R v Yalim

The Offences to be Taken into Account

1. First of all, in relation to sequence 2, possessing the crossbow, the offences to be taken into account are: 1. Sequence 3, possessing a prohibited weapon without permit contrary to s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of five years' imprisonment; 2. Sequence 4, possessing a dart projector contrary to the same provision with the same maximum penalty and standard non-parole period; 3. Sequence 12, possessing a slingshot, again contrary to that provision with the same maximum penalty and standard non-parole period; and finally, 4. Possession of a slingshot, sequence 13, contrary to the same provision with the same maximum penalty and standard non-parole period.
2. When I sentence him for the supply prohibited drug, the offences to be taken into account are: 1. Sequence 1, supplying a prohibited drug, 1 gram of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years; and 2. Sequence 9, dealing with property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 with a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment.

Discount

1. The pleas of guilty will attract a discount of 25% in accordance with s 25(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the pleas having been entered in the Local Court and early on in these proceedings.

Pre-Sentence Custody

1. The offender is in custody.
2. He was arrested on 27 January 2022 and bail refused. He has not been in gaol solely for these matters however, because on 10 March 2022, he commenced a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment specified to commence on 9 March 2022, with a non-parole period concluding on 8 September 2023. The Court therefore must determine when the sentence imposed today in aggregate should commence. In accordance with the discretion discussed by Simpson J in Callaghan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 58, I have decided to commence the aggregate sentence I impose today on 10 January 2023. I selected that date to ensure that the overall period the offender spends in custody for these offences and those that led to the earlier sentence is a proper reflection of the totality of the misconduct upon which he is engaged bringing him before the Courts.

The Form 1 Offences

1. The Form 1 offences to be brought to account will impact upon the sentences to be determined in respect of the principal offences. Guidance is provided in authorities as cited by Mr Alexander in the submissions made on behalf of the offender, but one should also refer to the guideline judgement, Attorney-General's application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518. There will be an increase in the sentence that would have otherwise been imposed for the principal offences were they standing alone. This is required to reflect the need for greater weight to be given to the aspect of personal deterrence and to reflect the extent of the misconduct upon which the offender engaged, and to reflect the community's entitlement to retribution for those offences.
2. The Court is mindful, though, that by taking the course that he has, the offender has demonstrated a measure of contrition and remorse, and although he has avoided facing separate punishment for each of those additional offences, he has facilitated the process by means of which all of this material can be dealt with, saving the community the expense of separate proceedings and also to facilitate the pathway towards his rehabilitation, of which I am persuaded.

The Facts

1. The facts upon which sentence is to be determined are agreed between the parties. I shall summarise from the document included in the Crown bundle, exhibit A.
2. At the time of the offending, the offender lived at King Georges Road at Penshurst. He was subject to strict bail conditions in relation to the matters which led to the earlier sentence. These included a strict curfew between 8pm and 6am. The police had an operation underway targeting organised crime within the central metropolitan region. In the course of this on Thursday 27 January 2022, they were conducting observations of the offender's premises at Penshurst. At 5pm on that day, they saw a person of the name Vardars approach the front gate. This was opened by the offender, and then after about seven minutes Vardars left through the front gate, entered a motor vehicle, and travelled off towards Penshurst Street, where he was stopped. The vehicle was searched and a small resealable bag with a black silhouette printed on it was seized and found to contain a small amount of methylamphetamine. Vardars confirmed that the substance was methylamphetamine, estimated to be 1 gram and that it was purchased for $50. This offence is charged in sequence 1, the additional offence to be taken into account when I sentence him for the supply prohibited drug charge.
3. The police then executed a search warrant granted after the action taken in respect of Mr Vardars. The offender had been seen attending the Penshurst Hotel about 7.40pm, where he played poker machines. He returned to his residence about 8.11pm. He was in breach of his bail conditions. The officers involved gained access to his premises, executed the search warrant. The 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine the subject of the supply charge upon which sentence is to be imposed was located on top of the coffee table in the lounge room.
4. The search revealed the following items that were seized: 1. The crossbow with an attached high-intensity laser pointer with 10 metal bow bolts with retractable barbs, located in a cupboard. 2. $15,000 in Australian bank notes was located on a bedside table. 3. Three slingshots were seized in the offender's sunroom. 4. Five high-quality gel blaster firearms with authentic surface finishes and working actions were located. One of those items was a prohibited replica pistol. 5. The police also seized the dart projector, and 6. Another $10,000 in Australian bank notes and a large amount of unused resealable plastic bag with a motif identical to that which was on the bag seized from Vardars.
5. The offender was taken to Kogarah Police Station, where he participated in an interview. The offence that had him subject to bail conditions and in respect of which he suffered the sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment is described in the statement of facts included in the Crown bundle. His conduct that led to this punishment was as an accessory after the fact to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The facts describe the conduct of those who were engaged upon the principal offence, which included the victim of that crime being stabbed several times and stomped on the head. He suffered extensive injuries as particularised in the statement of facts. This offender and others were thereafter engaged in conduct as accessories after the fact. According to para 17 of this document, the offender used his phone to arrange taxis for the other two so engaged, to be taken from the premises just after 5am. He was in due course arrested. He initially denied any participation in that event but subsequently in an interview admitted to being present at the scene and provided information regarding the event and the participation of others in it.
6. Three of the other accused and another person charged as an accessory caught a taxi to this offender's premises, and there he ordered a further taxi for two of them. His role in this was limited.
7. There is also an agreed statement of facts for his involvement in the supply of prohibited drugs and for being possessed of a prohibited weapon. He had use of two mobile phones when involved in this activity. He supplied methylamphetamine to several different people on at least 19 separate occasions, as set out in a table. The total amount of methylamphetamine supplied was 26.08 grams, for which he received $4,690.
8. When interviewed, he acknowledged that he sold the methylamphetamine for someone else. He admitted the price he charged for the drugs as supplied. The prohibited weapon was a set of knuckle-dusters located in the premises.

The Offender

1. The offender does not come before the Court as a person of good character. He was born in 1967 and is now 56 years of age. He was first before Court, according to his antecedents, in May 2006 for two counterfeit money offences for each of which he was put on a bond for 18 months pursuant to s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
2. In September 2008 for charges of possession of prohibited drug and dealing with the proceeds of crime were taken into account when he was sentenced for supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis, for which he was sentenced to two years and four months, including a non-parole period of one years and nine months. In June 2016 for possessing a prohibited drug, he was fined. In March 2022 a charge of supplying prohibited drug was taken into account on a Form 1 and he was sentenced to the offences of supply prohibited drug, being the accessory to the people who inflicted grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and being possessed of a prohibited weapon. Those three charges relate to the summary of facts to which I have referred and upon conviction he suffered the sentence of two years six months in the aggregate, with a non-parole period of one year and six months.
3. In October 2021, he was fined for possessing a prohibited drug and in March 2006 for possessing a prohibited drug, but without conviction that charge was dismissed pursuant to s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. In May 2008, for driving with an illicit drug present in his blood, he was fined. In June 2016, for a similar offence he was fined and disqualified. In March 2019, for a similar offence he suffered a conditional release order and a disqualification. Finally in February 2021, for possessing a prohibited drug, he was convicted and fined.
4. There is a sentence assessment report written on 27 January 2023. The author had the benefit of an interview with the offender and contact with his mother, daughter, son, a sister, the police facts and criminal history and Corrective Services records. The report assets that he has a supportive relationship with his family, which is described as a pro-social influence. He has four children from two previous marriages, with whom he maintains contact. He intends, according to this, to reside in Hurstville when he is released. He was reliant on social assistance and was in receipt of a carer's pension. This was in respect of the care he provides for his mother, as I learned in his evidence. He is the sole carer for his elderly mother.
5. His antecedents are summarised. He attributes negative peers and substance abuse as factors consistent with his offending. His possession of the weapons was for recreational and decorative purposes. He acknowledged that they were illegal in the State of New South Wales, though, as will become clear, the firearms were acquired on the internet from Queensland, where they are not illegal. He said that the money was from gambling. He was apologetic for his behaviour and accepted blame, taking full responsibility for his actions. His association with negative peers was for the sole purpose of substance use and drug supply networks, he described. He said he is easily influenced by negative associates and that he chose to engage in the offences.
6. He has a history of substance abuse over 20 years, which appears to have remained unaddressed until the present time. He said his use increased prior to arrest to help regulate his emotions. He is said to have appeared superficial when dealing with his motivation to address his substance abuse. The offender spoke of feeling depressed and he said he used substances to self‑medicate. He acknowledged a link between his state of mental health and substance use. He is willing to engage with services to address these issues. He was able to identify the impact of his offending upon the larger community. He is willing, he said, and motivated to take community service work. He has successfully completed supervision in the past and was compliant.
7. The offender gave evidence. He told me that he was a full-time carer for his mum. He agreed with the facts. He said that the report provided by psychologist Tim Watson-Munro was correct. He did not dispute the sentence assessment report. He said that the gel blasters were purchased through the internet using his debit card in his name. They were sent to his address, that is, the address appearing on the court attendance notice. They were delivered to him in his name. They came from premises in Queensland. He was of the mistaken view that it was not illegal to have these weapons, but he now appreciates that he should not have had them.
8. The offender spoke of his misuse of ice (methamphetamine). He said he was up to 1 gram per day and that the conduct in supplying the drug was to help fund his addiction. He spoke of the challenges in jail because of the COVID virus and the restrictions imposed upon inmates. He spoke of lockdowns he has suffered, and the inability to undertake courses, and the loss of opportunity to have face-to-face visits.
9. In Junee, he has video visits. He works in the kitchen. He is paid for that. He uses that money for buy-ups. He has been drug free in gaol and that has helped him to think more clearly about his circumstances and future. He recognises the impact of drug-dealing upon the community and the domino effect it has, and he expressed his shame at being involved in this behaviour. He accepts that he must spend some time in gaol for this misconduct, but when he is released he will move to live with his mother in Eastlakes, away from his past associates. He described the care that he provides for her, travelling to where she lives so she could be taken shopping and taken to doctor's appointments.
10. He has employment available to him when he is released. I shall come to that. He wants to spend his life building the relationships he has with his children and grandchildren. His explanation for having these items, first of all the crossbow; it was there intended for decoration only. He had had it with other items of medieval style. The gel blasters were used for entertainment with friends when they would shoot at targets.
11. I accept what he had to say. There is no suggestion that he had any of these items for any more nefarious purposes, though it is still a serious crime to have such items. Apart from anything else, they could fall into the wrong hands and be used for serious criminal misconduct, but I accept that this is not the purpose for which the offender had them.
12. His mother is aged 77. She is hypertensive. She needs a knee replacement and suffers at the moment mobility issues.
13. The material provided on behalf of the offender included a report, as I noted, by psychologist Tim Watson-Munro. According to this report, the psychologist had at the time of assessment a letter of instructions, a court attendance notice, the police facts, the statement of agreed facts, criminal history, criminal infringement notice history, breaching bail alternatives report, list of breach of bail charges, and the expert witness code of conduct.
14. The material upon which the report was prepared was, according to p 2 of the report, by way of a telehealth facility. This is not further explained, but as I understand from my own experiences using the telehealth system, that is no more than a phone call. I find it extraordinary that a psychologist could make such positive assertions in a report prepared upon information provided through that medium. This is not to detract from what I find to have been credible and reliable evidence from the offender, but the report which in terms offers a finding or views that the offender was appropriately contrite must be attributed little weight in the circumstances, and thus although it provides a factual matrix upon which I can assess what should be the appropriate sentence for each of these offences, the ultimate opinion given by the psychologist I consider with some circumspection.
15. There is a history of his time in Turkey from when he was born to when he came to Australia at the age of 12 months. His education is discussed, his working history, his marriages, and his misuse of drugs. He began using methylamphetamine, it appears, in his mid to late thirties.
16. It is said that his misuse of drugs, especially in the time leading up to these offences, impacted upon his judgement, consequential thinking, and impulse control. He said that he suffered difficulties with his mood state. He denied any issues referrable to sleep. The spoke of tending to binge on ice, using the drug for several days at a time, with rebound depression when coming down. He denied any psychotic breaks. The spoke of being paranoid on occasions.
17. He gambled to excess and suffered significant financial problems. He has also used gamma-hydroxybutyrate, but not habitually.
18. He suffered hospitalisation at the Prince of Wales for a fortnight and then in the Kiloh Centre for about a week after an episode of depression. He was transferred to the St George Hospital and had outpatient treatment there for about three weeks. He said that there has been "recrudescence" of his depression and anxiety as a consequence of his current circumstances. This is hardly surprising when he is facing gaol. He expressed, as I noted, "appropriate remorse" and "attendant to this a strong desire not to re-offend in the future". His remorse is said to relate to his insight to the impact of his offending conduct on the broader community in addition to his family, referrable to his children. The sole quoted passage in this report from the offender is the following. He stated, "I can see that now."
19. He was co-operative and respectful. By way of the telehealth facility, the depression inventory was administered. This is a self-reporting questionnaire. Then the psychologist offered his opinion. Paragraph 4 beneath this heading is in the following terms: "Mr Yalim reported that his drug use, combined with his fragile mood state, impacted upon his judgment referrable to decision-making, consequential thinking and impulse control. These aspects of his functioning are relevant to his judgment in the lead-up to the current matter before the Court, with him reporting that he could use up to 1.75 grams of ice per day, several times a week during this period."
20. The first sentence in that paragraph, although attributed to the offender, in my assessment does not reflect how the offender would present or speak, having had the benefit of seeing him give evidence in the course of these proceedings.
21. Thus, ultimately, the outcome in the determination of sentence will depend largely upon the positive impression I have taken of the offender from the evidence he gave.
22. He is supported by others. I have references from a Hakan Ipek, who has known the offender since early childhood. The offender was a close friend of the writer's now deceased father. He has known the offender to be decent, honest, and caring. He said the offender has been like a second father to him, especially following the death of his own father in 2016. He is aware of the criminal offences against his name and prior incarceration and says that he was very shocked when he heard that the offender was once again caught up in his old ways.
23. It is no surprise to him, however, that the offender accepts responsibilities for actions. He speaks of the offender as a family man who always speaks well of his children. He often spoke of not doing the best that he could as a father. He noticed a decline in the offender's health in 2015 when he divorced from one of his wives. He disconnected from the writer's family, but that ultimately was resolved after efforts they made to reach out to him. He attributes the offender with remorse and the recognition that he must live out the consequences of his decisions to commit these crimes.
24. Melah Basturk provided a reference, aware of the charges the offender faces. The offender worked for this man during early 2016 through to mid‑2017. He was punctual, honest, and hard-working. He sought further work in late 2021 and the writer is more than willing to employ him on a casual basis once he is released back into the community.
25. The extent of his gambling is reflected in the pay-out report from the Penshurst Hotel, and I have copies of that showing how much money has been employed. There are documents speaking to the acquisition of the weapons the subject of the charges, confirming that they were available by way of the internet through Queensland where they can be acquired without exposure to criminal sanction.

Consideration

1. Although there is a standard non-parole period for these offences, it does not follow, of course, that the standard non-parole period will be employed. The provisions dealing with standard non-parole period offences are found in Part 4 Div. 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The legislation in its present form was introduced following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39. Section 54A(1) provides that the standard non-parole period for an offence is that which is included in a table to the provisions. Section 54A(2) provides that the standard non-parole period represents the non-parole period for an offence in the table, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, that falls within the middle of the range of objective seriousness. Section 54B(2) provides that the standard non-parole period is a matter to be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence without limiting the matters that are otherwise required upon me to be taken into account. Section 54B(3) requires that the Court record its reasons for setting a non-parole period that is longer or shorter, identifying each factor taken into account.
2. The objective gravity is to be assessed upon the consideration of the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence, without reference to matters personal to the offender or class of offenders, but wholly by reference to the nature of the offending, bringing into account relevant factors provided in s 21A of the Act, except for those that are essential elements or integral characteristics of the offence. The fixing of the non-parole period is part of the task whereby the Court determines what is the appropriate sentence, regardless of whether guilt is established or admitted after trial and regardless of whether the offence falls within the low, middle, or high range of objective seriousness for such offences.
3. The process is one of intuition. The Court is not to embark upon an arithmetic or stage or tiered process of reasoning but must identify all relevant matters bearing upon the question of the appropriate sentence, all of which must be synthesised to determine what the appropriate sentence in the particular case is. See, for example, McHugh J in Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25.
4. Accordingly, in the determination of sentence for offences for which there is a specific standard non-parole period, it and the maximum penalty are legislative guideposts for the sentencing court, along with other established sentencing practices and by reference to matters identified and where relevant in s 3A, 21A, and 22 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
5. There has been guidance provided in respect of those provisions by Johnson J in Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247. His Honour discussed the import of the legislative provisions to which I have referred, and then at para [112] of the judgement referred to the obligation the Court has in all offences to determine the objective gravity of the offence, applying general law principles, bringing to bear all factors relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of the crime.
6. Motivation, provocation, and non-exculpatory duress may be taken into account, together with factors personal to the offender if they are causally connected to or materially contributed to the offence. Mental disorder or mental impairment are matters that are recognised as significant considerations. His Honour went on to discuss the concept of moral culpability, used in a rather flexible way in the general law of sentencing, but which is required as part of the assessment of what ought to be the sentence posed in any given case.
7. The Crown submits that the offence contrary to the Firearms Act is serious, considering the number of prohibited weapons and the firearms involved. The Crown points to the nature of the crossbow the subject of sequence 2 and the mischief that the legislation prohibiting such items is meant to address. The Crown acknowledges that in the case of the prohibited weapon a broad range of items that could fall within the terms of s 7(1) of that Act will mean that the ultimate level of punishment will vary greatly, depending upon the item that is found and the circumstances in which it was possessed.
8. The Crown submits that the crossbow, albeit possessed for recreational purposes, falls in the mid-range of objective seriousness. The offender failed to comply with any of the safeguards that are required in respect of such items, with the consequence that there was always the risk of the infliction of injury should the weapon fall into the wrong hands and be misused. So too the underlying principles of the Firearms Act, which is clearly intended to have removed from the community weapons, unless possession is expressly authorised. The firearms were four high-quality gel blaster weapons and a pistol. The number of the firearms is relevant and the capacity they have to provide danger in the broader community is also a relevant consideration. Once again, the storage and use of those weapons is a matter that be brought to account as part of the matrix upon which to assess the objective gravity of the offending.
9. The presence of prohibited drugs and the supply of prohibited drugs is an added factor in the consideration of the objective seriousness of the offences in each case. The Crown acknowledges that the methylamphetamine supply is minor, but that the offending for the other two offences falls within the mid-range.
10. There was conditional liberty at the time of the offending as a factor in aggravation, but not so as to increase the objective seriousness of the offences, or what are otherwise proportionate sentences for the misconduct, but it informs the extent to which he might have otherwise been granted leniency. So too is the record of antecedent offences that he has accumulated in addition to those that were resolved after his arrest for this matter.
11. The Crown concedes the discount of 25% in accordance with s 25D(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Crown accepts the demonstrated remorse and contrition. The Crown accepts that he has suffered drug addiction, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem, but the Crown submits that his psychological symptoms as described by the psychologist do not make him an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence. I agree with that submission.
12. All of the factors in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 are engaged.
13. I agree with the Crown's submission that general deterrence and denunciation need significant weight in the matter and that full-time custody is appropriate.
14. The submissions on behalf of the offender, which I might say were helpful in the determination of this matter, as were those of the Crown, include reference to the rationale behind s 51D expressed by Spiegelman CJ in R v Brown [2006] NSWCCA 249 at paras [21] and [22]. His Honour referred to the legislation being directed to persons who are engaged in the warehousing of firearms for sale. That is not this case. Matters relevant to the objective seriousness include the number of items, the number of them which are prohibited or pistols, the nature and type of the firearms, the purpose for the possession, whether there is any evidence of a relationship between the possession of the firearms with the drug industry, and the location of the property and the security under which the firearms are kept.
15. The number of weapons is of concern, so too their nature and type, but I accept that the purpose of their possession did not involve more nefarious purposes. I accept there is no evidence to show a relationship between the possession of the firearms with the drug industry, though it is of concern that they were held when the offender was engaged in the supply of drugs, even to facilitate his own misuse of the substances. I have noted the location and lack of security under which these items were kept. There is also relevant the period of time and the hierarchy of prohibited weapon caught by that Act to which Simpson J referred in R v Williams [2005] NSWCCA 355. It is submitted that I would find that the firearms were not modified to make them more dangerous. As they were, though, they presented a measure of risk and could be dangerous in the wrong hands.
16. There were no attempts by the defendant to disguise the firearms. The conduct was no part of behaviour by a criminal group. Others were not involved in his offending through coercion or exploitation. He did not abuse his position in having access to these items. They were illegal everywhere in Australia but for Queensland, from where he acquired them by way of open commercial transaction using the internet in circumstances where he believed it was legal to purchase the weapons and the ammunition in his name using his credit card and the address for the purpose of the transactions. His counsel submits that the conduct is just below mid-range of objective seriousness, which I accept.
17. As to the supply of prohibited drugs, I note the scale of the misconduct, lack of sophistication in the supply, and I agree it is at the low end of the range of seriousness. I am reminded of the principles relevant to the Form 1 offences, with reference to Wood CJ in CL in R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152 at para [32], reflecting what I have already said drawing upon the guideline judgement.
18. I note the aggravating factors, namely his record of prior convictions and conditional liberty. His counsel said that the injury and emotional harm, loss or damage caused was not substantial. I agree. This was not planned or organised criminal activity. I agree.
19. I accept his prospects for rehabilitation. I accept he has demonstrated remorse. I note the discount and his personal circumstances I have discussed. In light of the concessions by the Crown and notwithstanding the circumspection with which I approach the report by Tim Watson-Munro, I accept the submissions made in that regard.
20. The Crown reminds me of general deterrence and denunciation, which are valid considerations in this case. The accused's counsel submits that general deterrence and retribution are reduced because of lack of planning and lack of consequential reasoning. I am not so persuaded of that. Counsel reminded me of the totality principle. Counsel conceded that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate, with which I agree. I agree with the proposition that I may impose an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and I will indicate the sentences for each of the offences upon which sentence is to be imposed.
21. I have brought to account his past custody, including the limitations by way of bail to which he was subject, which is balanced against the fact that he committed these further offences while subject to the conditional liberty.
22. I've considered the additional offences and I will certify the Form 1 documents to confirm that I have.

The Sentences

1. The offender is convicted of each of the three offences, namely possessing three unregistered firearms, one a prohibited pistol, sequence 5; sequence 2, possessing the prohibited weapon, a crossbow; and sequence 14, supplying the prohibited drug, 3.25 grams of methylamphetamine.
2. I have decided to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment. The aggregate sentence I impose consists of a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 10 January 2023 and a head sentence of 4 years. The offender will become eligible to be released to parole on 9 January 2025.
3. I find special circumstances, accepting his evidence of contrition and remorse and his prospects for rehabilitation and the opportunity he has for employment once he is released, and his expressed intention to move to live near to or with his mother in Eastlakes. I accept that he needs a longer period on parole to facilitate the steps required towards his complete rehabilitation. The sentence that would have been imposed for each of the sentences if separate sentences had been imposed are as follows; 1. For the offence of possessing the unregistered firearms, including a prohibited pistol, a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months and a head sentence of 3 years. This has been reduced by 25% for the plea of guilty; 2. For the offence of possess prohibited weapon, a crossbow, a non-parole period of 1 year 2 months and a head sentence of 2 years 3 months. This term has been reduced by a discount of 25% for the plea of guilty; 3. For the offence of supply prohibited drug, a sentence of 1 year 6 months. This term has been reduced by a discount of 25% for the plea of guilty. There is no need for me to specify a non-parole period for that offence, it not being a standard non-parole period offence.
4. No further orders were sought. The sentence was explained to the offender.

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: 24 April 2023