R v Slater

THE PLEA

1. On 25 January 2019 the offender appeared at the Penrith Local Court and entered pleas of guilty and was committed for sentence.

Discount for State Offence

1. The guilty plea and the timing of the plea are to be taken into account on sentence pursuant to s 21A(3)(k) and s 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The guilty plea was indicated and entered at an early stage in the Local Court. I assess the discount at 25%. The sentence that I will impose in relation to the State matter will have been discounted by that amount.

Commonwealth s 16A(2)(g)

1. The timing of the plea will largely determine the value of the utilitarian discount accorded. The Crown accepts that the offender is entitled to a discount on the basis of the utilitarian value of his plea in the Local Court. The utilitarian value of a plea of guilty should be taken into account even if there is no willingness by an offender to facilitate the course of justice: Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 at [278]. The discount I will impose is 25%.

THE FACTS

1. The facts are contained in tab 2 of exhibit 1 and read as follows:
2. In 2016 New South Wales Police established a strike force to investigate the illicit drug trade in the Riverina area of New South Wales. The investigation involved the deployment of two undercover operatives: Mark and Nasser.

Deployment of UCO Mark on 10 March 2016

1. UCO Mark meets Slater.
2. On 10 March 2016 at 7.26pm UCO Mark met with Mr Slater. The meeting was coordinated and facilitated by Mr Byrnes, an associate of Mr Slater. During the course of the meeting with Mr Slater, Mr Slater asked UCO Mark to download a messenger application named Wickr. Mr Slater told UCO Mark to set the messaging service to self-delete messages. Slater utilised the Wickr code name Crimepaysss. The meeting was electronically and physically monitored by investigators.

Deployment of UCO Mark 17 March 2016.

1. Slater supplies 55 grams of methamphetamine to UCO Mark at Harrison in the ACT - charge 2.
2. On 17 March 2016 UCO Mark and Slater agreed to meet at The Big Merino located adjacent to Sowerby Street in Goulburn. The meeting was to occur so that Slater could supply UCO Mark two ounces (55 grams) of methylamphetamine. The discussions regarding this supply were conducted on the covert data messaging application Wickr.
3. At about 3.30pm Slater drove to Sowerby Street in Goulburn. Following initial confusion as to the whereabouts of UCO Mark, Slater returned to the ACT. On arrival in the ACT Slater arranged to meet with UCO Mark at the Eagle Hawk Hotel, 1224 Federal Highway, Sutton, New South Wales.
4. At 6.30pm Slater attended the location at Harrison in the ACT. Whilst at the location Slater supplied UCO Mark with two ounces of methylamphetamine in exchange for a quantity of cigarettes valued at $10,000.
5. The prohibited drugs were confirmed as methylamphetamine with a net weight of 55.7 grams. It was 74.5% pure. The controlled operation was electronically and physically monitored by investigating police.

Deployment of UCO Mark on 7 July 2016.

1. Slater supplies 55 grams of methamphetamine to UCO Mark at Harrison in the ACT - charge 3.
2. On 7 July 2016 UCO Mark and Slater agreed to meet at Harrison Playing Fields car park, Nullarbor Avenue, Harrison in the ACT. The purpose of the meeting was so that Slater could supply UCO Mark two ounces (about 55 grams) of methylamphetamine in exchange for $10,000 cash.
3. At about 9.46am Slater drove to the location in his black Nissan Navara four-wheel drive bearing ACT registration plates YJD 16A. Slater was the sole occupant of the motor vehicle. Whilst at the location Slater supplied UCO Mark with two ounces of methylamphetamine in exchange for $10,000 pre‑recorded Australian currency. At about 10.10am the controlled operation activity was concluded.
4. The prohibited drugs were confirmed as methylamphetamine with a net weight of 55.99 grams. It was 76.5% pure. The controlled operation was electronically and physically monitored by investigating police.

August 2016, drug supply negotiations.

1. In August 2016 UCO Mark requested to purchase larger amounts of methylamphetamine from Slater, being ten to 20 ounces. Slater advised that he would introduce UCO Mark to Sydney-based drug suppliers. The communications between Slater and UCO Mark were conducted on the encrypted mobile telephone data application Wickr.
2. Thereafter Slater facilitated the introduction of UCO Mark with the co‑offender, Fagan. Fagan and UCO Mark commenced organising the supply of prohibited drugs the subject of supply on 31 August 2016. All Wickr data communications received by UCO Mark were forwarded to investigators.

Deployment of UCO Mark on 18 August 2016.

1. Slater supplies 83 grams of methamphetamine to UCO Mark at Harrison in the ACT - charge 4.
2. On 18 August 2016 UCO Mark and Slater agreed to meet at the Harrison Playing Fields car park, Nullarbor Avenue, Harrison in the ACT for the purpose of Slater supplying three ounces of methylamphetamine to UCO Mark in exchange for $13,500 cash.
3. The discussions were conducted on the covert data messaging data application Wickr. The negotiations included discussions regarding the introduction of UCO Mark to the Sydney-based associates for the purpose of the latter supplying 500 grams of methylamphetamine at a later date. Slater agreed to supply three ounces of methylamphetamine to UCO Mark.
4. About 11.57am on 18 August 2016 Slater drove to the location in his black Nissan Navara four-wheel drive. Slater was the sole occupant of the motor vehicle. Whilst at the location Slater supplied UCO Mark with three ounces of methylamphetamine in exchange for $13,500. During the course of the meeting Slater advised UCO Mark that he would facilitate the introduction between UCO Mark and the proposed supplier for 500 grams of methylamphetamine.
5. The drug was confirmed to be methylamphetamine with a net weight of 83.73 grams. It was 82% pure. The controlled operation was electronically and physically monitored by New South Wales Police.

Deployment of UCO Mark on 26 and 27 August 2016 at Penrith, negotiation and purchase of a BlackBerry.

1. On 26 August 2016 Slater facilitated the introduction between ICO Mark and Fagan. Slater instructed UCO Mark to attend the Penrith Panthers car park, Mulgoa Road, Penrith the following evening for the purpose of meeting with Fagan.
2. On 27 August 2016 UCO Mark attended the car park in the Outback Steakhouse car park adjacent to the Penrith Panthers Rugby League Club, Mulgoa Road at Penrith for the purpose of an arranged meeting with Fagan. At about 5.34pm UCO Mark was approached by Fagan. Fagan supplied UCO Mark with an encrypted BlackBerry communications device and UCO Mark paid him $2,400 in pre-recorded Australian currency. Fagan confirmed he would supply UCO Mark the 500 grams of methylamphetamine. UCO Mark was advised communications and negotiations would occur on the BlackBerry device, with Slater utilising the code name Universal Man, Fagan utilising the code name Turdboy and UCO Mark utilising the code name Raging Bull 77. Those three code names were the only entities visible on UCO Mark's BlackBerry device.
3. The controlled activity meeting was electronically and physically monitored by New South Wales Police. All encrypted BlackBerry data communications received by UCO Mark were forwarded to investigators for the duration of the investigation.

Knowingly take part in supply of 998 grams of methylamphetamine - charge 1. Deployment of UCO Mark on 31 August 2016 at Penrith.

1. Fagan supplies UCO Mark with 504 grams of methylamphetamine.
2. Between 27 and 30 August 2016 Fagan and UCO Mark communicated via encrypted BlackBerry device network regarding organising a meeting date and location for the 500 gram methylamphetamine drug deal negotiated for $65,000 cash. The group utilised their respective code names and confirmed the deal would occur at the Penrith Panthers car park on 31 August 2016. After confirming the meeting place with Fagan, UCO Mark contacted Slater on 30 August. UCO Mark BlackBerry message to Slater: "I am seeing your mate tomorrow. Just pay him the 65. He will sort you out." Slater: "Yes please brother." Fagan requested UCO pay the money to be "in 10,000 lots please".
3. There was no evidence that Slater received a financial benefit from the money that UCO Mark gave to Fagan in the transaction at Penrith in August 2016.
4. Fagan contacted his boss, Brendan Dries regarding getting instruction as to whom to source the drugs from for the drug deal. Dries directed Fagan to "message the Asian". Fagan understood this instruction to mean "Source the drugs from Geoffrey Acosta". Fagan organised to source the prohibited drugs from Acosta.
5. During the morning of 31 August 2016 Fagan attended the Australian Hotel and Brewery, Rouse Hill. Upon arrival Fagan saw that Acosta was standing next to his motor vehicle, a black Range Rover four wheel drive. Acosta removed a bag contained the methamphetamine which he handed to Fagan. Fagan contacted the UCO Mark and advised he was in possession of the drug commodity and the two parties agreed to meet to conduct the drug transaction.
6. About 12.50pm on 31 August 2016 Fagan met UCO Mark in the southern restaurant area carpark of the Penrith Panthers Leagues Club carpark. Fagan retrieved the methylamphetamine from his motor vehicle and placed the drugs on the front passenger seat of UCO Marks' motor vehicle. UCO Mark handed Fagan $65,000 in pre-recorded Australian currency. The drugs were secured in a clear plastic Tupperware container marked in blue marker pen with "500" inside two grey plastic shopping bags.
7. Fagan met Acosta in the Parramatta area and handed him $48,000 from the drug transaction. Fagan then attended the residential address of OMCG Rebels associate, Plumpton, and paid him $4,000 from the drug transaction, being payment to the OMCG Rebels (Penrith Chapter). Fagan retained $1,000 from the transaction as payment for delivering the drugs. Immediately after the completion of the drug supply transaction UCO Mark transferred the prohibited drugs to the custody of New South Wales Police. The prohibited drugs were subsequently the subject of analysis and forensic examination. The prohibited drugs were confirmed as methylamphetamine, the net weight was 504.2 grams and it was 78.5% pure. The controlled operation was electronically and physically monitored by investigating and specialist surveillance police.

Deployment of UCO Mark on 5 October 2016 at Penrith.

1. Fagan supplies UCO Mark with 494 grams of methylamphetamine.
2. On 19 September 2016 UCO Mark contacted Slater by encrypted Blackberry and requested a further 500 grams of methylamphetamine. Slater asked UCO Mark whether he was happy to "meet my mate again".
3. On 29 September a meeting between UCO Mark and Fagan occurred via messages. UCO Mark indicated that he was available to meet with Fagan on 5 October 2016.
4. Fagan contacted Dries via the BlackBerry network to seek instruction as to who would physically supply the drugs. Dries directed that Fagan to source the drugs from his other mate. Fagan understood this to mean to source the drugs from Nathaniel Lafo, an associate from the OMCG Penrith Rebels chapter. There is no evidence that Slater was privy or party to these conversations.
5. Fagan ordered the drugs from Lafo on the encrypted BlackBerry network. During the negotiations to supply the 500 grams of methylamphetamine Lafo also requested UCO Mark supply 1,000 cigarettes as part of the drug transaction. Lafo utilised the covert BlackBerry code name Supersmooth during the course of the negotiations. There is no evidence that Slater was privy or party to these conversations. Fagan confirmed the drug transaction with UCO Mark and also ordered the 1,000 cigarettes as part of the negotiations.
6. On 5 October 2016 Fagan attended the residential address of Lafo in Minchinbury area. Shortly after his arrival Lafo left the residence and collected the prohibited drugs. Lafo then returned and weighed 500 grams of methylamphetamine. He gave the 500 grams packet to Lafo. Lafo used a drug supply kit hidden in a photo album to weigh out the drugs.
7. At 12pm on 5 October 2016 Fagan attended the vicinity of The Coffee Club, Tench Ave at Penrith for the purpose of an organised controlled activity drug supply to UCO Mark of 500 grams of methylamphetamine for an agreed price of $65,000. UCO Mark attended the location in the company of UCO Nasser. Fagan met UCO Mark in a car park opposite The Coffee Club at Penrith. Fagan supplied UCO Mark a large brand plastic resealable bag containing methylamphetamine contained within an olive-coloured shoulder bag. UCO Mark paid Fagan $65,000 in pre-recorded Australian currency for the methylamphetamine.
8. During the course of meeting Fagan purchased a quantity of cigarettes which he had ordered from UCO Mark during initial negotiations involving Lafo. UCO Mark supplied Fagan 110 cartons of assorted Marlboro and Winfield brand cigarettes. Fagan placed the cigarette commodities in his motor vehicle and paid UCO Mark $7,500 in cash from the monies he had been paid for the drug commodity. The Crown cannot establish (and does not allege) beyond reasonable doubt that Slater was privy or party to these communications or arrangements concerning the cigarettes.
9. About 12.15pm the controlled activity meeting was concluded. Fagan drove from the location and attended the residential address of Lafo in the Minchinbury area. Fagan and Lafo unloaded the 110 cartons of Marlboro brand cigarettes in the garage area of Lafo's residence. Shortly after, Lafo returned to his residence. Fagan handed the $57,500 to Lafo, who removed $43,000 as payment for the drug transactions. Fagan drove to the Plumpton area and paid an OMCG Rebels (Penrith chapter) member $2,500 from the transaction.
10. Shortly after completion of the controlled activity, UCO Mark transferred the prohibited drugs to the custody of New South Wales Police. The prohibited drugs were subsequently subject of analysis and forensic examination. The prohibited drugs were confirmed as methylamphetamine with a net weight of 494 grams and purity of 77.5%.
11. There was no evidence that Slater received a financial benefit from the money that UCO Mark gave to Fagan in the transaction at Penrith in October 2016.
12. The controlled operation activity in Penrith and Minchinbury areas were electronically and physically monitored by investigators and specialist surveillance staff.

Role Played

1. The offender facilitated the introduction between UCO Mark and Fagan, an up-end supplier, and instructed UCO Mark to attend Penrith Panthers car park at a certain date to enable that introduction to occur. The purpose of introducing UCO Mark to Fagan was to supply a large quantity of methylamphetamine than had previously been supplied by the offender.
2. The Crown submitted that his role was akin to a broker who has clients who can supply drugs whilst not actually supplying the drugs himself. Counsel for the offender submitted that his role can be described as a broker/introducer.
3. The role of the offender was that of a broker, who introduced participants to enable drugs to be supplied.

Motivation

1. Counsel for the offender submitted that the offender did not receive any financial reward. The Crown submitted that it was unable to prove that the offender received any financial gain and it was unclear what the offender's motivation was. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender did not receive any financial reward.

Purity and Quantity

1. The offender facilitated two supplies of half a kilo of methylamphetamine. The total supplied was 998 grams. The purity of the drugs was 78.5% and 77.5%. A large commercial quantity is 500 grams. The offender brokered the supply of double the quantity required for a large commercial quantity.
2. The parity indicates that the offending was not street level but much higher.
3. The offender submits that the offending falls well below the mid-range of objective gravity. Mr Lowe, who appeared for the Crown in his extensive written and helpful submissions (undated), did not specify as to where the offending lay in relation to the objective seriousness. Perhaps Mr Lowe had in his mind that the appointment of objective seriousness referrable to a notional point on a spectrum of culpability (although convenient as a shorthand descriptor) is not a necessary component of the sentencing task and to express objective seriousness in that way is rarely definite of that part of the sentencing exercise that requires the sentencing judge to make an evaluative assessment of the gravity of the particular offending or, the culpability of the offender: Yeung v R [2018] NSWCCA 52 at [19]-[30]; R v DP [2019] NSWCCA 55 at [42].
4. I note, however, that s 54A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act provides, "For the purposes of sentencing an offender the standard non-parole period represents the non-parole period for an offence in the table to this division that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness."
5. In taking into account the objective factors only I am satisfied that the seriousness of the offence is below the mid-range.

AGGRAVATING FACTOR

1. The Crown submits that the offence was part of a planned or organised criminal activity: s 21A(2)(n). I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this is so. The offender engaged as a broker in the supply of drugs and that is what this charge is all about. To say that it was planned or organised criminal activity in my view would be a double-counting exercise.

SUBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

1. The offender has no prior convictions. Up until today he has been a person of good character. He was born on 7 August 1984. I have before me a report from Dr Nielssen, Psychiatrist, dated 10 April 2019. It informs me that: "Mr Slater has been engaged in substance use over a lengthy period of time; he mainly used cocaine but also took methamphetamine and MDMA from time to time; he said that in retrospect he realised his drug use around the time of the offence affected his judgment. He said that he grew up around drug use as his older brother was a heroin addict and he was introduced to drug use at a very young age and grew up in an environment in which drug use was normal. He said, 'For me using needles was always a no, no but other drugs were not a big problem'. Mr Slater reported that he was detained in non-association what was effectively solitary confinement for six months after coming to prison because of his alleged association with The Rebels as he was excluded from any prison housing members of The Rebels or any other of the competing gangs including The Comancheros which greatly limited gaols where he could be housed in the mainstream. He confirmed a history of an episode of sexual abuse at around the age of eight when he and a friend did door-knocking in the neighbour looking for work; he said that an older man persuaded them to undress and subjected them to fondling. He said that memories of that incident had a lasting psychological effect and he said, 'I tried to shut them out. I did not tell anyone the details of what happened but it's a 100% related to getting depressed and using drugs'."
2. He reported to the psychiatrist that he struggled with depression and anxiety and told the psychiatrist that he had been placed on anti-depressant medication by general practitioners. He also reported that he planned suicide at the age of 26 by shooting himself but said the gun misfired which he took to be a sign and went to a doctor for treatment after that. "Mr Slater reported periods of heaving drinking associated with his use of cocaine including Vodka and Scotch at intervals throughout the day. He found that his tolerance to the effects of alcohol was increased by his use of cocaine. He was not aware of any complications of alcohol use and he did not drink much not affected by cocaine. He reported the early introduction to drug use by his brother and said that he tried cannabis laced with heroin for the first time at the age of 12. He reported massive cannabis use from the age of 12 until he was 22 and he said that he continued to smoke less frequently from that time; he reported use of stimulant drugs from the age of 17 and said, 'It never really stopped'. He said, 'I'd like to think of it as recreational but in gaol I realised it was not.' He said that he planned to stay away from drugs after his release. He reported a number of traumatic events as a child including the episodes of sexual abuse, witnessing domestic violence of his mother by his father, severe beatings by his father including one at age 12 in which he sustained a fractured eye socket and also a number of beatings by his older brother. After leaving school he completed an apprenticeship as a carpenter. He said that he had worked in construction installing fire protection systems and completed a security guards course; he said that he opened the tattoo parlour in partnership with a friend who is a tattoo artist using money he inherited after his grandfather died. He has been married twice and has two daughters from his first marriage now aged nearly eight and ten - he saw them regularly when he was at liberty - and a son know aged five from his second marriage with whom he has no contact. When asked about his plans for the future Mr Slater said that he hoped to complete a program called Tribal Warrior and then open an old-school gym to train young people in lifting and boxing where he hoped to be able to provide mentoring services as he said he had come to believe that working out is the best way to combat mental illness. He said, 'I realise I am a hypocrite. I have seen the effect of drugs in gaol. I am sorry for what I done to society. Being in gaol has affected me greatly for the better and I see the effects I have created for my own stupidity'."
3. It is the diagnosis of Dr Nielssen that the offender suffers from a substance use disorder in remission and depressive illness.

REMORSE/PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

1. While in custody the offender has proceeded to develop and grow personally by the use of Mindfulness books, exercise, work, learning to read and write. His focus has been on his family and his intention to marry Gabrielle, who I note is in court supporting him; his focus is on his children and he is motivated to focus on the positivity of reuniting with his partner, family and children. He understands the need and desire for mental health care and intervention and during the course of his time in custody he has been abstinent from drugs. It is said that he is no longer a member of the OMCG and it is his intention when released that he will have the tattoos of that particular organisation removed from him.
2. I do note that he has been previously heavily involved in a motorcycle gang and I have taken note of what Mr Stibbard said in his statement dated 10 April 2019, but it appears to me that the offender now fully understands that involvement in such a motorcycle group can only lead one way and that is in relation to criminal conduct.

HARDSHIP TO OTHERS

1. I have read two letters from the offender's partner, Gabrielle Riley, and it informed me that she has attempted suicide and has general mental health issues herself which have required psychiatric intervention, and that her child has had the onset of mental health regression and behavioural difficulties since the offender went into custody.
2. The real question is whether hardship to others amounts to an exceptional circumstance and in my view the hardship, although real and cogent, does not amount to an exceptional circumstance.

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

1. This is the first time that the offender has been in custody. Although he is drug-abstinent now as a result of his incarceration I take the view that there needs to be a prolonged supervision to ensure that he is successfully reintegrated into society.

CONSIDERATION

1. The major sentencing consideration is general deterrence. It is necessary for the Court to impose a sentence that will deter other people from committing the offence of supplying a prohibited drug in any quantity. The sentence must be significant and substantial particularly in light of the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period applicable for this offence.
2. The sentence that I impose in relation to the State matter is a sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years; the commencement date of the sentence is 26 June 2017 so that the head sentence will expire on 25 June 2022.

SENTENCING FOR COMMONWEALTH OFFENCES

1. In proceeding to sentence the offender the Court is required to have regard to the matters set out in pt 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, which provides procedural guidance on sentencing offenders who commit Commonwealth offences; in particular, the Court should have regard to the matters set out in s 16A.
2. However, Part 1B does not intend to cover the field and is not intended to operate as a code.
3. Section 16A(1) states, "In determining the sentence to be past or the order to be made in respect of any person for a federal offence a Court must impose a sentence or make an order that is of severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence."
4. Subsection (2) sets out a number of matters that the Court must take into account if relevant.

SECTION 16A(2)(a) NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE

1. The nature and circumstances of the offence are set out in the agreed statement of facts; In summary the offender was responsible for trafficking on three separate occasions over a five month period and the quantities being 55 grams, 55 grams and 83 grams respectively. On each occasion he trafficked the drugs to undercover officer Mark and he was the sole person involved in the trafficking. The trafficable quantity is 2 grams.
2. Dealing with the undercover officer illustrates that the offender was prepared to deal with other individuals who were previously unknown to him for the purpose of trafficking in controlled drugs. The offender was instrumental in trafficking the controlled drug. His motivation was financial.

SECTION 16A(2)(c) COURSE OF CONDUCT

1. The offender persisted in a course of conduct to traffic the controlled drugs over a five month period on three separate occasions.

SECTION 16A(2)(f) CONTRITION

1. The offender expressed remorse for his conduct to Dr Nielssen. I accept that he is remorseful.

SECTION 16A(2)(g) PLEA OF GUILTY

1. I have previously discussed this aspect in my reasons for judgment.

SECTION 16A(2)(j) AND 16A(2)(j)(a) THE DETERRENT EFFECT THAT ANY SENTENCE MAY HAVE ON THE PERSON, THE DETERRENT EFFECT THAT ANY SENTENCE MAY HAVE ON OTHER PERSONS

1. General deterrence is the major sentencing consideration and I will repeat what I said earlier in this judgment. The sentence I propose to impose has a degree of specific deterrence aimed at the offender.

SECTION 16A(2)(k) THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE PERSON IS ADEQUATELY PUNISHED

1. The sentence to be imposed must reflect a strong element of deterrence. There is potential to realise substantial amounts of money in the supply of drugs. Those who consider engaging in such conduct should be deterred and it is necessary for the Court to impose a severity appropriate sentence.

SECTION 16A(2)(m) THE CHARACTER, ANTECEDENTS, AGE, MEANS AND PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITION OF THE PERSON

1. I have dealt with this aspect under subjective features of my reasons for judgment.

SECTION 16A(2)(n) THE REHABILITATION OF THE OFFENDER

1. I have dealt with this aspect under prospects of rehabilitation in my reasons for judgment.

SECTION 16A(2)(p) PROBABLE EFFECT ON THE OFFENDER'S FAMILY

1. Hardship to family unless exceptional does not enliven s 16A(2)(p); there is no exceptional hardship in this case; the probable effect of the sentence upon the offender's family and dependents remains a relevant factor to take into account as part of the offender's general mix of subjective features and I do so take that into account.

NO PENALTY OTHER THAN IMPRISONMENT

1. I am mindful that a Court may on passing a sentence of imprisonment on a person for a federal offence, if having considered all other available sentences it is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all of the circumstances: s 17A(1).
2. The proper approach to sentencing involves the weighing up of all relevant factors in order to reach a conclusion that a particular penalty should be imposed. The Court should avoid taking a mathematical approach as this would depart from principle because it does not take into account that there are many conflicting and contradictory elements which bear upon sentencing an offender: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 215 ALR 213.
3. The task of a sentencer therefore is to take into account all the relevant factors and to arrive at a single result which takes due account of them all. Having considered in particular the objective seriousness of the offending and the need for the sentence to reflect a strong element of deterrence I have formed the view that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted.

TOTALITY

1. The principle of totality in sentencing was described by Street CJ, in R v Holder; R v Johnson (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 as follows: "The principle of totality is a convenient phrase, descriptive of the significant practical consideration confronting a sentencing judge when sentencing for two or more offences; not infrequently a straightforward arithmetical addition of sentences appropriate for each individual offence considered separately will arrive at an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in the whole of the circumstances. In such a situation the sentencing judge will evaluate, in broad sense, the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and, having done so, will determine what, if any, downward adjustment is necessary, whether by telescoping or otherwise, in the aggregate sentences in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences."
2. I have taken this principle into account in determining the overall sentence. In my view there should be 12 months accumulation of the Commonwealth offences upon the State offence.
3. The sentence I imposed in relation to the Commonwealth offences is a sentence of three years imprisonment. The sentence in relation to the Commonwealth matters is to commence on 26 June 2019 and after a period of two years coming to 25 June 2021 the offender is to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months pursuant to s 19AC.

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: 09 September 2019