CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jurkovic
[2022] VCC 2178
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 22-00009
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| (CTH) |
| v |
| DAVID JURKOVIC |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CARLIN |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 October 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 December 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Jurkovic |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 2178 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal law
Catchwords: Traffick in a commercial quantity of controlled drugs; deal with money or property worth $100,000 or more that is proceeds of crime; deal with money or property worth $50,000 or more that is proceeds of crime; 122.72 kilograms of cocaine; 83.07 kilograms of methamphetamine; 107.5 kilograms of heroin; 7.27 kilograms of MDMA; objective seriousness of offending; prior convictions; plea of guilty; remorse; moral culpability high
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Lieu v The Queen [2016] VSCA 277; R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; Parker v R [2020] NSWCCCA 206; Ngo v The Queen 2021 VSCA 21; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: Total Effective Sentence of 19 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non parole period of 12 years and 3 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Commonwealth | Ms E. McDonald | Ms K. Holdsworth |
For the Accused | Mr P. Morrissey (Plea) Mr D. Georgiou (Sentence) | Mr Z. Zayler |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1David Jurkovic, between 13 December 2019 and 10 December 2020 you were in the business of trafficking large quantities of illicit drugs, specifically ice[1], cocaine, heroin and ecstasy[2]. The business generated a lot of money which was no doubt pleasing, but also created the problem of what to do with so much cash. It was your disposal of some of this money that brought you to the attention of the police and led, ultimately, to the charges before the court.
[1] Methamphetamine
[2] MDMA
2Specifically, on 13 February 2020, you were observed meeting a member of a known money laundering organisation who was then, unbeknownst to you, under surveillance by members of the Australian Federal Police. You were seen parking in the Tullamarine area and opening your car boot to allow this person to retrieve two shopping bags and place them in his own car. The two of you then drove off in your separate ways. The police traced the car you were driving back to you, it being a car you had hired using your own driver's license a few days before the meeting.
3Months later, on 10 December 2020, the police executed a search warrant on your home address exposing the full extent of your drug trafficking business. They found large quantities of ice, drug trafficking paraphernalia, and cash as well as a mobile phone and diaries and notebooks in which you had recorded your various sales and other transactions. These diaries and notebooks were, in effect, your drug ledgers.
4You were arrested that same day and interviewed, making no admissions. You were charged and remanded in custody. You have been in custody ever since.
5You were committed to this court by way of straight hand-up brief on 12 January 2022 and pleaded not guilty at that stage. The matter resolved on 28 April 2022 and on 17 May 2022 you pleaded guilty to: one charge of traffick in a commercial quantity of controlled drugs contrary to sub-ss302.2(1) and 311.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth); one charge of deal with money or property worth $100,000 or more that is proceeds of crime, contrary to sub-s400.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth); and one charge of deal with money or property worth $50,000 or more that is proceeds of crime, contrary to sub-s400.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
6A plea on your behalf was then conducted before me on 20 October 2022 and it now falls to me to sentence you for your conduct.
7Your counsel, Mr Morrissey SC, conceded, as he must, that nothing other than a significant term of imprisonment was within range.
8In arriving at an appropriate sentence, which in your case really means the length of the term of imprisonment, I am required by law to have regard to a variety of factors which I will discuss in these sentencing remarks.[3] Some tend towards leniency, and some point the other way. No one factor automatically prevails over any other. Rather, I must have regard to them all and give each the weight it deserves to arrive at a just sentence.
[3] Section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
9However, first, I need to set out the circs of your offending in more detail.
Circumstances of the offending[4]
[4] Summary based on the agreed facts set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening and marked as Exhibit A.
10Analysis of your drug ledgers and the laptop and mobile phone of the money launderer you met on 13 February 2020 established that the bags he had retrieved from your car contained a total of $700,000. This transaction comprises Charge 2 - dealing with proceeds of crime – in that you disposed of $700,000 in cash derived from your drug trafficking business.
11When Police attended your home (Unit 3/63 Eumarella Street, Tullamarine) on 10 December 2020 to execute the search warrant you were the only person present. The items located and seized, in detail, are as follows:
·Thirty-nine vacuum sealed green and gold coloured foil bags labelled 'Guanyinwang' inside a safe and later determined to contain 32.678 kilograms of pure methamphetamine;
·Four vacuum sealed green coloured foil bags labelled 'Guanyinwang' inside the dishwasher and later determined to contain 3.203 kilograms of pure methamphetamine;
·Assorted drug trafficking paraphernalia including clip seal bags, digital scales, a cash counting machine and a cryovac vacuum sealer;
·'Kennards' branded moving boxes with handwritten notations including references to 'gold' apparently meaning the gold-coloured foil bags containing methamphetamine already described;
·A total of A$63,530 cash in various locations about the premises;
·A black Oppo mobile phone; and
·Various handwritten diaries and notebooks with coded references to various drugs and quantities of drugs, being your drug ledgers.
12Subsequently scientific analysis linked you to the items seized by your DNA, fingerprinting or handwriting.
13The product of the search warrant forms the basis of Charge 1 in that it establishes that over a 12-month period, you were engaged in an organised commercial activity involving repeated trafficking of methamphetamine (ice), cocaine, heroin and MDMA (ecstasy). You trafficked in commercial quantities of each of those drugs over that period. Your trafficking comprised selling the drugs to others, preparing them for sale, and possessing, guarding, or concealing the drugs for later sale.
14On the day of the search you had almost 36 kilograms of pure methamphetamine in your possession which you obviously intended to sell. As well as that, analysis of the drug ledgers revealed 252 individual drug and money transactions. A spreadsheet of these transactions was prepared by the police based on their interpretation of your codes, which you have not disputed.
15Between 13 December 2019 and 9 December 2020,[5] the drug ledgers revealed that the overall total amounts trafficked of each drug were, at least, as follows:
·90 separate sales of cocaine, with a gross quantity of 122.72 kilograms
·50 separate sales of methamphetamine, with a gross quantity of 47.27 kilograms
·11 separate sales of heroin, with a gross quantity of 107.5 kilograms
·Three separate sales of MDMA, with a gross quantity of 7.27 kilograms.
[5] This is based on the dates of drug sales recorded in the drug ledgers. The first recorded transaction was on 13 December 2019 and the last recorded transaction was on 9 December 2020.
16In addition there were 10 transactions where the particular drug was not recorded by you or your code could not be interpreted by the investigators, and another 8 transactions relating to different drug types. Further, there were 18 transactions relating to money only with no reference to drugs.
17Many of the transactions recorded in your drug ledgers were reflected in your Oppo mobile phone in one form or another, for example by screen shots of coded messages involving the same names, dates and amounts. Analysis of your mobile phone also revealed images of clip-seal bags with coloured pills and white powder substances, as well as images depicting large quantities of Australian currency.
18Charge 3 - dealing with proceeds of crime on 10 December 2020 - relates to your possession of the $63,530 cash found during the search being proceeds of your drug trafficking business. The money was found in 8 separate bundles
·on the kitchen countertop;
·in the dishwasher;
·in a safe in the wardrobe; and
·in a safe on the couch.
Your Personal Circumstances
19Your personal circumstances were outlined in submissions by your counsel, Mr Morrissey SC and a report by consultant psychologist Luke Armstrong dated 14 October 2022. Mr Armstrong saw you for a total of 5 hours on three separate days in 2021 and 2022. I will also reference information from the character references provided by your sister Diana and your friend Chris Cummings.
20You are now 43 years old. Your parents immigrated from Croatia during the 1960s for better economic opportunity. You have an older sister who is married with two children. After some moves your parents settled in Bundoora. Your father worked as a painter and decorator. Your mother worked three days a week in a factory.
21Your childhood was unremarkable. Your parents were loving and supportive and remain so, attending court with you on the plea. There was no crime, violence, or drug use in your family. You disliked school and occasionally misbehaved but had no overt conduct problems.
22You attended Loyola College until Year 10 and then left to work full time for your father which strained the relationship somewhat.
23When you were 18, your parents bought you a block of land.
24When you were 22 you had your first relationship with a woman who, apparently, falsely told you that you were responsible for her pregnancy. Thereafter, you had a series of other relationships, but have no children.
25You started experimenting with cannabis when your first relationship ended.
26Also when you were 22 your father was admitted to hospital with a respiratory infection. He later developed an infection in his arm, which led to amputation. As a result, you had to run your father's painting business, including invoicing, and managing staff. You struggled with these responsibilities and started experimenting with amphetamines, although not to the point of developing a dependency.
27As time went on you began working 7 days a week in your father's business to compensate for his absence and financial difficulties. You continued struggling with invoicing and securing payment from clients for completed works, which frustrated your father.
28Your parents maintained considerable oversight over you at this time. Until you were 26, your father managed your finances and paid your bills, and your mother transferred money to you for the week.
29You told Mr Armstrong that you first used ice when you were 26 and then immediately craved it and began to use daily. You described ice as relaxing and helping to counter painful memories and feelings, specifically loneliness and the loss of several relationships and opportunities to start a family.
30Your father closed the business when you were 27. After that you continued to paint under your own name. You report that you attempted to manage your own finances from this time but fell into debt.
31You stopped working as a painter at age 30 and thereafter had unstable employment. Your drug use grew during your 30s, and so did your involvement with people in the drug scene, including dating a sex worker who used ice.
32Although you had appeared in court before, your first drug related offending was at this time. In 2009, when you were 31 you were convicted of theft which you told Mr Armstrong was to support your habit. In 2012 when you were 33, you were convicted of trafficking ice and dealing with proceeds of crime and placed on a community corrections order with a drug rehabilitative condition. Despite this you told Mr Armstrong that you could not stop using ice.
33In 2015, when you were 36, you were again convicted of trafficking in drugs and dealing with suspected proceeds of crime. This time the drugs were cannabis, ice and something unspecified. You again received a community corrections order with rehabilitative conditions for drugs and mental health. This order even included a curfew, but again you could not stop using ice and in fact used throughout the order.
34Also at 36, you stopped working altogether and commenced on Centrelink payments. You were living at home with your parents at that time. Although you deny that you stopped work because of drugs, Mr Armstrong opines that by this stage in your life, your stimulant abuse rendered you unemployable.
35In 2018 when you were 39, you were convicted of possession of ice and ecstasy and received yet another rehabilitative community corrections order and referral to Caraniche for drug related treatment. You report that by this stage your drug use had escalated to at least half a gram of ice daily, including regular morning use. Mr Armstrong opines that you appear to have been biologically addicted at this time because you used to avoid withdrawal symptoms. You told Mr Armstrong that you continued to abuse drugs daily throughout the order and until your arrest on the matters before me.
36As I have said, you have a strong relationship with your family. Your sister Diana provided a reference that speaks to your strong relationship. She stated that you have always been a good brother and uncle to her children. She said that your parents miss you dearly, and you have always been a source of help to your father as he battles health issues. You also said in a letter to the Court dated 7 October 2022, that your relationship with your family has never been closer. No doubt they are suffering greatly with the knowledge that you will receive a lengthy term of imprisonment.
37Your friend Chris Cummins also provided a reference to the court. He has known you for 15 years, and speaks of your strong work ethic, and of you being someone he has always been able to rely on. Mr Cummins, who is a cabinet maker, reports that he has plenty of work for you upon your eventual release.
38When Mr Armstrong first assessed you in March 2021, he believed that you suffered Stimulant Use Disorder in early remission. When he assessed you 18 months later, in circumstances where you maintained you had not used drugs, he described your Stimulant Use Disorder as being in sustained remission.
39Mr Armstrong tested your IQ. Whilst you did not meet all the diagnostic criteria for an intellectual disability, he found your general cognitive ability to be within the extremely low range of intellectual functioning. Your overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of only approximately 2 per cent of individuals your age. In terms of how this translates to your everyday life Mr Armstrong described you as street smart but said you would experience great difficulty in keeping up with your peers in a wide variety of situations that require thinking and reasoning abilities. He considered you to have poor coping strategies and poor emotional regulation rendering you more vulnerable to substance abuse. For example, he suggests that your initial use of stimulants at age 22 was a way to manage stress when you took over your father's business. He also opined that you were more likely to be gullible and susceptible to manipulation than the ordinary person.
40According to Mr Morrissey, you have embraced prison. Your letter of 7 October 2022 and the copies of the program certificates I have received, confirm that you have not wasted your time. Urine tests show that you are free from drug use. You have a health-conscious personal routine for the first time in your life which includes daily exercise and improved nutrition. You completed a course with Caraniche Clinic for drug and alcohol misuse. You also undertook vocational training with Box Hill Institute, receiving certificates in kitchen operations, budgeting, and traffic control, to name a few, although there were many more. You have also taken up employment as a chef in the kitchen of the staff canteen.
41I will return to your letter later in these remarks.
Objective Gravity of your offending and moral culpability
42Two factors of central importance in determining any sentence are the objective gravity of the offending and the moral culpability of the offender. If there was any doubt about the inherent seriousness of your offences the applicable maximum terms of imprisonment make it clear.
43For Charge 1, traffick in a commercial quantity of controlled drugs, the maximum term of imprisonment is life.
44For Charge 2, deal with proceeds of crime worth $100,000 or more, the maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years.
45For Charge 3, which is the deal with proceeds of crime worth $50,000 or more, the maximum term of imprisonment is 15 years.
46Moreover, your three offences were serious examples of their kind, particularly Charge 1 which was a rolled up count comprising many separate instances of trafficking.[6]
[6]The seriousness of drug trafficking offences is informed by the role of the offender; their place in the hierarchy; the nature and extent of their involvement; the sophistication of the enterprise and the quantities involved, see for example Lieu v The Queen [2016] VSCA 277 at [41].
47For one whole year prior to your arrest you were engaged in the business of trafficking large amounts of methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine and MDMA. During that time you trafficked over a commercial quantity of each of those drugs and the business, to your knowledge, generated huge profits, which you then handled. To be precise you trafficked:
·at least 122.72 kilograms of gross cocaine in 90 separate sales being 61 times the commercial threshold of 2 kilograms;
·at least 83.07 kilograms of methamphetamine comprising 47.27 kilograms gross in 50 separate sales and 35.8 kilograms pure located at your apartment on 10 December 2020, being over 110 times the commercial threshold of 0.75 grams;
·at least 107.5 kilograms gross heroin, in 11 separate sales, being 71.6 times the commercial threshold of 1.5 kilograms;
·at least 7.27 kilograms of MDMA in 5 separate sales, being almost 10 times the commercial threshold of 0.75 kilograms.[7]
[7] The separate sales in each instance were revealed by the drug ledgers.
48It is clear from the evidence that you did not traffick all these drugs on your own. Rather, you were a part of a sophisticated and well organised syndicate which was able to meet the demands of various customers for a range of different drugs in large quantities. The scale and sophistication of the enterprise is not only gleaned from the amount and variety of the drugs you supplied but also from the fact that you and other members of the syndicate took measures to avoid detection, such as using encrypted phones, using code when discussing and recording transactions, and disposing of proceeds, such as occurred in Charge 2.
49In terms of your place within the overall enterprise, you told Mr Armstrong that a man by the name of 'Peace' was effectively your employer. You said you regarded him as like family and that he guided you in most life decisions. Mr Armstrong opined that this was an example of you being gullible and vulnerable to exploitation from a more sophisticated offender.
50Whilst accepting that your role was important, Mr Morrissey argued that there were reasons to find, quite apart from your say so, that you were somewhat lower down in the hierarchy. Specifically he relied on:
·your limited intellect and gullibility as assessed by Mr Armstrong, albeit Mr Morrissey did not contend that you had been persuaded to participate in the enterprise or that your will had been overborn;
·your own drug addiction;
·your hands on role in warehousing the drugs and cash and transacting sales, which he submitted those at the top would not do;
·messages which he submitted showed you receiving directions from persons by the codenames of ‘Peace’ and ‘Balance’; and finally
·your keeping of a drug ledger, which he submitted betrayed an anxiety to account to others.
51The prosecution pointed, conversely, to the fact that there were only two possible messages from Peace and one from Balance where it might be argued you were receiving directions. Further the evidence also shows you appearing to give a direction and setting the price of drugs. For example, on 20 November 2020 you sent a message to an unknown number saying 'I told him 190 gold'.
52Whilst conceding that your precise role and place in the hierarchy is not revealed in the evidence, the prosecution submitted that it is clear that you were critical to the success of the enterprise and that you were a highly trusted member of it.
53I agree.
54The evidence establishes that you were entrusted to store and deal with both large quantities of drugs and large quantities of money. Charge 2 and the money transactions in the drug ledgers show you were not only responsible for storing and guarding the profits from the business but also for distributing them. The drug ledgers and the drug trafficking paraphernalia also show that you were the direct point of contact for customers. You were responsible for maintaining records of the various transactions and clearly had a detailed knowledge of the quantity of drugs you trafficked and their value.
55In the end I am not satisfied where in the hierarchy you sat. Specifically, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you were answerable to others above you. The messages relied on by Mr Morrissey in my view are equally consistent with you communicating with an equal partner. Similarly, none of the other matters he relied upon satisfy me you were subservient. Accordingly, I will sentence you on the basis of what you did, not where in the hierarchy you sat. As the High Court noted in R v Olbrich:
Whether others stood to gain from the respondent's conduct does not, it seems to us, affect what sentence should have been passed on him. That depended on what he had done and who he was, not on what others may have hoped to gain from his activity.[8]
[8] (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [21].
56I do take into account your limited intellect, however in my view it is of marginal relevance. There can be no question that you intended to, and did, traffick in multiple commercial quantities of multiple substances. Whilst you may have had some debts and were using drugs yourself, the amounts trafficked and the money you received leave no room to doubt that you were motivated by the desire for substantial financial reward.
57You well knew that what you were doing was wrong. As I have outlined, you have two prior convictions for trafficking illegal drugs including methylamphetamine and dealing with the proceeds of crime, and you started this trafficking only three months after you got off a community corrections order for possessing methylamphetamine and ecstasy.
58In my view your moral culpability for your offences is high indeed.
Current Sentencing Practices
59To promote consistency of approach in sentencing, particularly, the application of relevant principles, I must have regard to sentences imposed in other cases, including, since this is a Commonwealth matter, sentences considered on appeal in other States and Territories.[9] Comparable cases may also reveal discernable sentencing practices and sentencing ranges, although no two cases are ever truly the same and there is no single correct sentence.
[9] The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550 at [18] and [23].
60I have had regard to the table of cases provided by the prosecutor, however they cannot really be considered comparable. They all involved offending of shorter duration, fewer types of drugs and much lesser quantities of drugs than you were trafficking. They also involved different charges, sometimes different maximum penalties and sometimes pleas of not guilty. The two cases that are perhaps the most similar are Parker[10] and Ngo[11] in that they involved commercial quantities, although still much less overall than yours. However, both offenders were sentenced as principals and the primary recipients of the profits. This is not a conclusion that can be drawn in your case. Further, there was clear evidence that both offenders, but particularly Parker, enjoyed significant personal enrichment, which there is not in your case.
[10] Parker v R [2020] NSWCCCA 206
[11] Ngo v The Queen 2021 VSCA 21
61Ultimately my duty is to impose a just and appropriate sentence on you in the unique circumstances of your case.
Plea of Guilty, co-operation and remorse
62You are entitled to a significant discount in your sentence for the fact you pleaded guilty. It was not at the earliest opportunity, and you pleaded not guilty at committal. However, no witnesses were ever required to give evidence and you indicated an intention to plead guilty at the first directions hearing in this court. In pleading guilty you have facilitated the course of justice and taken legal responsibility for your crimes. The fact the case against you was very strong does not detract from the utilitarian value of your plea of guilty. Moreover, our Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised the high value of pleas of guilty entered during the pandemic and the need for sentences to reflect this.[12]
[12] For example Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 at [39].
63Mr Morrissey submitted that I should find that your plea of guilty is accompanied by remorse. If so, that would entitle you to an even greater discount. In addition to the plea itself, he relied on your efforts in prison, Mr Armstrong's report and your letter to the Court. I have no doubt you are sorry for the suffering you have inflicted on your family, who, as you say, do not deserve it. Finding that you really understand the harm offending such as yours causes to individuals, and the community at large, is much more difficult, especially given your criminal history.
64I have read your letter closely. I approach it with caution given that it is entirely self-serving. Further, for someone with your assessed intellectual limitations it is surprisingly considered and well expressed. Nevertheless, the sentiments do appear genuine, and I am prepared to accept that the passage of time and your sustained abstinence from drugs may have allowed you to gain some insight and develop some remorse.
Your character and risk of reoffending
65Mr Armstrong described your rehabilitation and reformation as promising given the significant shift in your belief systems since your remand and the support that will be available to you upon your release, both on parole and by your family. Your letter also speaks of your desire to be a better person and you assure me that they are not empty words. Putting aside my instinctive reservations, you appear to mean what you say. You have certainly taken advantage of every opportunity in custody to improve yourself. On balance, although your criminal history is a cause for great concern, I think there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about you and your future.
The burden of imprisonment
66In determining the appropriate sentence I must consider how a term of imprisonment would be likely to impact you. Although custody has served you well so far, I accept that the pandemic has meant your time on remand was harder and that your future incarceration will likely be harder for some time yet. As well as the worry of contracting the virus in prison, the pandemic has led to periods of quarantine, occasional lockdowns, and reduced activities, programs, and personal visits.
Purposes of Sentencing
67I am obliged under Commonwealth law to ensure that my sentence achieves the sentencing purposes of adequately punishing you, deterring you and others from committing this sort of offence and promoting your rehabilitation. General principles require that I not impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve those sentencing purposes. As I have already said, your counsel has properly conceded that your offending necessitates a significant term of imprisonment.
68Further, when there are multiple charges, such as here, the total effective sentence must not offend the principle of totality, meaning you must not be punished any more than is proportionate and appropriate to your overall criminality. This principle is of particular significance in your case because Charges 2 and 3 are essentially incidents of Charge 1 and there is a need to avoid double punishment. That said, they do involve different criminality and some measure of cumulation is called for. This is particularly the case for Charge 2 where you actively disposed of money to a money launderer, rather than just holding it for the enterprise.
69General deterrence is a paramount sentencing consideration for commercial drug trafficking enterprises. The Court of Appeal in the case of Ngo, to which I have already referred, said this:
In essence, it is important that the courts, by their sentences in such cases, make it clear to those who contemplate becoming involved in drug trafficking that, if they do so, and if they are detected, they will face long terms of imprisonment. It is only in that way that the law can seek to alter the calculus which otherwise motivates persons, such as the applicant, to be involved in that type of enterprise.[13]
[13] at [70].
70Despite your professed commitment to change, your prior convictions and long history of drug abuse mean that specific deterrence remains relevant. That said, it is important to promote and facilitate the rehabilitation you have begun. It cannot be gainsaid that the best way to protect the community is to rehabilitate offenders. I will do this by setting a non-parole period as low as can be without undermining the gravity of your crimes and the principles of just punishment and general deterrence.
Sentence
71Weighing up the competing considerations as best I can you are convicted on each charge and sentenced to terms of imprisonment as follows.
72Charge 1, traffick in a commercial quantity of controlled drugs, you are sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment.
73On Charge 2, deal with $700,000 proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
74On Charge 3, deal with $63,530 proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
75Charge 1 is to be the base sentence and I order that one year of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be cumulative on each other and on Charge 1. That makes a total effective sentence of 19 years and six months' imprisonment.
76In respect of that sentence I set a non-parole period of 12 years and three months' imprisonment.
77I need to explain to you the effect of the non-parole period. The non-parole period is the minimum period you will be required to serve before you can be released on parole. So it is not up to me whether you are released then, it is up to the Parole Board.
78If a parole order is made then you will serve the sentence after that time in the community, but you will still be undergoing sentence. If a parole order is made, the order will be subject to conditions which you must comply with.
79The parole order can be amended or revoked and if you breach the conditions, then you may become liable to serve the whole of your sentence, in other words the period that you were released on parole may not be counted towards the sentence, and that is the prima facie position unless a court otherwise orders.
Pre-sentence Detention
80I declare that you have served, in respect of that total sentence, 728 days not including day, and I order that this declaration be entered in the records of the court and the period be deducted administratively.
Section 6AAA
81Although I am not required to make a declaration under s6AAA, given it is a Commonwealth matter, I do indicate that if you had pleaded not guilty to these charges and been found guilty by a jury, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 30 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years.
82Now I will just ask the prosecutor, I have expressed the periods of the terms of imprisonment in terms of cumulation, which is normally what happens with State matters. If I am required to actually do something else, as in specify when the sentences on Charges 2 and 3 commence in relation to Charge 1, then I can do that. Is it sufficient, what I have done?
83MS McDONALD: Your Honour is required under the Crimes Act (Cth) to state the commencement date of the charges, Your Honour, in order to give effect to the cumulation. In my submission the best approach is to refer to the commencement date from the expiration of the other charges. So Charge 2 will commence – I have not done the maths, Your Honour – but ‑ ‑ ‑
84HER HONOUR: I have prepared it just in case, so I will say it. The effect of what I want, I have already said, and I think the maths I have done is correct. If either counsel think it is not, they can let me know.
85I direct that the sentence in respect of Charge 2 commences 5 years before the expiration of the sentence on Charge 1 and that the sentence in respect of Charge 3 commences 1.5 years before the expiration of the sentence on Charge 1.
86MS McDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.
Ancillary orders
87HER HONOUR: Now, there are no ancillary orders, are there?
88MS McDONALD: Yes, Your Honour. The prosecution was seeking a forfeiture order in terms of the money that was seized. An order was sent through at the time of the plea outlining the various bundles that were seized.
89HER HONOUR: All right, I must have misplaced that but if that has been sent through, that is fine. There is no objection to that order, I take it, Mr Georgiou?
90MR GEORGIOU: No, Your Honour.
91HER HONOUR: Yes, I will make that forfeiture order.
92MS McDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.
93HER HONOUR: Now Mr Jurkovic, so the total sentence is I know what you are interested in and just to reiterate. It is effectively 19 years and six months with a non-parole period of 12 years and three months, and I have declared the time you have already spent in custody. Do you understand that sentence? All right, you are nodding your head. I think we have got you on mute, but you nodded your head.
94Is there anything else that I need to do before we can adjourn?
95MS McDONALD: No thank you, Your Honour.
96HER HONOUR: I do not know if you have had time to check the maths, as I say I think its correct. If you haven't, if you let me know as soon as possible and if necessary we can reconvene or I can correct it.
97MS McDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.
98HER HONOUR: Thank you. We will adjourn the court.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
5
0