R v Selena Jahnsen

The offender's evidence

1. The offender tendered a number of documents which comprised Ex 1. Ex 1.1 was a statement by the offender dated 28 July 2016. It outlined her family circumstances and the tragic death of her identical twin boys, who were born on 10 April 2002, and survived less than a week. Shortly thereafter, the offender was introduced to amphetamines, of which she became a regular user until she became pregnant with her daughter, Danielle. Following Danielle's birth on 18 March 2003, she again became a regular user of speed. The offender expressed remorse for her actions and for what she had put her family through as a result of her criminal conduct.
2. Ex 1.2 was a statement from the offender's mother, which outlined the assistance that the offender provides to her parents, both of whom have significant medical problems, as evidenced in Exs 1.3 and 1.4.
3. Ex 1.5 is a statement from Mrs Heather Curnow, who is an aged pensioner for whom the offender has been caring for on a non-paid basis.
4. The offender did not give oral evidence, so the content of Ex 1.1 was untested by cross-examination.

The Crown submissions

1. The Crown relied on a written outline of submissions. The indictable quantity of methylamphetamine under the DMTA is 5 grams. The commercial quantity is 250 grams. The Crown also acknowledged that the offender had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence.
2. The Crown set out a number of general principles to be applied in sentencing for drug trafficking offences, including reference to the line of authority from appellate decisions, namely, that unless there are truly exceptional circumstances present, a full time custodial sentence ought to be imposed wherever the offender has been substantially involved in the supply of prohibited drugs (see R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104 per Howie J at [27]). Further, a combination of strong subjective circumstances, including the plea of guilty, remorse and proven rehabilitation do not constitute exceptional circumstances unless the aggregate of those circumstances point to the case being significantly different from others that come before the courts - see R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178.
3. The Crown submitted that the court had to look at the surrounding conduct to determine the degree of seriousness of the offending. The Crown relied on PAK v R [2015] NSWCCA 45, where the Court of Criminal Appeal found that it was open to the sentencing judge to find that where there was indicia of supply, such as the presence of paraphernalia, such as scales, bags, and individual packaging, it was open for the sentencing judge to find that there was trafficking to a substantial degree, despite the fact that the charge was based on the deeming provision.
4. The Crown submitted that here, the evidence demonstrated that the offender was involved in trafficking to a substantial degree, given the amount of methylamphetamine of very high purity, the two amounts that were individually packaged, the presence of scales, a large amount of resealable bags, glass pipes, syringes and rubber gloves with the fingers removed. Further, there was evidence on the mobile phone of text messages related to the supply of prohibited drugs, a tick list indicating a large number of transactions, and substantial amounts supplied over a two day period, together with the presence of an unexplained large sum of money. The offender had also committed the offence of supply referred to on the Form 1 earlier the same day.
5. The Crown submitted that the offender sold methylamphetamine for profit and that the pre-sentence report should be disregarded in the light of her comment to the author, that it was "good to have extra money".
6. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Crown submitted that a full time custodial sentence must be imposed. In anticipation of a submission on behalf of the offender that the offender was suitable for an ICO, pursuant to s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("C(SP)A"), relying on EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36, the Crown submitted, referring to a commentary appearing in the Criminal Law News (Vol 24, Issue 4), that the approach taken by the court in EF appeared to be contrary to a long line of authority, and therefore should not be followed.
7. The Crown acknowledged that there were no aggravating factors pursuant to s21A of the C(SP) Act, and conceded the following mitigating factors: The offender was entitled to a 25% discount for her plea of guilty. The offender had accepted responsibility for her conduct and has expressed regret, notwithstanding that she initially lied to the police and denied her involvement. The offender does not have a long criminal record, however, the two offences in 2015 were drug related. The offender's prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of re-offending must be viewed in light of the limited insight into her offending.
8. The Crown submitted that the offender had acted with complete knowledge but disregard of the devastating consequences that her supply of drugs has had on the community.
9. The Crown further submitted that there should be no finding of special circumstances. The evidence did not establish a need for further supervision and there was no detail put before the court as to the extent of her addiction to drugs, or the extent to which she supplied drugs to feed her own addiction.
10. The Crown submitted that it was imperative that the offender's subjective considerations did not cause inadequate weight to be given to the objective circumstances of the offending. Both general deterrence and specific deterrence were important in the sentencing process, and any sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence, relying on R v Dodd (1991) 57 ACrimR 349.

The offender's submissions

1. Learned Counsel on behalf of the offender submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending here was not to be considered merely by the weight and measure of the prohibited drug involved, which in this case was 18.73 grams of methylamphetamine. It was submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending here was at the lower end of the range, given that the offender was a user/dealer who had used methylamphetamine for a significant period. There was no evidence of a significantly lavish lifestyle or other factors of profit making from drug supply here.
2. It was further submitted that whilst the Statement of Agreed Facts did not differentiate "the premises" in which the offender lived, it was submitted that she occupied a granny flat attached to the major dwelling in which her parents and daughter lived. There was therefore low capacity for exposure to others of her criminal conduct.
3. Learned counsel referred the court to Youssef v R [2014] NSWCCA 285, in which the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and reduced a custodial sentence in respect of a supply of cocaine by the appellant, in breach of s 25(1) of the DMTA. The court considered the earlier line of authorities commencing with R v Clarke NSWCCA unreported, 15 March 1990, which led to the principle that a full time custodial sentence must be imposed for drug trafficking offences unless there are exceptional circumstances (as relied on by the Crown). Whilst reducing the sentence imposed, McCallum J, with whom Simpson J agreed (Price J dissenting), stated that: "But for an assessment that the appellant was ineligible for community service, she would have referred him for assessment for an Intensive Correction Order before proceeding to sentence." (see [38])
4. Counsel submitted on behalf of the offender that her long‑standing abuse of prohibited drugs had its genesis in one of the greatest personal tragedies, namely, the loss of her twins. The court should also take into account her solid work history, the fact that she had been abstinent since her arrest, and that she had taken responsibility for her offending conduct.
5. Counsel submitted that the court should also take into account as a mitigating factor pursuant to s 21A(3)(e), the fact that she did not have any significant record of previous criminal conduct. Her only offences were recent possession offences for which she had been fined, and she had therefore not lost an entitlement to leniency on that basis.
6. It was further submitted that the offender would be well served by the opportunity to engage in rehabilitative programs, and if the court was to consider a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less, then she could be assessed for an Intensive Correction Order pursuant to s 7 of the C(SP)A. Having regard to the subjective circumstances here, that would constitute appropriate punishment for the offending.

Determination

1. Section 3A of the C(SP)A sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows: "3A The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows: (a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, (b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences, (c) To protect the community from the offender, (d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender, (e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions, (f) To denounce the conduct of the offender, (g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community."
2. I find the objective seriousness of the offending conduct here to be towards the lower end of the range for offending conduct pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA. In coming to that finding, I take into account the amount of methylamphetamine involved, namely, 18.37 grams, which is well under the commercial quantity of 250 grams. However, it still constitutes serious offending, and I find that having regard to the evidence of the indicia of supply referred to in the Agreed Facts, the offender was engaged in drug trafficking for profit to a substantial degree, notwithstanding that her conduct may be characterised as that of a user/dealer of drugs.
3. I have had regard to the maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units as a guidepost in the sentencing process. It is also clear that general deterrence is important in sentencing in drug supply matters - see R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420. Specific deterrence is also important here where the offender's abuse of prohibited drugs has been long-standing.
4. I also take into account the 25% utilitarian discount on sentence to be applied for the offender's early plea of guilty. The offender has also taken responsibility for her conduct, and shown some remorse for it. I have also taken into account the two matters on the Form 1, and have certified that I have done so.
5. There are a number of strong subjective matters to be taken into account. First, the offender's long-standing drug abuse was borne of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of her twin babies. After the birth of her daughter Danielle, (during which pregnancy she was abstinent from prohibited drugs), she relapsed into abuse of prohibited drugs.
6. The offender claims to have been abstinent from prohibited drugs since her arrest. That has not been tested by supervision and urinalysis; however, it is no small thing to overcome a drug addiction. The Crown has submitted that there should be no finding of special circumstances because of the absence of any evidence of her undergoing rehabilitation. More important, in the court's view, is that she does not relapse into drug abuse and she will require both supervision and assistance to ensure that does not happen. On that basis, I would make a finding of special circumstances pursuant to s 44(2) of the C(SP)A, so as to vary the ratio of any custodial sentence imposed, if required
7. I have also had regard to the statistics produced by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales. Whilst such statistics are of limited utility, they do demonstrate that where a full time custodial sentence is generally warranted for drug supply offenders, such as here, there is one offence only, with few relevant priors and an early plea of guilty, then other sentencing options are available to the court. They included a Suspended Sentence pursuant to s 12 and an ICO pursuant to s 7 of the C(SP)A.
8. In EF v R, supra, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered earlier decisions of the Court such as R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104, which demonstrated that unless there were truly exceptional circumstances present, a full time custodial sentence ought to be imposed wherever the offender had been substantially involved in the supply of prohibited drugs. Simpson J described the decisions to that effect as being "legion" (see [10]). Having referred to the authorities, her Honour, at [12] said: "I further observed that, at the time the statements of a "policy", or "rule" were made, the option of an Intensive Correction Order did not exist. That was introduced into the Sentencing Procedure Act with operation from 1 October 2010; Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 (NSW)."
9. Her Honour went on to state that failure to consider an optional alternative to full time imprisonment may be the cause of injustice in a particular case (see [13]).
10. I do not accept the Crown's submission that the decision of EF v R is contrary to long-standing authority. Rather, it confirms the Court's discretion when sentencing for drug supply offences, and the need to consider optional alternatives to full time custodial sentences when it is in the interests of justice to do so.

Conclusion

1. Pursuant to s 5 of the C(SP)A, I am satisfied that no sentence other than a sentence of full time imprisonment is warranted, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending here, notwithstanding the subjective matters set out above. However, I am of the view that any custodial sentence would be for a period of 2 years or less, and I therefore propose to order, pursuant to s 7 of the C(SP)A, that the offender be assessed for her suitability for an Intensive Correction Order.

Orders

1. I therefore make the following orders: 1. That the offender be assessed pursuant to s 7 of the C(SP)A 1999 for her suitability for an Intensive Correction Order. 2. I order that the matter be adjourned for consideration of the assessment report and sentence before me at the District Court at Sydney on Friday 16 September 2016 at 10am. 3. I order the Offender to report to Taree Community Corrections within 7 days for the purpose of preparing the report.
2. The offender having been assessed as suitable for an intensive correction order and signed an undertaking to comply with all of the obligations of such an order, I further order- (4) Pursuant to s 7 C(SP)A the offender is to be sentenced by way of an Intensive Correction Order for a period of 18 months from today in accordance with the standard conditions in that section, and a condition that she report to the Community Corrections Service at Taree within 7 days of today. (5) Forfeiture under s 219 LEPRA of the sum of $3,800 to the State of NSW. (6) Destruction of drugs and drug paraphernalia the subject of the offences. (7) S 166 charge is withdrawn and dismissed.

Amendments 25 October 2016 - Paragraph 45 and Orders (4) to (7) made after ICO assessment. 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: 25 October 2016