"Lester Jude Samuel, you have been convicted after trial by jury on indictment 793 of 2002 of one count of being in possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The charge arises out of a police operation on 22 November 2001 when police, executing a search warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act, executed that warrant by searching a car which you acknowledged to be your own. In the boot of the car they found a blue bag, like a blue travel bag, in which they located a quantity of amphetamine (sic) parcelled in clipseal bags inside an aluminium foil.
You were the subject of a video search film and then of a video record of interview in which you denied any knowledge of the package, including the amphetamine (sic), but acknowledged that the vehicle was yours and that the bag and its contents, save for the methylamphetamine, were yours. You were charged with possession with intent. The evidence of the intent being on the basis of the legal presumption that a person in possession of more than two grams of methylamphetamine is taken to be intending to sell or supply some to another. You told the police that there was only one set of keys to the vehicle and only one person used the vehicle.
You came to trial on the basis that you had no knowledge of the existence of the amphetamine (sic). The presumption was not challenged for that reason. Your evidence is that you are not a user of the substance. You are 47, I think, years of age. You have lived in Australia for something like 15 - more than that, 17 years. You have, it seems, had significant periods of employment. You are a family man and obviously close to your family and for my purposes you have no relevant history before the courts. I have read the references that have been provided by your counsel in relation to the church of which you are apparently a member and your employment and there seems to be no reason to doubt that you have been a good worker and a good family member.
I fail to understand why you would commit this offence which of course you deny having committed but on which the jury has returned a verdict of guilty by which I am bound. The papers provided to me by your counsel since conviction indicate this was a police surveillance operation which of course is what the police themselves said in very brief form in evidence and I am, whilst better informed by that information, still mystified as to what you (sic) part you played or why you would be involved in these sorts of matters. At your age there is, as your counsel indicated, not much reason to obtain a pre-sentence report.
The courts in this country have made it quite plain, as do the courts elsewhere, that involvement in this sort of activity really only has one end result. It's not put to me that your personal antecedents would justify suspension of a term of imprisonment to be served immediately. Given the quantity, which is not large, given the absence of other connecting information other than the police surveillance report and the evidence, as I say, I'm somewhat mystified as to why you would be involved in this. No doubt there are matters of which I'm not aware.
I take into account your prior history and your work and family situation but you're not a user, there's no suggestion really therefore that this involvement could have been for anything other than gain which I, as I say, fail to really understand. It would seem to me that a term of imprisonment to be served immediately is inevitable but given your prior history and your other personal considerations which I have briefly referred to I don't wish to make that a longer term than the community would call for in the circumstances.
You are sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment. That will start immediately. There is no reason in the materials before me why you should not be eligible for parole and I make you eligible for parole."