] Mr Crown submitted that it could not be said that the offender's conduct was impulsive, opportunistic or spontaneous but rather involved planning and careful execution. Mr James QC disputed whether this offending indicated careful execution. It hardly does so. However, the offender's involvement in trafficking and subsequently in importing arose progressively out of his drug addiction. While it cannot be said to be impulsive or opportunistic or spontaneous, it was not the result of cold, cynical planning as those who are not users of drugs often engage themselves in, merely for the purpose of making money.
5. The offender is entitled to a discount of 25 per cent of the sentences properly to be passed upon him because of his relatively early plea of guilty. In Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 the Court of Criminal Appeal stated the Courts should take into account the utilitarian value of a guilty plea when considering the fact that a person has pleaded guilty to an offence. The circumstances of the offender's plea clearly indicates his willingness to cooperate with authorities after the Crown briefs were served. There were certainly successful negotiations between the Crown and the offender in the Local Court before pleas of guilty were entered in that Court. I accept therefore that the offender is entitled to a discount of 25 per cent for the utilitarian value of the plea and also the same discount should be taken into account as a result of the offender's remorse and contrition.

Consideration

1. I have formed the view that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to impose an aggregate sentence but I shall need the assistance of Mr Barrow to make my orders comply with the regime imposed by the Crimes Act 1914 of the Commonwealth.
2. In respect of the first offence, the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug namely methamphetamine, I commence the sentencing exercise with a head sentence of eight years. I discount that by 25 per cent so that it becomes a head sentence of six years.
3. In respect of the second offence, I believe the appropriate starting point is a sentence of three years. Discounting that by 25 per cent one comes to a sentence of two years and three months.
4. In respect of the third offence, I start with a head sentence of two years, discounting that by 25 per cent I come to a sentence of one year and six months.
5. The total of those three sentences, if wholly cumulative, would be nine years and nine months. I have formed the view that the appropriate aggregate sentence is six years. I have formed the view that the appropriate non-parole period is three years and eight months. The offender went into custody on 14 April 2016. If my mathematics be correct, which is always problematic, the non-parole period of three years and eight months will conclude on 13 December 2019 so that the offender can spent the Christmas after next with his mother and his two children and get his life together by spending the school holidays of 2019/2020 with his children. The head sentence of six years should expire on 13 April 2022.
6. Mr Barrow, when I have tried to impose these cumulative sentences before the Crown has always told me that I had to fix a discrete term for each sentence. BARROW: Yes that is right. HIS HONOUR: You can work it out and give me a schedule and I will impose that when I come back. BARROW: Can I tell you your Honour, I will do that but effectively I think what your Honour has done is imposed one non-parole period which was what you are required to do. HIS HONOUR: That's right yes. It's the aggregate six year head sentence that-- BARROW: Because your Honour has given a six year sentence on the first of the offences, effectively the two lesser sentences could be simply fixed terms. They are going to run concurrently. HIS HONOUR: All right. BARROW: There's no element of accumulation in the sentence your Honour's imposed. HIS HONOUR: All right. I see what you mean yes. There are no court attendance notices here and there is certainly no indictment so that just hampers me somewhat. When will the second sentence finish? It is two years and three months so expiring 13 July 2018 is it? BARROW: Yes. HIS HONOUR: Third offence sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months commencing 14/4/16 and expiring 13/10/17 is that right? BARROW: Yes. HIS HONOUR: I fix a non-parole period of three years and eight months expiring on 13 December 2019 is that right? BARROW: Yes your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Are any other orders sought? BARROW: No your Honour.
7. HIS HONOUR: Victor Daniel Pantaleo, I am sorry about this Mr Pantaleo but I did not design this courtroom with a pillar in between us. In respect of the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for six years commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2022. For the offence of trafficking a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for two years and three months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 July 2018. In respect of the offence of possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and six months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 October 2017. I fix a non-parole period of three years and eight months expiring on 13 December 2019.

Amendments 17 October 2018 - Correction of date. 19 October 2018 - Amended Solicitors on record 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: 19 October 2018