CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Shea

[2025] VCC 992

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

CR-21-02079

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(CTH)

v

WARREN SHEA

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GUCCIARDO
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 April 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CDPP v Shea
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 992

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:   Criminal Law – Sentence upon plea of guilty

Catchwords:  Possess substance, equipment or instructions for commercial manufacture of a controlled drug – Attempt to possess a controlled drug – 100 kilograms of TFA-methamphetamine – plea of guilty – delay – marginal involvement in planning and organisation – low moral culpability – limited parity – extra curial punishment – relevant prior convictions – good prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:  Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:  

Sentence:Total effective sentence of 18 months imprisonment, to be released on a recognisance release order after 236 days.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Ms C. Foot	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms B. Proud	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates

HIS HONOUR: 

1Warren Shea, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a substance (other than a controlled precursor), equipment or document containing instructions for the manufacturing of a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, intending to use that substance, equipment or document to manufacture a controlled drug, and intending to sell or believing that another person intended to sell any of the drug manufactured. As well as a second charge of attempted possession of a substance, being a border controlled drug, TFA-methamphetamine.  The first charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment or 1,400 penalty units, and the second carries a two year maximum penalty or 400 penalty units.

2The circumstances of your offending are outlined in a prosecution document which summarises them.  I will recite these briefly for this sentence.

3On 8 August 2020, approximately 100 kilograms of TFA-methamphetamine arrived in Sydney imported from Hong Kong.  The substance was contained in four drums which were intercepted by the authorities.  The substance was substituted with an inert alternative. About a month later, on the morning of
3 September, the blue drums were delivered by undercover police officers to an associate, one Joshua Seal, and Seal himself took possession of one of the drums, which he transported to premises at Darraweit Guim.

4Later on the afternoon of that day, police went to those premises and you exited a large shed.  You were arrested and cautioned.  When asked if there was anything inside you replied 'chemicals'.  Seal was arrested soon after at the premises. 

5Inside the shed, police located a number of items of equipment and material associated with the clandestine drug laboratory.  The blue steel consignment drum was located and the search warrant was executed at the property.  A search was conducted between that day and 5 September 2020 and the police located medical records in a bedroom at the property, which records were in your name.

6In that room a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine was found.  The machine was used by you to help you sleep.

7In the shed were found chemicals, glassware and other equipment, which was photographed.  Near the entrance, the blue steel drum from the abovementioned consignment was found together with multiple beakers, a red funnel, and power tools. The top portion of the drum, which had been cut from the drum, was found nearby, which gives rise to the attempted possession (Charge 2).  The chemicals seized are not alleged to be controlled precursor chemicals, or even controlled precursor drugs.

8One tonne of chemicals labelled 'toluene' in five steel drums were found, as well as 750 kilograms of chemicals labelled 'hydrochloric acid' in three drums; 225 kilogram bags labelled 'micro pearls caustic soda' in nine larger bags;
140 litres labelled ‘acetone' in eight metal drums; electric stirrers and thermometers; two electric scales; plastic and glass beakers containing gels and liquids; separating funnels mounted on metal frames containing liquid; clamps and funnels.

9Relevant to Charge 1 police located and photographed, but did not seize, numerous containers labelled 'silicone oil 100CST food grade' and a number of pieces of equipment which had Seal's DNA or fingerprints, including air purifying respirators, PH meters, beakers, funnels, flasks, reaction vessels, and gloves.  Material consistent with the substituted drugs were located on items in the shed, at its entrance, and in the freezer room. 

10A bundle of photographs of the shed was tendered upon the plea, together with a floor plan.

11On 26 August 2020 Seal had set up a battery-operated camera inside the shed, which produced high-definition photographs based on motion activated recording, uploaded to an SD card within the camera.

12You can be seen by way of camera footage in the shed on 29, 30 and
31 August.  You and Seal can be seen in the shed also.  A large metal separating funnel, later found in the shed, can be seen being moved in the shed during that period.

13On 3 September, when Seal takes possession of the steel drum and drives it to the farm in question around 12 pm, you can be seen multiple times on footage from the camera referred to above, between 12.08 pm and 12.48 pm, moving about in the shed. 

14At 12.53 pm you were waiting at the entrance gate for Seal to arrive.  You can be seen to open the gate at the property and at 12.55 you can be seen walking from the gate to the property and into the large shed.

15Between 1.03 pm and 1.18 pm, you and Seal can be seen multiple times on the camera footage inside the shed, and your fingerprints were identified on a broken separation funnel. 

16You were interviewed by police and, although exercising your right to silence, you told them your usual place of residence was in Queensland and while in Victoria you were staying at the property where you were arrested on
3 September 2020, and you were remanded on that day until you were granted bail on 26 April 2021, some 236 days later.

17The prosecution summary also appended a useful procedural chronology, which in this case is of some relevance, given the time frame which it describes.  Some salient dates which I note are the arrest date as of 3 September 2020. 

18On 22 January 2021, you sought a contested committal to cross‑examine the informant, an application subsequently withdrawn in order for a committal to proceed with co-accused Seal and Siaoloa.

19Additional charges were filed in March 2021, but further material for the brief were to be served in May 2021. 

20You were then bailed by the Supreme Court in April 2021.

21Committal was adjourned to September 2021 in June, with leave to cross-examine four witnesses, two requested by you.  At the contested committal hearing in September 2021, you and your co-accused each pleaded not guilty and were committed.

22In April 2022, an indictment and prosecution opening were filed and served.

23A pre-trial hearing took place in November of 2022 and again adjourned to December 2022 and then to February 2023.  Seal's sentence indication of March 2023 was not accepted by June 2023, with the pre-trial hearing listed in July 2023 for January 2024 for a joint trial in March 2024.

24Seal's matter then resolved with you and Siaoloa to be tried separately, with your trial listed for August 2024.  On the defence application, this was adjourned to January 2025 in August after Seal had been sentenced in July.

25While a sentence indication was listed for November 2024 and the trial listed for February 2025, you offered to plead to Charge 1 on the indictment on 15 November 2024.  This was rejected by the prosecution in December 2024.

26Siaoloa was sentenced on 19 December 2024.

27In January 2025 the prosecution made overtures to the defence reflecting the plea indictment, which was accepted by you in February 2025, and the plea proceeded on 30 April 2025.

28I pause here to apologise for the time this matter has taken to come to sentence.  I have been unwell, subject to a very serious medical condition.

29This chronology enlivens the considerations which flow from delay.  These are factors which have contributed to this.

30The first is the nature of the case and the framing of appropriate charges to reflect the criminality alleged in the framework of the provisions of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth) (‘the Act’), and the factual matrix in relation to the three co-accused, particularly as to the role each played. This impacts on the decision making of each accused in relation to their relative position, which nevertheless has concluded with pleas of guilty being entered, to clear the individual indictments. There may have been some measure of manoeuvring and procrastination to see how the matter would resolve as to each of the accused.

31The second factor was the impact of the pandemic throughout 2020, 2021 and consequently further reverberations into 2022 which affected the progress of this case through to resolution.  In any event, the fact remains that I must take delay into account as a matter of some significance.  I will come to a more detailed assessment of this factor in a moment.

32The first task in relation to a determination of an appropriate and proportionate sentence is an assessment of the objective gravity of your offending.  This evaluation must primarily proceed from the role which you played in the enterprise undertaken, the elements of the offending to which you have pleaded guilty, and an appreciation of the criminality involved in your participation.

33In terms of this assessment, it is instructive that the prosecutor when opening this plea referred to 'two technically co-accused in this matter'.  She continued 'although obviously quite different situations to Mr Shea'.

34This was fairly and clearly a reference to Mr Seal and Mr Siaoloa.  It is important to note that Seal pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, contrary to s11.1(1) and s307.5(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Code’), related to 95.58 kilograms of TFA-methamphetamine contained in four drums delivered from Hong Kong.

35A further offence of attempting to manufacture a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, methamphetamine, for a commercial purpose contrary to s11.1(1) and s305.3(1) of the Code was admitted by Seal, and taken into account in sentencing him to 15 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 and a half years.

36Mr Siaoloa was a co-offender of Seal but not your co-offender. He similarly pleaded guilty to the same main charges, Charge 1 for Seal, as well as one charge of failing to comply with an order pursuant to s3LA of the Act in relation to a serious offence, contrary to s3LA(6) of the Act, and he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of six years.

37The first charge concerns the possession of items, intending these items to manufacture a controlled drug and intending to sell, or believing another person intended to sell, any of the manufactured drug.  These items are listed in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the prosecution opening, being equipment and chemicals that are not controlled precursor drugs but could be used to extract TFA-methamphetamine, the substance that before substitution was contained in the drum, which Seal took to the farm address on 3 September 2020.

38As to this substance, TFA-methamphetamine is a border controlled drug and you pleaded guilty to attempt to possess it.  The prosecution opening described the indicia of your involvement or role.  From these factors the prosecution and the defence submitted that inferences could be drawn as to that role. 

39In my view, to draw some of these inferences to the required standard from the paucity of evidence is to invite error in the sentencing exercise.  Most of the plea was taken up by the defence submission as to your role and culpability.  It submitted you were not 'a major player' and it was the charges which defined your criminality, not the scale of the operation or the so‑called enterprise.  That is, that you are not before the court for an attempt to manufacture, a charge discontinued against you.

40The scope of the laboratory as a fact, the defence accepted to be a relevant factor, but one which did not elevate your offending beyond the role which should be objectively assessed, derived from the available evidence.

41The prosecution have described your role as 'important'.  The defence argued this was a misdescription of your actual conduct.  Beyond what is captured on the footage from the shed, there is no evidence that you played any role involving planning or coordination, or held a critical role in the larger operation. 

42There is no scope in my view for inferring you contributed financially to the cost of the set-up, that you stood to share in the profits, received or were to receive payment for any assistance, did not manage any part of the operation, or had any decision-making role. 

43The defence submitted that not only were the charges faced by you less serious than that of your co‑offenders, but that you could rightly be described as being 'on the margins', confined to a brief presence, not involving any communication, a minor role of low to moderate moral culpability, as the lack of content on your phone relevant to that assessment reveals.

44There are limits to what the obvious relationship between you and Seal can be led to infer, and the level of trust reposed, which would also be uncertain in the limited period of your offending.

45As to Charge 2, the prosecution submitted that the possession of the drum does not form part of the conduct captured by Charge 1, rather part of the surrounding circumstances to demonstrate the scale of the operation.  It lies at the lower end of the seriousness of the regime of drug offences, but is here at the higher end of gravity because of the attempt to possess a large amount.  It is submitted that there should be a degree of cumulation between the charges to reflect the additional criminality involved.  However, I note that the weight of the substance is not in fact an element of Charge 2.

46I generally agree with defence submissions as to your role.  It is firstly useful to start any consideration of this factor by reaffirming that it is difficult, if not often impossible, to rely on labels and definitions to assess the seriousness of this conduct.  It would be too convenient to make assumptions or draw inferences from the few established facts to conclude that your role was much more significant than it would appear because of the scope of the enterprise, the scale of the laboratory on the farm, the capacity to recover methamphetamine, of the equipment and substances, their volume and weight, and even the arrival of the drum onto the property. 

47These cannot wholly be divorced from this assessment as mere context evidence, but the criminality as to Charge 1 does not stand alone and is in my view properly seen in a continuum of criminality whose meaning is enhanced by their combination.  But none of these matters can objectively, without other evidence, lift your involvement and consequent moral culpability from the marginal and low status that it, in my view, is appropriate.

48In my view, the most appropriate sentence is one which reflects the totality of that criminal involvement, both as to Charge 1 and 2.  I regard these charges as part of a course of conduct and the sentence should reflect that, despite that technically there are two distinct offences. They cover, in my view, criminal conduct on a continuum and care must be taken by mere accumulation not to fall into double punishment by that simple cumulation.

49From this I can only conclude that your criminal responsibility and concomitant moral culpability are in the low range.  I do not use Charge 2 to aggravate Charge 1.  It is relevant to the whole criminality.  It would be artificial to seek to completely unlink the two charges; they are interlinked.  By pleading to Charge 2, you acknowledge that part of your function and interest in this effort was to attempt to possess the substance that could have been recovered by the equipment and chemicals in the shed, where you were filmed, and where you had slept. 

50Again, it would in my view be dangerous to then come to the assumptions as to your role, proprietary interest, potential benefit, or position in the hierarchy of planning and organisation from these bare facts.  They are equally consistent with a marginal role without more evidence.  I am not prepared to draw such an inference on the material before me.  I do so particularly as I sentenced Mr Seal and Mr Siaoloa for their offending.

51One issue that I turn my mind to is that of parity.  In my view your conduct is well below that of each of the other two, based on the evidence that is available in your case.  Seal was the principal offender in respect of the clandestine laboratory set up in the shed, with a lengthy involvement of purchases, building and arrangements.  He arranged deliveries and transport, communicated actively with others.  He organised with Siaoloa to take delivery of the TFA-methamphetamine consignment and then collected one drum from Siaoloa and took it to the farm.  He had file notes, research notes, and written instructions compiled.  He used encrypted communications about the shed and his plans.

52Siaoloa was an enthusiastic and subservient assistant to Seal, who took an active role in the pick-up and delivery of the consignment, also discussed rewards and future plans in relation to the substance to be extracted.

53In your case the first charge pleaded to attaches the intent of manufacturing to your possession and from that may be inferred a financial motive, adding the aspect of commerciality to the offending.  I note however that without any other direct or other kind of evidence beyond your marginal role, it is in my view dangerous to conclude what benefit or reward attaches to that criminality.  It would again be too simplistic and speculative to do so, except to note this aspect is part of the criminal intent and the possession involved here.

54I take your plea into account.  The plea has utilitarian value of having avoided the cost and delay of a criminal trial. Your plea brings finality to these proceedings, assists in the course of justice, and I accept that it carries remorse.  It was not entered at an early stage, nevertheless as I explained above, at this juncture of time it has taken this long to bring a conclusion to this matter.  Negotiations concluded in November 2024, in effect, some three months before the trial was to commence and after a contested committal, and I take this plea into account.  It will reduce your sentence.

55The Commonwealth legislation sets out sentencing factors which must be taken into account by the court at part 1B of the Act, specifically in the provisions of s16A(1) and (2). I have taken all these relevant provisions into account.

56Having dealt with the nature and circumstances of the offending, as well as the objective gravity of your involvement, in that context I should add that such offending involves general deterrence as a counterweight to the financial rewards associated with large scale drug offending.

57This offending involving drugs of dependence impacts on the community heavily and the court must denounce such conduct in declaring appropriate and proportionate punishment.  Your moral culpability essentially arises from your awareness of what the laboratory was set up to do, and your involvement in it, even to the marginal extent surmised above. 

58This is conduct which is unacceptable, criminal in nature, and deserving of punishment.  You must have been aware of the substantial risk that the drum contained a border controlled drug and it was unjustifiable to take that risk.  The size of the drum and the way it was found opened, confirms the objective gravity of your conduct in relation to Charge 2.

59I take your personal circumstances into account.

60You are 53 years old.  You were 48 at the time of the offending.  Your mother passed away in 2019, and since that time your relationship with your father has been fleeting.  You have two older sisters who reside in Queensland, with whom you are on good terms.  You moved to Queensland from Victoria in your early 20s.  You had a relationship from which you had three children, all adults who live in Queensland and all of whom have a close relationship with you.

61In 2010 you commenced a new relationship and a son was born to that union; he is now some 13 years of age.  Your partner, Linda Newland, wrote a letter to the court, to which I will refer later.

62After your arrest, you moved back to Melbourne with her while you supported your younger son to live independently.  Ms Newland's mother provided a substantial surety for your bail by equity in her home.  You eventually rented in outer Melbourne suburbs and while on bail you obtained several qualifications, outlined in the defence submissions at paragraph 32.  These were vocational courses for various work and activities designed to facilitate your prospects of employment.

63You completed Year 9 in secondary school.  You did not have a long term and positive work history during your time up to and including your time in Queensland. 

64After your arrest and bail grant, you secured employment with MC Labour Services as a cleaner.  You were then given work by the company as a crane spotter and traffic controller.  Since 2023 you have worked on the Cross City Tunnel Project as a crane spotter.  This period has been the longest period of employment in your life. 

65Following media reporting regarding your arraignment in February of this year, the responsible sub-contractor and the company who sub-contracted the work revoked your access to the worksite as a permanent ban from government funded worksites, however MC Labour Services continue to offer you work.  They make it clear in their reference that you can return to work for them when you are able to do so.

66Ms Newland apparently has also obtained work with MC.  The limitation on the sites where you may work has had an impact on you financially and in relation to accessible working conditions.  This is an extra curial punishment that I take into account.

67You have relevant criminal priors.

68During your plea, it was said on your behalf that you are a man who, for most of your adult life, has been enmeshed in criminality and who has only known criminality in his lifetime.  Even as an admission in a court of law, it is not a good representation to present yourself to the world.  A perusal of your prior criminal history confirms this description of how you have chosen to spend your life since about 1989.

69In January of that year, you were placed on a bond for theft and fined for driving and dishonesty offences.  Other irrelevant convictions followed in 1992 and 1993, but after a significant gap in 2015 you were sentenced by this court for trafficking in a drug of dependence and dealing negligently with proceeds of crime.  The seriousness of that may be gauged by the sentence of 53 days' imprisonment, time you had served.

70In May 2000 before that at Southport Magistrates' Court you had been fined without conviction for the possession of dangerous drugs.

71In both 2008 and 2011 in relation to refusal to answer the Australian Crime Commission questions in 2007 and 2008, you were convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with a minimum of 10 weeks, released on entering a recognisance to be of good behaviour for two years - that in relation to the 2011 hearing - and convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment to be released after serving three months on a recognisance to be of good behaviour for two years.  Those two convictions and their circumstances were briefly outlined in the sentence of her Honour then Judge, now Justice, Hannan in her sentence in 2015, which I have read, and which related to offending in 2009, some six years before. 

72In that sentence, her Honour noted that from October 2011 you had spent some 421 days in reclusion, which her Honour took into account when sentencing you for trafficking.  She found in 2015 that at that time the experience of the criminal justice system was likely to have a significant deterrent effect.  It appears her hopes were misplaced.  She had found your prospects of rehabilitation then were good.

73It was submitted that since being admitted to bail in April 2021 by the Supreme Court, you have fundamentally rehabilitated yourself and reformed the course of your adult life.  Courts should be cautious, by dint of experience, to act on declarations of change in lifestyle.  Like on the road to Damascus, it can happen but it is rare, and two and a half years in the course of a lifetime is short in relative terms.  But at the same time, a criminal court should be slow to claim that a man is either irredeemable, unable to be rehabilitated as a recidivist, or incapable of being reclaimed and reform to a productive and
law-abiding life.

74Your record is not good, but it is not demonstrative of ongoing contumacious life of crime, irrespective of the company you choose to frequent.  Yours was said to be a remarkable transformation.  Such hyperbole are used too often in pleas heard in this court.  Nevertheless, this new course in your life should be encouraged. 

75The criminal law recognises that rehabilitation should be the principle to apply scrupulously in the sentencing synthesis and where possible and appropriate not to stop, interfere or seriously set back prospects of rehabilitation.  I accept there are such prospects on the evidence of this period that I have mentioned.  Perhaps finally at your age, surrounded by good people like your partner and children, satisfied in your work life and having learnt a salutary lesson from this long experience, you can do better.

76The sentence of the court will require you to be of good behaviour for some time.  If your current frame of mind holds you will comply easily.  If not, a court will deal with you, I have no doubt.

77You have a significant sleep disorder aided by a CPAP machine and you may require management by a sleep physician, but you otherwise have no other health issues that stop you from complying with this order.

78Delay carries two limbs to be considered.  The first is that of fairness to the offender, in the sense that a matter that hangs over a man's head for determination over a long period with the serious impacts that has for their lives and the future, is a matter to take into account.  Some of the delay has been driven by procedural considerations outlined at paragraphs 44-57 of the defence submissions.  A significant portion also due to serious illness and unavailability of counsel.  I take into account this limb of delay as a significant mitigating factor in this sentence.

79Predicated on what I said before about rehabilitation, I also take into account the second limb of delay which is about reform undertaken during that period.  I note that since bail was granted there have not been any breaches of that bail to conditions enumerated at paragraph 68 of defence submissions.  I accept your prospects of rehabilitation are good.

80Delay will be taken into account to mitigate your sentence.  I accept that to return you to imprisonment would have a significant impact on your efforts towards reform.  I note that the 230 days - is it 230 or 236?

81COUNSEL:  Two hundred and thirty-six, Your Honour.

82HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Between 3 September 2020 and 27 April 2021 occurred during the COVID pandemic.  Consequently, that time in reclusion was significantly more onerous because of the impact of the pandemic on Correctional conditions and services, involving periods of quarantine, lack of visits and movement, frequent lockdowns, limited time out in cell, and the ever-present danger of contagion.  I have regard to these conditions. 

83In my view parity has a very limited role to play in this sentence, as I have said.  The nature of the offences dealt with and the significant disparity in maximum penalties means that endeavouring to treat the sentence of these three offenders in a like manner is not appropriate, with good reason.

84Pursuant to provision s19(2) of the Act, I am to determine the issue of totality and concurrency on the matters before me. In my view, the important principle of totality allows in this case, when dealing with offending which captures facets of a course of conduct, which lies at the foundation for the two applicable charges to be dealt with concurrently, whilst obeying the s16A(2)(k) requirement about adequate and proportionate punishment for the criminality committed.

85It is not the case here, when properly viewed, that the sentence for one offence cannot comprehend the criminality of the other. These offences are part of a single episode of criminality with common factors. In this sense, s19(2) is not enlivened.

86I also accept that your incarceration would impact on your family in the ways outlined in paragraph 82 of defence submissions pertaining to your partner's health, for whom you are a carer, and your son's mental health and your partner's elderly mother.  In applying s16A(2)(p), I take this hardship into account.

87A large number of cases were provided to the court, some 16 in number, 485 pages relevant to different aspects of the case.  However, the most that can be gleaned from these is an approach and broad range of sentences available.  It was candidly said that these could not be found on a single authority whereby the Charge 1 count was a standalone charge, rather always an adjunct to a far more serious charge.

88I have read the authorities cited and they provide broad guidance as to the way in which to approach the sentence.  The maximum in relation to each of the sentences is another obvious yardstick which I take into account.

89I take into account the material provided to the court by way of letters and references of support, all of which I have read and considered.  They are enumerated at paragraph 4 of the defence submissions.  In this context I was particularly impressed by Linda Newland's letter, as well as the reference from MC Labour Services.  The letters from Mr Morabito, Mr Amad, and Mr Vassallo all attest to a significant shift in your attitude and frame of mind.

90In my view, the protection of the community in the longer term is better achieved by giving you an opportunity to continue your rehabilitation.  I noted that you had family support in court at the plea hearing, and this will continue to be vital to your future conduct. 

91In my view, the sentence which I will impose is a proportionate reflection of the totality of your conduct.  General deterrence is served, as well as some aspect of specific deterrence by the imposition of a period of imprisonment which has been served in part.  The application of a recognisance release order after a specified time served should indicate to you that for a significant period of time your conduct will be under the scrutiny of the Court.

92The core condition of such an order is that the offender will be of good behaviour for a period of up to five years.[1]

[1]Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(b).

93If you fail to comply with that order, the court can revoke that order and order that you serve the remainder of the prison term, amongst other options. This is similar to a suspended sentence. I have considered all of these matters in view of s16A and s17A of the Act and am satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances.

94On Charge 1, I convict and sentence you to 18 months' imprisonment.

95On Charge 2, I convict and sentence you to six months' imprisonment, concurrent with Charge 1.

96I order that these sentences be concurrent upon each other, and I order that you be released on a recognisance release order after serving 236 days of imprisonment. 

97I order the order be upon security of $1,000 and that it will extend for four years.  The effect of the order is that you be released immediately, given that I will declare that you have served 236 by way of pre‑sentence detention, a number I will note for the records of the court.

98Ms Proud, have you received the application under ss48 and 59 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) for forfeiture order and the order pursuant explanatory of that order? Have you seen those documents?

99MS PROUD:  I have, Your Honour.

100HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

101MS PROUD:  Yes.  I have spoken with my learned friend about that and as I understand it, that can be dealt with by way of consent with Mr Shea signing those orders directly, without Your Honour needing to make an order. But if my learned friend has anything to add in relation to that, but those in any event are not opposed, Your Honour.

102HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.

103MS FOOT:  That's right, Your Honour.  We won't pursue those orders for the court.  They can simply be dealt with by consent between the parties.

104HIS HONOUR:  I will leave that with you.  I might just keep these documents on the court file perhaps, or do you need these ones?  Do you have other ways of getting a signature on that?

105COUNSEL:  We have other copies, yes.

106HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  Are there any other matters?

107COUNSEL:  Your Honour, a 6AAA declaration.

108HIS HONOUR:  6AAA doesn't apply to Commonwealth sentences.

109COUNSEL:  Your Honour pleases.

110HIS HONOUR:  The Commonwealth should provide the template for the recognisance order ‑ ‑ ‑

111MS FOOT:  Yes, we will do.

112HIS HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ so that that can be given to Mr Shea and explained to him, but that can happen in court.

113Mr Shea, you can step out of the dock.

114OFFENDER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

115HIS HONOUR:  Mr Shea, you have got some documents to sign, some documents to read.  More importantly, if I was you, I would write this date on your hand in permanent ink.  If you break this order you are going to come back before me, and you can have no doubts about what I am going do to you when you do.  Do you understand?  I don't think you have any reason to come back before me.  At your age, I think you should be over all this stuff.  But if not, then I will welcome you back, the time that you arrive.  Am I making myself clear?

116OFFENDER:  Very clear, Your Honour.

‑ ‑ ‑