R v Petrovski; R v Abdallah; R v Atanovski;

SENTENCE 1HIS HONOUR: Appearing for sentence today are three drug dealers, Dobre Petrovski, Tony Atanasovski and Michael Abdallah. Their sentence proceedings were heard together because Petrovski is a co-offender with Atanasovski and Abdallah, although the latter two are not co-offenders with each other. Three other drug dealers should be mentioned who were not part of the present proceedings - Adel Mustafa, who I sentenced in December last year; Done Romanov, sentenced by Chief Judge Blanch in November last year; and Leon Candarakis, sentenced by Judge Toner in February this year. 2The proceedings involving the present three offenders were heard together in order that a proper appreciation of the roles played by each offender could be ascertained. Both this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal have commented in the past upon the undesirability of co-offenders being dealt with separately. Often enough, where co-offenders are dealt with in separate proceedings, each blames the other and it comes about that each offender is sentenced on the basis that his or her co-offender was the more culpable because of the different evidence submitted in the separate proceedings. An example of this problem can be found in the circumstance that Romanov was dealt with separately from Peskovski. When sentencing Romanov Justice Blanch, clearly on the evidence before him, found that Peskovski was "a major dealer of prohibited drugs". However, the evidence before me, clearly different to the evidence before his Honour, did not satisfy me that that description was accurate. 3Notwithstanding some confusion at the commencement of these proceedings, I have endeavoured to ascertain the role played by each offender, and compare their relative culpability based on the evidence before me, with the obvious qualification flowing from the fact that, as I have mentioned earlier Atanasovski and Abdallah were not co-offenders in the offence. 4Now is perhaps the appropriate time to mention that I have taken into account the principle of parity in formulating appropriate sentences for each of these offenders. No offender should have a justifiable sense of grievance when he compares the sentence he has received with those of his co-offenders. Of course, no two co-offenders are alike, and especially in this case, each of the people involved performed different roles with different levels of involvement and moral culpability. I have borne those differences in mind, and so should the offenders when they compare the sentences they receive with the sentences imposed on the others. 5The charges faced by each offender arise out of a controlled operation undertaken by police. A man by the name of John Gray provided information to police and began working for them. Also involved in the controlled operation was an undercover police officer, using the name "Mick." 6On 25 March 2010 Gray met with Peskovski. At this meeting, Peskovski said that he was able to supply Gray with large quantities of cocaine. A couple of weeks later Gray and Mick went to Peskovski's home. There Peskovski agreed to supply one ounce of cocaine as a sample prior to the supply of a larger quantity. The transaction whereby Peskovski supplied Mick with 26.6 grams of cocaine, for which Mick paid $8,250 in cash then took place. This is an offence of supplying cocaine, for which the offender is to be sentenced. 7A few days later, following a number of telephone calls, Mick and Gray went to a hotel as directed by Peskovski. They met him there and Peskovski supplied Mick with .2 of a gram of cocaine as a sample, saying that he had a much larger quantity of that particular drug available for supply. No payment was made for that sample. That is an offence of supplying cocaine which appears on a Form 1, which I am to take into account when sentencing the offender for the next matter I will describe. 8On 22 April 2010, Peskovski and Gray had a number of telephone conversations as a result of which Peskovski, Gray and Mick met a number of times at various locations in Sydney. At one of those meetings, Peskovski offered to supply Mick with five ounces of cocaine to come from Atanasovski. Mick and Gray thus went to Atanasovski's premises where they discussed the supply of cocaine by Atanasovski. Atanasovski told them he could not supply any cocaine but agreed to supply some in the future. I will deal with the offence that Atanasovski faces in relation to this conduct later, but as far as Peskovski is concerned that conduct represented an attempt to supply five ounces of cocaine. 9On 2 June he made a further attempt, this time trying to supply ten ounces of cocaine. In the events that followed, Peskovski attempted to involve himself in the supply by Atanasovski, who eventually told him that he was unable to supply the ten ounces which had been requested. The co-offender Candarakis was also involved in that particular activity. 10Thereafter, further discussions ensued which culminated in Peskovski involving himself in the supply by Kellie Murray to Mick of 253.1 grams of cocaine on 10 June 2010. In the lead up to that actual supply of that commercial quantity of cocaine, Peskovski had many conversations with both Murray, Mick and Gray. Although he was not a principal, Peskovski was clearly significantly involved in the arrangements. 11Then on 17 June 2010, there was the further supply of a further commercial quantity of cocaine this time 251 grams. This offence involved Romanov and Abdallah. On 17 June Peskovski and Mick went to Abdallah's home. Peskovski told Mick that Abdallah was able to supply sixteen ounces of cocaine. Mick handed Abdallah $63,000 in cash and received 251 grams of cocaine from him. Once more, Peskovski was significantly involved in the arrangements, was present at the time the transaction actually took place and indeed sampled a small amount of the cocaine as the transaction was taking place. 12Peskovski is forty-three years old. He gave evidence in these proceedings. His evidence was very difficult to follow, not only because his evidence was given through an interpreter and because the answers did not appear to be responsive to the questions asked of him, but also because of the way the Crown and Ms Pullinger put the matter before me, (not disclosing until proceedings were well advanced the names of those working for police, and that these were in fact Gray and Mick who Peskovski had been referring to in his evidence). 13There appeared ultimately to be only two matters in dispute. In particular, Peskovski suggested that some of the drugs he supplied came from Gray. His evidence-in-chief was not at all convincing, and I found it impossible to believe much of what he said, but in any case, cross-examination of him revealed that his recorded conversations with Gray during the transaction were quite inconsistent with the explanation he offered in his evidence. I do not accept that the source of any of the drugs supplied by Peskovski was Gray. 14Nor do I accept that he was in dire financial circumstances. The offender gave evidence that as a result of being told by Gray that his life was in danger because he owed money to bikies, he lent money to Gray which the latter was supposed to repay. Peskovski himself borrowed money at an exorbitant rate of interest, which meant that by the time the offences commenced he was owed by Gray $78,000. He gave evidence that it was Gray's suggestion that he get involved in drug supply as a means of recouping his loss. 15So, rather than write off his loss he decided to become a drug supplier to make money. Ms Pullinger, who appeared for Peskovski, went so far as to say that being owed $78,000 and being in poor financial circumstances amounted to duress. I do not accept that at all. Firstly, I do not accept that he was in dire financial circumstances, and even if he was that scarcely provides any justification at all for the offender doing what he did. 16Whether or not his financial position was poor, it is undoubtedly the case that he committed these offences for financial gain. Although he may have been a drug user he was not a drug addict. He is in that worst category of offender, a person who involved themselves in the trade of drugs simply to make money. 17The offender has an unremarkable background. There is nothing to indicate why he would seek drug trafficking as a means of getting out of any financial difficulties he perceived himself to be in. Although he has a minor criminal history there are no drug matters on it. 18The offender was born in Macedonia and came to Australia at the age of seventeen in 1986. Gray, who is married to his cousin, picked him up from the airport upon his arrival and the two had a lot to do with each other over the ensuing years. This may be a partial explanation as to why he would deal in drugs when approached to do so by Gray. He married and has two sons. Both of them clearly love their father and have written letters in support of him, which were tendered before me. 19He is now divorced from his former wife and is in a relationship with a woman he met at the Macedonian Club at Yagoona. She too is supportive of him. He was working before his arrest on this matter and gave evidence that there will be work available to him upon his release from custody. He hopes to resume living with his partner. He has expressed his remorse for his involvement in these offences, although some of the evidence that he gave, which I found to be unbelievable suggests that he is not totally contrite for what he has done. 20He no doubt had some difficult times after his marriage broke down and the evidence would suggest that he is currently depressed. That is not terribly surprising, given that he is incarcerated and facing a significant term of imprisonment. 21It is significant that all of Peskovski's drug dealing activities involved two people, Mick and Gray, who were working for the police, and Gray was a member of his family who had been very kind to him in the past. There is no evidence that Peskovski was involved in any other drug supplies apart from these in the period over which the offending occurred extended only from 13 April to 17 June. 22It is also significant that from 17 June until his arrest on 8 December, some months passed without any other offending. In many cases, if not most, drug suppliers only stop supplying drugs when they are arrested. That is not the case with Peskovski. 23As with all the others for sentence today, it is a matter of minor mitigation that none of the drugs actually supplied were disseminated to drug users in the community because of the police involvement. The harm to the community was less because of that circumstance, but of course the moral culpability of the offenders is not reduced at all. They certainly intended that the drugs were disseminated to drug users. 24Peskovski pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and thus the sentence I will impose upon him is twenty-five per cent less than it would otherwise have been. 25It is conceded, of course, that a custodial sentence is required. Peskovski has been in Australia for many years, but needs the assistance of an interpreter for some communications in English. Thus, to some extent, he will serve his sentence harder than would be the case for a person who is easily able to communicate with other prisoners and the authorities. He will also be affected by the circumstance that whilst he is custody he is separated from his family and partner. 26The offender is doing his best to make the most of his time in custody, studying and working as well. He will benefit from an extended period of supervision upon his release to parole, and so I will make a finding of special circumstances in his favour. 27Clearly the principle of totality applies to Peskovski and his co-offenders because of the number of offences they committed. There needs to be due recognition of the fact that each offence was a separate aspect of the offender's criminality, and thus deserving of further punishment. On the other hand, the sentence I impose should, in an overall sense, reflect the overall position concerning each offender. For that reason, in most cases there will be partial accumulation of sentences for the separate acts of criminality. 28For Peskovski as well as the others to be sentenced today, I take into account both the maximum penalties and, where appropriate, the standard non-parole periods for these offences. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period for any offences which carry standard non-parole periods are to be found in these remarks on sentence. 29Tony Atanasovski is to be sentenced for one offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, two offences of offering to supply a commercial quantity of cocaine, one offence of possessing an unauthorised firearm (which was a replica not capable of firing any projectile and thus is a relatively minor matter) and one offence of obtaining money by deception. When I sentence him for the first of those matters, that is, the actual supply of 449 and a half grams of cocaine, he asks that I take into account nine matters on a Form 1; one further matter relating to the unauthorised firearm, in that he did not keep that firearm safely; a matter of possessing prohibited drug; and seven offences of obtaining money by deception, which are part of the same activity, as the substantive offence of obtaining money by deception. 30On 22 April Gray went to Atanasovski's home and raised with him the possibility of Atanasovski supplying him with cocaine. The offender was then introduced to Mick. The three of them further discussed the supply of cocaine to Mick with Atanasovski telling him how much he could supply and how much notice he would need. 31On 6 May Gray met with Atanasovski and the latter agreed to supply sixteen ounces of cocaine for $8,500 per ounce. Further conversations involving other offenders, (Bradvica and Candarakis), took place where it was agreed that the cocaine would be handed over in three separate lots. Pursuant to that agreement, Candarakis supplied five ounces of cocaine to Mick in exchange for $45,000 cash and later on a further quantity of eleven ounces of cocaine for $51,000 cash. Mick gave $7,500 to Atanasovski before leaving the premises, thus in total 449.5 grams of cocaine were supplied. 32On 2 June 2010 Gray and Atanasovski had a number of conversations, the upshot of which was that Atanasovski would supply Mick with ten ounces of cocaine at 3.30 that afternoon. However, when Atanasovski rang Bradvica to obtain the cocaine, he was told that the latter was unable to supply the cocaine until the following day. That deal fell through. 33There was then a substantial gap until early December 2010. Once more Mick met Atanasovski who told him that he was about to meet a big supplier. Mick was then introduced to Mustafa, who offered to supply him with twenty-five ounces of cocaine for a total price of $275,000. Mick agreed to buy the cocaine on those terms. It was agreed that Atanasovski would be paid $12,500 for his part in the transaction, which was to take place on 8 December. That transaction never took place because Mustafa was arrested beforehand. When arrested, he was found to be in possession of 697.06 grams of cocaine. It was this quantity of cocaine that Atanasovski had agreed to supply. That supply would clearly have taken place were it not for the intervention of police. 34Atanasovski was arrested at the same time, and the imitation firearm was discovered along with a small quantity of cocaine, the subject of the possess prohibited drug on the Form 1, and two sets of digital scales. 35Seemingly unrelated to the offender's drug supply activities he was also involved in fraudulent withdrawals from a bank totalling $80,000. On eight separate occasions Atanasovski went into the Commonwealth Bank at Hurstville, and presented a withdrawal slip for the withdrawal of $10,000 cash from a bank account held by Mr Mendo Mirceski. The statement of facts records that the accused "has presented the withdrawal slip to the bank teller and presented a fraudulent New South Wales driver's licence, in the name of Mendo Mirceski, which contained a photo of the accused." Although that statement of facts has been signed by a barrister, Mr George Thomas, apparently on behalf of the offender, in a document tendered to the Court Atanasovski denies that he had such a driver's licence in his possession. As it does not make any difference to the resulting sentence, I do not propose to attempt to resolve this factual dispute. It is clear that the offender was involved in a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth Bank of $80,000 and he succeeded in that endeavour. 36Like his co-offenders, the offender has some matters on his criminal history but nothing approaching the seriousness of these offences. He was actually on a bond for his latter offences, that bond having been imposed for a high range PCA matter in August 2010. 37He also pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity so I will impose upon him a sentence which is twenty-five per cent less than it would otherwise have been to reflect the utilitarian value of his plea. The offender was, and continues to be in prison, a hard worker. He was involved in finance, and was successful for a while, but went bankrupt following the global financial crisis of a few years ago. He turned to drugs and alcohol at a stage of life when he was depressed, part of that depression of course coming about because of the failure of his business. 38As with Peskovski, his motivation committing these offences was financial. He wanted to make money and involving himself in the supply of drugs seems to have been a way in which he could make significant sums of money. 39He was certainly not a principal in the drug deals. It seems to be agreed between the parties that he facilitated the supply of drugs by bringing the purchaser and the supplier together. As is obvious from the substantial gap between June and December, he was not a person who regularly conducted himself in this manner. He only got involved in drug supply transactions on occasions when he was contacted by people working for the police. 40Atanasovski is fifty-one years of age and has three children. He too has been married but is now separated from his wife. Before things went downhill for him, he seemed to have been quite successful, running a business with fifteen employees and living in a large beach house. He began to drink from around February 2009, and his marital situation was of course strained by his declining financial situation and his abuse of alcohol. His wife left him in November 2009, not too long before he began to commit these offences. 41He told a forensic psychiatrist that 2010 was a bit of a blur for him, in which he used drugs and alcohol to excess. He was, it seems, quite depressed at the time of these offences. 42A number of testimonials were tendered. I have to say however that the value of these testimonials is somewhat diminished because the referees appear to be unaware of what he actually did. Thus the one from Mr Brown referred to the offender's "misdemeanour" whilst others referred to "drug possession." 43Notwithstanding the substantial quantity of the drugs involved in Atanasovski's offences, it is important to bear in mind the role that he played. As I mentioned, it seems to be agreed between the parties that the offender was a facilitator or go-between, consistent with that role, it appears that the amount that he himself was to be paid, was much less than ten per cent of the purchase price. 44Another matter in Atanasovski's favour concerns his mental state at the time of these offences. Dr Furst suggested that the presence of Mr Atanasovski's depressive illness during the period of the offences in question before the Court, mitigates against the seriousness of his actions as he was not coping well, exercising poor judgment and may have been more easily influenced by his associates. His judgment was probably affected by his chronic abuse of alcohol and cocaine at the time in question. The stressors in his life followed the collapse of his business and separation from his wife. The period of offending coincided with a low point in his life. 45As with the others the offender does have prospects of rehabilitation but a lot will depend on whether he gives up drugs, and perhaps also excessive consumption of alcohol, upon his release from custody. He has been attending drug and alcohol counselling whilst in custody and appears motivated to change. 46There are special circumstances in his case. Both he and the community, will be assisted by him being supervised for an extended period upon parole. 47Finally we come to Mr Abdallah, the most serious of the offenders today. Although he was involved with Peskovski in the first of the offences I will describe, he committed the remainder independently. He committed a total of five serious offences of commercial drug supply, involving the actual supply of more than a kilogram of cocaine, and he would have supplied a further half kilogram were it not for the intervention of police. 48On 17 June 2010, as I described when dealing with Mr Peskovski, Mick and Peskovski went independently to Abdallah's home, having previously made arrangements for Mick to be supplied with sixteen ounces of cocaine. Mick and Peskovski went to a cabana at the rear of Abdallah's premises. Mick introduced himself to Abdallah and Romanov, who was also there, and after a short conversation gave Abdallah $63,000. There was a bag containing 250 grams of cocaine nearby. Peskovski sampled a small amount of that cocaine before retying the bag and handing it to Abdallah, who in turn handed it to Mick. Peskovski and Mick then drove away. 49On 26 October 2010, Mick and Gray went to a car park in Casula, where they met Abdallah. Arrangements were made for the supply of ten ounces of cocaine at $7,500 per ounce on 3 November. Pursuant to that agreement, Mick went to Abdallah's home where, in exchange for $75,000 in cash, he received 280.2 grams of cocaine. During that meeting, Abdallah agreed to supply Mick with a further ten ounces of cocaine on 17 November. On that date, once more Mick went to Abdallah's home. On this occasion, Mick handed over $70,000 in cash and received 280.8 grams of cocaine. An agreement was then reached that Abdallah would supply Mick with a further ten ounces of cocaine on 1 December. 50On that date once more at Abdallah's home, Abdallah supplied Mick with 279.2 grams of cocaine, in exchange for $70,000. They also agreed that the next supply would take place on 8 December. On that day before he could actually supply Mick with 560.1 grams of cocaine, he was arrested. Police found that quantity of cocaine in Abdallah's possession, as well as three sets of scales, two bags of Glucoden and freezer bags. 51Police also discovered a large quantity of cash, (which was clearly the proceeds of crime, given that Abdallah and his wife were in receipt of Centrelink payments at the time of the offences), and a pistol, with its serial number defaced, and ammunition. 52The offender is thus to be sentenced for five offences of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, dealing with the proceeds of crime and possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm. When I sentenced him for that last matter, he asked me to take into account two matters on a Form 1; namely, possessing a firearm with a serial number missing, and possessing ammunition. 53The offender is fifty-one years of age. He also has matters on his criminal history for less serious offending than this and in particular, like the others here today, has never been convicted of any offence relating to drugs. 54The offender is the oldest of six children, born in Australia to parents who emigrated to Australia. His father was a successful builder until he went to gaol for drug offences in 1985 when Mr Abdallah was nineteen. He thus became head of the family, and it was his responsibility to work to support his younger siblings. He became something of a property developer. He bought a house in 1984, which was renovated, and then went on to build blocks of units. He appears to have done very well for himself. He is qualified as a mechanic too, and whilst in custody he looks after the various motorised equipment, such as ride-on mowers and the like. 55He married in 2004 and has two daughters. Evidence was put before me of the offender's very lengthy problems with drugs. He has caused his wife and daughters no end of misery because of his substance abuse. He began drug taking at the age of fifteen when he started smoking cannabis, he then tried ecstasy, abused anabolic steroids whilst a bodybuilder before finally commencing to use heroin when he was aged twenty-nine. Once he started he has been unable, apart from some relatively brief periods, to stop until he was incarcerated on the present charges. 56His wife, Sylvana prepared an affidavit which set out the offender's heart-breaking history of drug use. The affidavit details the various attempts at rehabilitation, their successes and their failures as well. The low point was obviously on 8 December 2008 when Mr Abdallah overdosed. His wife rang for an ambulance and was instructed how to administer CPR over the telephone. One of his daughters assisted by opening the gates for the ambulance to get in. He survived. One might have thought that that experience would be a powerful incentive for him to remain drug free, but he was only able to go a month without using drugs before relapsing once more. 57The offender's wife says she had no idea that he was supplying drugs. Some might think that she is mad to continue to support him, but it is to her enormous credit that she did not give up on the offender many years ago. 58Although the offender was a drug user at the time he was a drug dealer, this was far from the case where the offender could only obtain his drugs by drug supply. Because of his success as a property developer, he and his family lived a life which could actually be described as "well off", and he had plenty of ways that he could get money to buy drugs other than through supplying them. He did not want to do that, however. At least part of the motivation he had in deciding to supply drugs was to keep the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed. 59The offender pleaded guilty and has assisted the authorities. The details of what he has done will not be set out in this judgment. They are contained within an exhibit. I am able to say however that the assistance has been valuable and he has taken steps which have led to members of the community being protected from the possibility of injury or even death. 60Although the plea of guilty was not entered at the earliest opportunity, and followed after committal for trial and negotiations between the parties, at no stage did the prosecution have to prepare the matter for trial. In view of the pleas of guilty and the assistance, the sentence that I will impose the offender is thirty-five per cent less than it otherwise would have been. 61The offender must necessarily go to gaol for a long time. Whilst he is drug free at present there is, given his lengthy problems with drugs, no guarantee that he will not relapse in the future, and thus although he does have prospects of rehabilitation, I cannot say they are good. He is progressing in the right direction, now off drugs and expressing his remorse for what he has done in the past, but a lot will depend on what happens when he gets out of gaol. 62He does have an employment opportunity upon his release, and he is working whilst in custody in a position of some responsibility. 63Of course, one of the most important factors in determining the appropriate sentence to impose upon an offender who has supplied concerns the offender's role. Whilst he may have played a more limited role in relation to the offence committed on 17 June 2010, in relation to the other offences, no submission could or was put to a similar effect. 64There is no doubt that the offender's longstanding drug addiction was a significant factor in him committing these offences. One of the terrible things about drug addiction is the effect it has on the addicts themselves. It is not uncommon for addicts to lose, to a very significant degree, a proper appreciation of right and wrong. It is almost certain that the offender would not have committed these offences were he not himself a drug addict, but what I have just said does not only work in the offender's favour. What happened to Mr Abdallah is precisely the sort of thing that happens to people who would have used the drugs he supplied. The misery which he has caused his family is replicated throughout the wider community, which is precisely why drug supply offences are regarded as seriously as they are. 65Quite clearly, the offender will need substantial support upon his release from custody given the length of his problems with drugs. Once more therefore I make a finding of special circumstances in the offender's favour. 66The offender is using his time in custody wisely. In submissions he was described as a "model prisoner", which seems to be an accurate description of his behaviour in custody. 67The offender was clearly emotional while giving evidence when he spoke about the effect of misconduct on his family. Perhaps at long last the realisation of what he has done to them might be a factor in him finally putting his drug use behind him. Mr Peskovski, for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug on 13 April 2010, I set a fixed term of imprisonment of two years, to date from 8 December 2010. For the two attempts of supplying prohibited drug, one of which was a commercial quantity committed on 22 April 2010, and 2 June 2010, I impose a fixed term of imprisonment of two years to date from 8 December 2011. For the two supply commercial quantity of prohibited drugs offences, committed on 10 June and 17 June 2010, I impose a non-parole period of two years with a head sentence - a total sentence of four and a half years, to date from 8 June 2012. 68Mr Peskovski, I will tell you the overall effect of that sentence. The overall sentence you must serve consists of a non-parole period of three and a half years, with a total sentence of six years, and the most important date that you want to know about is the date that you are eligible to be released to parole. That date is 7 June 2014. 69Mr Atanasovski, for the offence of obtaining money by deception, you are sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment from one year, to date from 8 December 2010. For the offence of possessing an unauthorised firearm, you are dealt with under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. For the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, on 6 May 2010, you are sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for two years, to date from 8 June 2011. For the offence of offering to supply a commercial quantity of cocaine on 2 June 2010, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of eighteen months, to date from 8 June 2011. For the offence of offering to supply a commercial quantity of cocaine between 1 and 8 December 2010, you are sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months, to date from 8 June 2012 with a head sentence of three and a half years. 70Thus, your overall sentence consists of a non-parole period of three years, with a total sentence of five years, and you are eligible to be released to parole on 7 December 2013. 71Mr Abdallah, for the offence of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to imprisonment. I set a fixed term of six months, to date from 8 December 2010. For the offence of possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm, I set a fixed term of imprisonment for two years, to date from 8 December 2010. For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine on 17 June 2010, I set a fixed term of imprisonment of two years to date from 8 December 2011. For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine on 3 November 2010, I set a fixed term of imprisonment of three years to date from 8 June 2012. For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine on 17 November 2010, I set a fixed term of imprisonment for three years to date from 8 December 2012. For the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine on 1 December 2010 I set a fixed term of imprisonment for three years to date from 8 June 2013. And for the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine on 8 December 2010, I set a non-parole period of three years to date from 8 December 2013 with a head sentence of six years. 72Thus, the non-parole period will expire on 7 December 2016, with the overall sentence being an effective non-parole period of six years, with a head sentence of nine years.