CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Moody

[2024] VCC 1886

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CR-24-00939

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)

v

LIAM MOODY

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE ELLIS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	06 November 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CDPP v Moody
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1886

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Attempt possess commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drug (ketamine) – possess commercial quantity of border controlled drugs (MDMA, ketamine, cocaine) reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully imported – deal with money reasonable suspected of being proceeds of indictable crime greater than $100,000 – plea of guilty – accused not head of enterprise but vital and trusted – Verdins applicable although weight of Verdins limb 6 mitigated in circumstances where offender voluntarily ceases relevant medication – very good prospects of rehabilitation – offending of high objective seriousness – parity considerations applicable although present offender charged with more offences - significance of general deterrence

Legislation Cited:      Criminal Code (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).

Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen (2011) 31 VR 673; The Queen v Nguyen & Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50; Palmisano v The Queen [2021] VSCA 124; Majeed v The Queen [2013] VSCA 40; Samarakoon v The Queen [2018] VSCA 119; The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550

Sentence:                  Total Effective Sentence: 10 years 10 months imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: Seven years imprisonment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the CDPP	Mr M. Stanton SC Ms O. Cameron	Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Farrington	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Liam Moody, you have pleaded guilty to:

·one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, namely Ketamine, contrary to ss 11.1 and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth),[1] which attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Charge 1); and

·

one charge of possessing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully imported, namely

3,4-Methlyenedioxy-N-methamphetamine (MDMA), Ketamine, and Cocaine, contrary to ss 311.15 and 307.8 of the Criminal Code (Cth), which attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Charge 2); and

·one charge of dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of indictable crime greater than $100,000, contrary to s 400.9 of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment.

[1] Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 s 307.5(1) (‘Criminal Code (Cth)’).

Circumstances of Offending

2

The circumstances of your offending were set out in a Prosecution Opening for Plea (Exhibit A).[2] At the time of the offending, you were aged between 36 and

37 years old.

[2] Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Prosecution Opening for Plea: CDPP v Liam Moody’, 31 October 2024 (‘Exhibit A’).

3To put the offending in context, charge one relates to receipt of a consignment by you, co-accused Kristian Leivers and co-accused James Wojniusz, which arrived in Australia on 26 June 2023, from Spain via sea freight. The consignment was declared to contain 10 pallets of micro cement. It was addressed to ‘Halex Group Pty Ltd’, care of ‘Daniel Watson’, with a contact number and email address provided. A person other than yourself is alleged to have been using the [email protected] email address at all relevant times.

4Upon arrival, Australian Border Force officers examined the consignment. Presumptive testing confirmed the presence of ketamine. The gross weight was 79.3 kilograms. The ketamine was later replaced with an inert substitute material for the purposes of conducting a controlled delivery which took place on 11 July 2023 at Lara. Conclusive forensic analysis would later quantify the pure weight of the ketamine at 68.7 kilograms.

5Turning now to the offending. On 5 May 2023, a person using an email address [email protected] emailed Freightnet International and stated his nephew, Michael Smith, would collect keys for a property situated at 75 West Gateway, Lara, Victoria (‘the Lara property’). This property had been rented in the name of William Leivers, the father of co-accused Kristian Leivers.

6The next day on 6 May 2023, you collected the keys from Lara Branch Realty, purporting to be Mr Smith, and producing a fraudulent licence in that name. This licence was later found in your possession inside a vehicle at the Lara property, and the licence appeared to depict your face.

7On 26 June 2023, the date the consignment arrived in Australia, you made three phone calls from a falsely subscribed phone number. Two calls were made to Mediterranean Shipping, one at 10:18 am, saying that you had paid all the taxes for the consignment and were in the process of completing the direction. You provided your contact details as Halex Group. You called just over an hour later raising the issue of fumigation and emphasising that you 'really needed to get this done while in the office'. The third call was made to Clarke Global identifying the shipment from Spain with seven and half tonnes of micro cement across three pallets. You again raised the issue of fumigation and requested assistance to have the shipment released, again providing an email address.

8Between 28 and 29 June 2023, the ketamine was replaced with an inert substitute material by investigators for the purposes of conducting a controlled delivery.

9At 10.38 am on 4 July 2023, you drove to the Lara property in a pink Suzuki (registration ZAU-998) registered in the name of your partner, Ms Caroline Ferreira. Another vehicle, being a white Isuzu truck (registration XWI-4FZ) rented in the name of Leigh Rainczuk was also parked at the Lara property. You then left the property at about 2.58pm in the pink Suzuki.

10On 11 July 2023 at 9:23 am, you entered the Commonwealth Bank, Altona North branch and were captured queuing to access a bank teller, and later at 9.57 am queuing for an external ATM. At 10.03 am you can be seen counting what is seemingly a large volume of cash, and at 10.22 am you handed that cash to a bank teller and were later handed a receipt.

11That same day at 10.33 am, a person using the email address [email protected] emailed Freightnet Internation two images of the bank receipts. Both receipts confirmed that $1,000 and $3,059.50 had been deposited at the bank in Altona. I note here that the prosecution do not allege that it was you using this email address, but was another person at all relevant times.

12At about 12:10 pm on 11 July 2023, the consignment was delivered to a property in Merrimu. Mr Leivers took receipt and signed the docket as Daniel Watson, having arrived shortly before the delivery in the rental truck, falsely hired in Rainczuk’s name. Mr Leivers, along with Mr Rainczuk, and co-accused, Mr Wojniusz, unloaded the consignment into the rental truck using a bobcat excavator. At 1:27 pm, co-accused Wojniusz left in a separate vehicle, and LEIVERS left the property in the rental truck. They both travelled to the Lara Property, arriving at about 2:11 pm.

13Between 1.50 pm and 3.32 pm, you drove around the Lara area in the pink Suzuki for around two hours conducting countersurveillance and looking for law enforcement, whilst Mr Leivers and Mr Wojnisuz transferred the consignment from the Merrimu property to the Lara property.

14Once arrived, Mr Leivers reversed into a shed on the property to unload the consignment. Between 3:46 pm and 4:24 pm, you, Leivers and Wojniusz carried large black buckets from the shed to an old greenhouse in the rear western sheds of the property.

15You and the two co-accused were arrested at the property shortly thereafter, with the consignment found in the garage. Multiple opened buckets of cement were located in both the garage and the rear western area of the yard. Clear white canisters containing the inert substance had been removed from the buckets and were located on the rear lawn of the property. In front of the buckets was a garden hose with cement on the dirt floor.

16On the date of your arrest, a search warrant was executed at the Lara property. The following items were seized from the pink Suzuki vehicle:

a)    3.85kg of pure MDMA;

b)    1.04kg of pure Cocaine;

c)    386.9g of pure Ketamine;

d)    Your personal mobile phone and the secondary consignment phone with a note attached reading, 'Michael Smith [phone number] site manage HALEX GROUP'. Your fingerprints were found on the screen of the phone;

e)    A Victorian driver’s license in the name of Michael Smith.

17A number of search warrants were subsequently executed. On 12 July 2023, police executed a search warrant on a Jim’s Self Storage unit in Williamstown locating:

(a)19.545kg of pure MDMA (over a commercial quantity);

(b)$211,100 in cash (found in 22 bundles and concealed in several different bags);

(c)A receipt found in your name dated 5 March 2020.

18On the same day, being 12 July 2023, police also executed a search warrant on a Storage King unit in Yarraville, locating:

a)12.06kg of pure Ketamine (over a commercial quantity); and

b)444.3g of pure Cocaine (over a marketable quantity).

19

The Williamstown Storage unit was rented in the name of your partner,

Ms Ferreira, and your mother, Ms Kim Moody, was listed as the alternate contact. Ms Ferreira made a statement to police stating that she rented the unit to store her belongings and rarely visited the unit. She stated that the drugs were not hers and that she had no knowledge of them.

20

You visited the Williamstown storage unit a total of 17 times between about

15 April and 10 July 2023, often carrying bags and suitcases to and from the unit.

21The Yarraville Storage unit was rented in the name of your brother, Mr Jordan Moody. The drugs that were seized by police were located in zip-lock bags contained within a black duffle sports bag. Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed DNA consistent with you and Mr Lievers on the handles of this bag.

22Between 15 June and 11 July 2023, you attended the Yarraville storage unit a total of seven times. On one occasion on 8 July 2023 between 6:50 pm and 7:00 pm, you entered the storage facility wearing gloves and carrying a black suitcase. You were seen transferring seven large clear bags containing a white substance from this suitcase into a separate light-coloured suitcase. On 9 July 2023, you were seen entering the unit and placing a black duffle bag onto the ground.

23On the day you were arrested, being 11 July 2023, you participated in a record of interview and made a number of admissions, namely:

(a)  That you drove the pink Suzuki over the past two months;

(b)  That a photograph depicting you was 'in Yarra North' and that it was 'a storage place. Yeah' (referring to the Yarraville storage unit); and

(c)  That Ms Ferreira had 'no idea what’s in there…' – referring to the Williamstown Storage unit – and when told that a significant amount of drugs was located in there, you responded, 'well, she’s got no idea it’s there…she’s got no idea, the poor thing'.

Procedural History

24

You were remanded in custody following your arrest. The matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief and you were committed to stand trial in this court on 11 June this year. The matter was immediately listed for an Application for Sentence Indication Hearing, and on 18 September I granted that application and indicated that if you were to plead guilty, I would sentence you to no more than

10 years and 10 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period not exceeding seven years. You then indicated your intention to plead guilty and you were arraigned on 6 November. The plea hearing took place on the same day.

Prior Criminal History[3]

[3] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(m).

25You have admitted a prior criminal history from 2014 for recklessly causing injury, for which you ultimately received a combined sentence of three months' imprisonment with a community correction order following a Crown appeal. Your counsel submitted that this was the subject of some media scrutiny.

Sentencing Considerations

26As each of the charges are Commonwealth offences, you fall to be sentenced in accordance with Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Accordingly, I am required to have regard to a number of matters which are set out in s 16A(2) of that Act to the extent that they are relevant and known to the court, and I do so, as I will elaborate. One of these factors is your personal circumstances.[4]

[4] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(m) (‘Crimes Act’).

Personal Circumstances

27You were born in July 1986 and you are now 38 years old. You were raised in a loving home and continue to have the support of your parents. You have an older and younger brother. Your parents valued your education and supported your pursuits in dance and other sporting activities. Your father is a maintenance worker for the YMCA and your mother works in administration at a high school. You have been in a relationship with Caroline Ferreira since late 2018. She is a Brazilian citizen and is in Australia on a spousal visa working as a nanny. You have been her primary support and you are very concerned that she will need to return to Brazil due to your incarceration. I accept that your concerns as to her ability to remain in Australia will make your time in custody more burdensome.[5]

[5] Ibid s 16A(2)(p).

28You grew up in Victoria, educated at Werribee Secondary College, where you were placed in an accelerated academic program. In Years 11 and 12 you attended the Victorian College of the Arts specialising in dance. This precipitated a career in the arts as a dancer and you appeared in numerous stage and television productions. You have also worked on a cruise ship as a dancer. This industry frequently involved you being away from your family for long periods, which you found difficult. You ultimately returned home and began working in construction. You have worked as a labourer and then as a concreter. You worked for a number of years with Delta Demolition in civil construction, but this ceased at the beginning of the pandemic. You have also engaged in course work for the sale of water machines. Prior to your arrest you were completing a course in security training and working as a concreter.

29You do not use illicit drugs.

30Whilst in custody you have used your time productively. You have obtained trusted employment in the staff dining room, a position of great responsibility. You have also commenced a certificate II in commercial cookery, but this course is no longer offered by the prison as a result of a change in education providers. You have also undertaken and completed a number of other courses.

Mental Health

31Since your arrest you have seen psychologist Pamela Matthews on a number of occasions. She has prepared a number of reports relied upon during the plea. Consistently she has diagnosed you with Major Depressive Disorder. In her earliest report of July 2023, Ms Matthews noted that your mental state was such that you required both psychological and pharmacological intervention. Your presentation appears to have improved somewhat and in her November 2023 report, Ms Matthews noted that you had received mental health intervention and you were medicated with anti-depressants, namely Zoloft, but reacted negatively with increased anxiousness and suicidal ideation. However she considered you remained ‘seriously depressed.’

32In August 2024 Ms Matthews considered your depression was moderate, thus representing an improvement. The long term prognosis whilst in custody was noted to be persistent depressive symptoms of varying degrees.

33In her most recent report of 30 October 2024, Ms. Matthews considered that your quality of mood and affect remained depressed and qualitatively appears to have deepened. You presented somewhat dishevelled, weepy, had difficulty making eye contact and spoke with a flat and expressionless tone. She maintains her view that your long-term prognosis in custody is persistent depressive symptoms of varying degrees and that you are likely to suffer severe depressive slumps as key milestones and events pass you by. She expects your time in custody to be quite burdensome.

34Your counsel submits that limbs 5 and 6 of the principles articulated in R v Verdins[6] have application. It is submitted that there has been an identifiable deterioration in your mental health.

[6] (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).

35The prosecution submits that whilst limb 5 of Verdins has some application, limb 6 has not been made out. Mr Stanton, on behalf of the prosecution, points out that you made a decision to cease prescribed medication, and it is unclear whether your depressive symptoms are attributable to this, or whether they are a product of your incarceration. Alternatively it is submitted that if limb 6 is made out then this is significantly tempered by your decision to cease medication.

36I take into account that imprisonment will be more burdensome for you as a result of your mental health. I also take into account that there is a significant risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on your mental health. Your decision to cease medication is somewhat explicable having regard to the effect that Zoloft was having upon you, but ultimately failure to adhere to recommended treatment and medication may result in a decline in your mental state, and it is for you to follow those recommendations. So whilst I consider that limb 6 has some application, I do not give it significant weight.

Character References

37A number of character references were tendered on your behalf as prepared by your family and close friends. I have had regard to each of these references.[7] You are described as a kind, hardworking, respectful and conscientious man who values and cares for his family. You are said to be full of regret and you have expressed to others your deep sense of remorse. You are said to have learned a valuable lesson. I accept that this offending is very much out of character even though you have had one previous contact with the criminal justice system. It is fortunate that you have the support of so many people, which bodes well for your prospects of rehabilitation.

[7] Crimes Act s 16A(2)(m).

Plea of Guilty

38I take into account your plea of guilty.[8] It was a plea entered at a reasonably early opportunity, coming after a sentence indication was given. You did not run a contested committal. Your plea demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for your conduct. You have saved the community the significant expense of a trial. Your plea has a utilitarian value and demonstrates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.  It is also reflective of your remorse. You are entitled to a discount on sentence as a result.

Prospects of Rehabilitation[9]

[8] Ibid 16A(2)(g).

[9] Ibid 16A(2)(n).

39I accept that you are remorseful.[10] This is reflected in your character references and your demonstrable efforts whilst in custody to improve yourself. That you have been working within the prison system, and within a position of trust is commendable. 

[10] Ibid s 16A(2)(f)(ii).

40Although you do have a prior criminal history, that concerns offending of a different nature, and since that matter, you have remained out of trouble for approximately eight years. The fact that you have the strong support of your family and friends enhances your prospects of rehabilitation, which I consider to be very good.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

41As I have noted, you fall to be sentenced in accordance with the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I am required under that Act to impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate to all of the circumstances of the offence.[11] The court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment for a Federal offence unless having considered all of the available sentences, the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.[12] Given the gravity of the offending here, no other sentence but a term of imprisonment is appropriate. As indicated, I have had regard to the matters set out in s 16A(2) of the Act.

[11] Crimes Act s 16A(1).

[12] Ibid s 17A(1).

Nature and Gravity of the Offending

42Pursuant to s16A(2)(a), I must take into account the nature and circumstances of the offending. In doing this, I must assess your level of criminality.

43The offending here is inherently very serious as is reflected by the maximum penalty applicable, particularly on Charges 1 and 2. As Australian higher courts have repeatedly emphasised, those who engage in offending involving commercial quantities of unlawfully imported border-controlled drugs must expect to receive significant punishment.

44In Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen,[13] the Court of Appeal distilled the principles previously set out in the New South Wales decision of The Queen v Nguyen & Pham.[14]  Those cases largely concerned importation offences, but the principles are nonetheless applicable here. 

[13] (2011) 31 VR 673 (‘Nguyen & Phommalysack’).

[14] (2010) 205 A Crim R 106 (‘Nguyen & Pham).

45These principles include that the quantity of the illegal drug involved is a highly relevant factor in determining the objective seriousness of the offence and is often the main factor available to assess comparative seriousness of criminality.  In this case on Charge 1, the quantity of drugs was more than 68 times the marketable quantity, making the offending on the whole, objectively very serious. This was a large and valuable operation. The estimated street value of the ketamine was approximately $180-$200 AUD per gram.[15] It is not alleged that you knew the value or amount of the drugs to be imported, other than that it was a substantial amount.

[15] Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Illicit Drug Data Report 2019- 20 (Report, October 2021). Figures from this report were set out in the statement of F/A Lloyd dated 23 August 2023.

46Turning to the gravity of the offending on Charge 2, this too involved a very significant quantity of drugs; over 12 times the commercial quantity of ketamine, 46 times the commercial quantity of MDMA and 221 times the marketable quantity of cocaine. Again objectively, the offending here was very serious.

47Your counsel submits that I should have regard to the fact that the financial reward expected with respect to ketamine is less than other drugs, citing DPP (Cth) v Maxwell.[16] That case concerned the importation of GBL and the court noted that the financial reward received or anticipated is relevant to the objective gravity of the offence. Further, the court noted that sentencing judges are justified in treating the scale of the anticipated reward as relevant to considerations of deterrence; 'The greater the anticipated reward, the more powerful the deterrent message must be'.[17]

[16] [2013] VSCA 50 (‘Maxwell’).

[17] Maxwell (n 15) [34].

48Here I have had regard to the potential reward, bearing in mind the estimated street value of the ketamine. I have had regard to the fact that you were also in possession of a commercial quantity of MDMA, and a marketable quantity of cocaine. Although the anticipated or potential reward may have been less in relation to ketamine, the offending is still nonetheless very serious.

49A further consideration pursuant to the principles in Nguyen &Phommalysack, includes the role you played and the activities that you undertook. What you intended to do with the drug is also relevant in determining your moral culpability. The prosecution submits that you acted with a significant degree of responsibility, but accept that you were not the head of the enterprise and you were likely receiving directions from others. I accept this, but without people like yourself playing a vital and often trusted role, the enterprise would have been that much more difficult for those organising the importation to carry it out.

50The prosecution also accepts that there is no evidence that you were to be personally involved in the sale of the various drugs. Rather, your counsel submits, you were to be paid for your assistance by others who stood to directly profit. It can be inferred therefore that you committed the offending for financial gain, but there is no evidence as to how much you were expecting to be paid or had been paid. Mr Stanton submits that an inference can be drawn that you would have been involved in any subsequent movement of the drugs, but again likely at the direction of others.  

51I take each of these matters into account also when considering the part you played and the specific activities you undertook.

52As for Charge 3, I have had regard to the relevant factors identified in Palmisano v The Queen,[18] as being relevant when considering offences under Division 400 of the Code. The quantum here was significant - well over $200,000.

[18] [2021] VSCA 124 (‘Palmisano’). Additionally, see generally Majeed v The Queen [2013] VSCA 40.

53In Samarakoon v The Queen,[19] the court reiterated the importance of the value of the proceeds of crime when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. Here again we are talking about a not insubstantial amount of money. There must be an individual punishment for this offending.

[19] [2018] VSCA 119

Parity

54Kristian Leivers pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug on 20 August 2024. He was convicted and sentenced to 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. He pleaded guilty at an early stage and admitted some prior matters which were largely traffic offences.

55I make no finding as to whether your role was elevated as compared with
Mr Leivers. The prosecution do not seek to distinguish each of your roles. However it is clear that each of you played important and trusted roles.

56Furthermore, unlike Mr Leivers you fall to be sentenced on Charges 2 and 3 as well.

Current sentencing practices

57I have regard to current sentencing practices.  However, this is only one factor and not the controlling factor in the fixing of a just sentence.  As the High Court set out in The Queen v Pham,[20] when sentencing for a Commonwealth offence, I must have regard to sentences that have been imposed in other states and territories. 

[20] (2015) 256 CLR 550 (‘Pham’).

58A table was tendered by the prosecution which summarised cases involving sentences for Federal drug offending concerning commercial quantities of border-controlled drugs.  The prosecution submits that these cases provide guidance as to the application of relevant sentencing principles and illustrate, but not define, a sentencing pattern for drug offending of this kind.  The table also includes cases in which an offender attempted to possess the drug ketamine, however in each instance, those cases concerned much smaller quantities.

59I have had regard to that table and to each of the cases referred to therein.  Those cases reflect that quite substantial sentences have been involved for offending involving similar quantities of other drugs.

General and specific deterrence

60Given the seriousness of the offending, general deterrence assumes prominence in the sentencing exercise. This is prescribed in s 16A(2)(ja) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Offences of this nature are often difficult to detect, and the great harm that such drugs can cause within the community is well-known. As the Court in Nguyen & Phommalysack articulated, 'general deterrence is to be given chief weight on sentence and that stern punishment will be warranted in almost every case.'[21]

[21] Nguyen & Phommalysack (n 12) 682.

61The sentence 'must signal to would be drug traffickers that the potential financial rewards to be gained from such activities are neutralised by the risk of severe punishment.'[22]

[22] Ibid.

62The sentence that I impose must reflect the significant punishment that is to be expected by people who participate in enterprises such as this involving attempts to possess a commercial quantity of drugs. 

63I must also deter others from dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime.

64Specific deterrence also has some relevance, given that this is not the first time you have found yourself before the courts. [23]

[23] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(j).

65In formulating an appropriate sentence, I have had regard to each of the matters discussed, the relevant provisions of s 16A(2), the maximum penalties, your personal circumstances and the need to impose a sentence that is just in all of the circumstances.[24]

[24] Ibid s 16A(k).

66You fall to be sentenced for three different offences. There is a need to order cumulation as between the sentences to reflect the distinct offending. However, there should be a degree of concurrency appropriate to satisfy the principle of totality. I must ensure that the totality of the sentences imposed is met with a just and proportionate sentence. Therefore, I have both moderated to a degree the length of the individual sentences and the periods of cumulation. This is necessary to avoid a crushing sentence.

Sentence

67On Charge 1, attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years and six months imprisonment.

68On Charge 2, possessing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

69On Charge 3, that is the charge of dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of indictable crime, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Orders for cumulation

70Charge 3 will be the base sentence.

71I order that 15 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on Charge 1.

72I order that you serve one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 to be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on Charges 1 and 2.

73The total effective sentence is therefore 10 years and 10 months' imprisonment.

74I order that you serve a period of seven years before becoming eligible for parole.  It is necessary for me to set out the commencement of the sentences.

Commencement of sentences

75The sentence on Charge 3 will commence today.

76The sentence on Charge 2 will commence one month after the commencement of the sentence on Charge 3.

77The sentence on Charge 1 will commence 16 months after the commencement of the sentence on Charge 3.  I am going to just ask that the parties and counsel check those calculations.

Pre-sentence Detention

78I declare 500 days pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as served on the sentence that I have imposed and deducted administratively, and order that this be noted in the records of the court.

S 6AAA

79Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 (Vic) I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 14 years and nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.

80I make the order for forfeiture pursuant to s 48 and s 59 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) in the sum of $211,100.

- - -