Director of Public Prosecutions v Bell
[2025] VCC 1084
•30 July 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT BENDIGO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR 25-00397
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| EMILY BELL |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE DEMPSEY |
WHERE HELD: | Bendigo |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 July 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 30 July 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bell |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1084 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence
Catchwords: Trafficking in commercial quantity of 1,4 Butanediol, possession of proceeds of crime and other drugs. Possess weapon. Relevant criminal history. Difficult personal circumstances. Early plea of guilty. Lengthy period of remand in onerous circumstances. Capacity to reform.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958, Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, Sentencing Act 1991, Control of Weapons Act 1990 s5AA.
Cases Cited: R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; R v Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169; R v Pidoto & O’Dea (2006) 14 VR 269; DPP v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50 ; R vGayed [2021] VSCA 141; R vDanaf [2020] VSCA 226; R v Gatho [2019] VSCA 226; R v Gelmi [2020] VCC 864; R v Roach [2020] VSCA 205; R v Mathis [2025] VCC 393; R v Mitchell [2016] VSCA 321; Phillips v The Queen [2012] VSCA 140; Norman v The King [2023] VSCA 213; Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623.
Sentence: TES of 3 years 8 months, with NPP of 2 years 2 months.
PSD 342 days.
s.6AAA of 4 years 6 months with NPP 3 years and 3 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Cordy | OPP |
For the Accused | Mr W. May |
HIS HONOUR:
INTRODUCTION
1Emily Bell, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges, carrying the accompanying maximum penalties:
#
Charge and particulars
Legislative Provision
Max Penalty
And other statutory matters
1
Trafficking a Drug of Dependence in a Commercial Quantity
(1,4 BD)
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s71AA(1)
25 years imprisonment
2
Possess drug of dependence
(Methylamphetamine)
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s73
5 years
3
Possess Drug of Dependence ( rolled up Valium, Oxycontin and
Suboxone)
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s73
5 years
4
Possess ID
Information
Crimes Act 1958
s192C(1)
3 years
RSO 3
Possess Prohibited
Weapon
(flick knife)Control of
Weapons Act 1990 s5AA
2 years
RSO 4
Deal with property
suspected of being proceeds of crime
($8 075.45)Crimes Act 1958 s195
2 years
2The offending, especially the drug trafficking is serious. Drug trafficking causes enormous harm in our community. You, yourself, have a history marred by violence and controlled by men that you form relationships with and abuse drugs yourself in that tragic context. You pleaded guilty early. You have a criminal history of relevance but have proven at times to be both resilient and capable of change and rise above your difficulties to live drug free, be a mother, and be an industrious employee. Prison has been onerous on you, and you have taken efforts to reform yourself while on remand for close to a year.
3It is sensibly conceded by your counsel that the only available disposition for this offending is a head sentence and a non-parole period. [1] For reasons that I am about to come to, I will sentence you to a total effective sentence of three years and eight months and set a non-parole period of two years and two months.
[1]The offence of trafficking in a drug of dependence of not less than a commercial quantity is a Category 2 Offence under s3(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991. A Category 2 offence requires that the Court impose a custodial order unless an exception applies pursuant to 5(2H)(a-e) of the Sentencing Act. No exception was claimed here.
OFFENDING [2]
[2]Taken from Exhibit A: Summary of Prosecution Opening (SPO) dated 26 June 2025, which was an agreed set of facts.
4You were 33 years of age at the time of the offending, living in Parkville.
Observations
5On 22 June 2024, Sergeant Curtis Dillon observed you pulled over in the emergency lane between Harmerly Lane and Gashers Road on the Calder in Ravenswood in a black Audi that had cloned registration plates. Dillon observed you naked sitting in the driver's seat with the driver's door thrown open, throwing up. He observed drug paraphernalia in clear view. A search was conducted of your vehicle. I cannot and do not sentence you on the basis that you drove to this location in that state.
6On the passenger seat was a cardboard box that had an Australia Post postal address in Seabeach Parade, North Shore Victoria, for someone by the name of Bethany Zealy.
Location of drugs and other items
7Inside the box were 14 white bottles with Asian language writing on the labels. The bottles contained approximately 7.4 kilograms of 1,4 Butanediol, otherwise known as GHB. This represents Charge 1, trafficking in a drug of dependence commercial quantity. I note the commercial quantity for that substance is 2 kilograms.
8This box was delivered to the above address on 19 June 2024. It is a fair inference that given your possession of Ms Zealy's identification, that you collected that package.
9Your handbag was located on the passenger seat behind the cardboard box containing the 1,4 Butanediol. Inside it was a grey coloured bag containing 8.8 grams of methylamphetamine. This is Charge 2, possess drug of dependence. I note that 3 grams is a trafficable quantity.
10In the same handbag was a prohibited weapon, namely a double-edged flick knife. This is summary Charge 3, possess prohibited weapon. And located further was a substantial amount of cash totalling $8,075.45 in cash and coins. This is Charge 4, deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
11A clear black plastic box was located in your handbag containing prescription medication: 52 suboxone strip with blue labels; 15 suboxone strips with green labels along with Valium and oxycontin. This represents Charge 3, possess drug of dependence which is a rolled up charge.
12You also had a small leather wallet inside your handbag and the wallet contained $615 in cash, a debit card in your name, and a fraudulent Victorian driver's licence in the name of Bethany Zealy, that is say the consignee's identification details. This is Charge 4, possess identification information.
Interview
13You were conveyed back to Bendigo police station but were unfit for interview at that time, and as such an interview was conducted the following day.
14On Sunday 23 June 2024 you were interviewed and mostly declined to comment. You did state that the black Audi was yours but would not say who the car was registered. I note the use of cloned plates on that car. You would not give police the passcode to your mobile phone that was seized, when you were asked during your interview.[3]
[3]This refusal is not charged as an offence.
Case history
15The matters resolved quickly in the following way
Date Event 22 June 2024 Offending
Arrest, interview and remand24 June 2024 Filing Hearing. 25 September 2024 Committal Mention 16 October 2024 2 months imprisonment for proceeds of crime charge 23 October 2024 Committal Mention 11 March 2025 Committal – matter resolved prior to hearing. 30 July 2024 Plea
342 days PSD referrable to this matter
403 in total
BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS [4]
[4]Taken from Exhibit 1: Outline of plea submission dated 28 July 2025 and Exhibit 2: Report of Ms Kennedy dated 30 June 2025.
Details
16You are 34 years of age, an eldest of the sibship of three. Your parents separated when you were eight. Your father operates a concrete business and lives in Seaford and your mother in Woodend. Your family life was free from abuse and/or neglect. Your younger brother is currently in custody. Your younger sister is a teacher and lives in Bendigo. You have a good relationship with your family and your sister and father regularly visit you in custody. They love you and are prepared to support you if you can get your life back together.
17You have a daughter aged 16. At the time of the offending she was in your care. Since your remand, she has been placed with your sister pursuant to a family reunification order, and that order is due to expire but will soon be extended apparently for another further 12 months. Your sister arranges regular Zoom visits with her.
Education
18You attended school until Year 8 before being expelled for fighting with another student. This placed some limitations on your employment opportunities in the past, but you seem to have overcome those to your credit. You were a poor student but have never been diagnosed with a learning disability. You attribute your poor performance at school to being rebellious and associating with negative peers. You began using cannabis heavily around that time.
Relationships
19You have had five major relationships in your life which have profoundly shaped your life. Ms Kennedy, psychologist, who has provided a report in this case makes the astute observation that you impressed as someone with impairments as to your ability to plan and execute positive and self-sustaining behaviour. You present as struggling with the sequalae of domestic violence and illicit substance abuse.
20I will detail your personal circumstances including your motherhood, drug abuse, trauma and offending in that context.
21Your first significant relationship was at the age of 14 with your daughter's father. He was 18 when the relationship began. That relationship lasted for 11 years. You describe that relationship as good but controlling, for example he would not allow you to have a phone or a bank card. You can see now that the age gap played some part in that imbalanced power dynamic. You split amicably in 2016 with you taking primary custody of your daughter.
22In 2019 you began a new relationship which you consider ultimately led to the personal circumstances that you find yourself in now. You were already a regular user of cannabis, but this partner introduced you to GHB and at age 26, you rapidly became addicted. He encouraged you to be involved in his offending. He was physically abusive, culminating for instance in him placing a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, only for it to jam. Police placed an intervention order against him which remains in force to this day, but historically it seems it was not observed by him. The relationship only ended when you were imprisoned in 2020, a period which was followed by a CCO preventing him from contacting you.
23You describe GHB as your downfall, helping you escape from the reality of your life. The corrosive effects of family violence on individuals is now well understood. How you became immersed in the acquisition, use and sale of GHB must be seen in this context. You commenced methamphetamine at the same time as GHB, misguidedly believing that you function better with it.
24Due to the violence in this relationship and your own drug use, your daughter had earlier been removed from your care and placed with your sister. On your release from custody though you went on to fight and fought hard for her. You had her returned. Her return was ultimately granted in 2021. From that release until the present matters, you maintained a productive and respectable life. You completed your CCO and went to work in traffic control, having gained that qualification in custody. You maintained that employment for three years. You lived with your daughter in a private rental and stayed off drugs. These are the foundations of a stable life.
25It is in part this past period of stability that you do not necessarily consider you might need ongoing counselling. I take a different view, as will be evident in these sentencing remarks.
26Your descent back into drug addiction commenced with a new relationship with an old acquaintance in December 2023. You do not wish to further expound on the circumstances of that relationship, other than to say it has ended. Your goals upon release are to remain drug free, return to work in traffic control, and reunite with your daughter. You acknowledge that given her age, it will be largely her decision whether that occurs. I hope that your desire to be an active present mother to your daughter provides the necessary motivation for you to reform.
Psychological profile
27Ms Kennedy says that you suffer from a raft of dependent and borderline personality features and lack the skills for independent life. You have a limited capacity to effectively solve problems and to act with good judgement. For that reason alone, one can see the need for structure and scaffolding your life.
28You attempt to cover up inner state of anxiety, vulnerability and emotional dysregulation by self-medicating with illicit substances. This has further led to low self‑esteem, distorted self‑image, and heightened sensitivity to criticism and rejection.
29Sadly you are afraid of being left alone or fear that you will not cope on your own and appear to place a real premium on having a partner. The relationships you end up in are not healthy. Your life at times is quite chaotic, which may be a product of your underlying near constant state of anxiety. Seen that way, your dependence on substances is a common maladaptive mechanism that is part of the cycle of dependence and offending.
30Ms Kennedy says that you have got chronic anxiety, you are impulsive, and you are medicated for PTSD. All of this is confounded by drug use of course, which provides another impetus for supervision and assistance.
31These matters were not raised in support of an argument that the principles in Verdins[5] apply, but rather to assist me in understanding your vulnerabilities, limitations, and to appreciate just how much assistance you may need post release.
[5]R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
Forensic history
32You admit a number of prior convictions. Between 2013 and 2024 you have made seven appearances in the Magistrates' Court.
33You admit a troubling number of driving offences for which you have been given CCOs in the past, as well as suspended sentences in 2013 and 15. By 2018 you were in court for weapons charges for which you were placed on a CCO, along with possession of drugs, for more driving offences including fail oral fluid test, as well as breaching the previous CCO. You were placed on another CCO then.
34In 2020 you were before the courts yet again for more driving offences, committing offences on bail, possession of drugs, and relevantly trafficking GHB. You were dealt with for weapons charges, this time guns, as well as dealt with for breaching CCOs imposed on you back in 2018. You were sentenced to a combination sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a community corrections order upon release. As I said, I am told you completed that CCO and lived drug free and contributed the world and in your life, described by your counsel until recent events led to this offending.
35You are not to be punished again for those prior matters, but it tells me something about the need for community protection, the need to specifically deter you, and your prospects for reform.
This offence
36You explained this offending in the context of substance abuse, and I have already dealt with your own GHB use and your association with it. Your memory about it is vague, principally because of the sheer amount of GHB you, yourself, were using. You were afraid for instance that the GHB you had used had spilled and would somehow seep through your clothes and skin. Heavy drug use corresponds with your history and your chaotic behaviour and presentation at the time.
Post offence
37You have 342 days of pre-sentence detention, not including the plea date. You have been in custody for a total of 403 days, but on 18 October of last year you were sentenced in the Magistrates' Court to a period of two months for a subsequent matter, that is I say, dealt with prior to this offence, but dealt with afterwards for negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime.
38As I said, you maintained a connection with your daughter whilst in custody and that is significant. That your family still loves you and supports you is significant too. You have undertaken prison programs as best you can.
39Dame Phyllis Frost Centre is currently experiencing lockdowns due to staff shortages, which has impacted on you in the following ways:
(a) the prison is segregated, meaning that each unit within the prison is confined to itself. The idea behind this was to implement rolling lockdowns of each unit however, you instruct the entire prison has been locked down almost daily;
(b) the lockdowns mean that you have missed visits and medical appointments when there has been no staff available to escort you to the visit centre or the medical centre;
(c) the prison gym is only available on the weekends with 15 spots available;
(d)you are unable to attend the library or education centre unless an escort is available. As escort is required to even place a request to access the medical centre;
(e) the only time you are able to move through the prison is when attending or leaving work in the kitchen.
40The current regime may justify the aware of emergency management days, but it is understood there has been no declaration to date.
41You also underwent a medical procedure at the Royal Women's Hospital on 12 February this year. You have had post-operative complications which have continued to date. You have had to take multiple rounds of antibiotics. Your most recent medical advice on 11 July is that you will be referred back to the Royal Womens.
42While it is not suggested your medical condition cannot be managed within the prison, it is submitted that it increases the custodial burden, particularly by increasing the levels of anxiety you experience about whether you will or will not receive timely treatment for your medical needs.[6]
[6]See exhibits 4 and 5, as extracts from your Justice health file regarding ‘dental surgery’ and’ ‘surgery’ respectively.
43In combination, it was submitted that the additional hardships faced while in custody should moderate the sentence, not to the extent that this type of issue was considered during the pandemic,[7] but in a similar way, and I agree.
[7]See Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169
44You hope to move to Tarrengower Prison, where there are more opportunities for courses and the like upon sentencing.
MATTERS OF SENTENCING PRINCIPLE
Trafficking commercial quantity
45Plainly, trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs is a serious offence. A maximum penalty available of 25 years' imprisonment alone is evidence of the seriousness with which Parliament views this offence and provides a yardstick against which this sentence is to be imposed should be considered. Trafficking in drugs is an inherently pernicious trade. Drug offences are a substantial societal evil. Judicial officers have a responsibility to fix sentences which are designed not only to punish, but to serve as an effective deterrent. General deterrence is the dominant purpose for which sentence is to be imposed has been emphasised by sentences in many Australian jurisdictions and that much is inarguable.
46In this State there is a quantity based sentencing regime according to the weight of the substance (and not the perceived hierarchy of harm of that substance, which informs the maximum penalty).[8]
[8]R vPidoto & O’Dea (2006) 14 VR 269.
47Weight or quantity alone is not the only metric to measure the gravity of an offence. Other factors relevant to the assessment of gravity include
(a) the role of an offender,
(b) the position of the offender in a drug trafficking hierarchy,
(c)the nature and extent of the offender's involvement in that enterprise, the sophistication of the enterprise,
(d)the duration of the activity,
(e) the amount of drugs involved or intended to be involved, and t
(f) the motivation for the offenders involvement.
48Your counsel concedes that Charge 1 in particular is a serious offence and concerns a quantity of a little under four times the commercial threshold, although well short of what would constitute a large commercial quantity. It was conceded that you were also in possession of a significant quantity of cash and a variety of other drugs.
49The offending on Charge 1 is constituted by possession for sale on a single date. While there is contextual evidence that the package containing the drugs had been in existence for four days earlier than your arrest, there is no evidence it had been in your possession over that whole period, or that you were involved in broader trafficking.
50Despite being in possession of the consignee's identification, there is no evidence that you were involved in ordering or the delivery of the package, but did collect it.
51There is a lack of other aggravating factors present here such as operational violence or intimidation, or any complexity to the offending. You were very much substance affected at the relevant time. There is little other evidence to assist the court in assessing what your role was and the level of sophistication of the operation, if any.
52I can only conclude that you would engage in your offending for the prospect of profit. The potential value of the drugs would differ obviously depending on how it was to be sold, which on any view of it must have been of some moment.
53While there is no street value alleged for the drugs, the higher courts have recognised that substances akin to 1,4 Butanediol are generally less profitable than other drugs. [9]
[9]DPP v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50
54It is conceded that general deterrence, just punishment, denunciation, protection of the community - and given your relevant prior matter - specific deterrence have an important role to play in this exercise. While not determinative of the assessment of the objective gravity of the offending, the amount trafficked is important because all other things being equal, the greater the quantity trafficked the more serious the offence. While each case of course must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, other sentencing cases may be of assistance in guiding the court where those cases bear similar features, or where such cases deal with relevant sentencing provisions, and I have a chart of relevant sentences imposed for trafficking in a commercial quantity of 1,4 Butanediol. [10]
[10]Exhibit 6: Chart of sentences imposed in 1.4 Butanediol cases
55The 10 cases referred to differ wildly in terms of quantum alone, but generally speaking when one looks at cases such as Gayed,[11] Danaf [12] and Gatho[13] and Gelmi[14] for instance, the sentences are much lower than what one would expect based on quantity alone if that substance was something anything other than 1,4- Butanediol. The sentences in those cases ranged between 7 years to 4 ½ years for between 1402kg and 42kg of 1,4- Butanediol. I was specifically taken to Roach[15] and Mathis[16] (where sentences were 3 years and 3 months and a 4-year DATO respectively) by Mr May which confirms that view.
[11][2021] VSCA 141.
[12][2020] VSCA 226.
[13][2019] VSCA 226.
[14][2020] VCC 864.
[15][2020] VSCA 205
[16][2025] VCC 393
56I do not want to give the impression that Charge 1 is somehow minor offending; it is not. It is serious offending and GHB is obviously a harmful substance. You, yourself, can attest to that. Nor am I engaged in some kind of de facto parity exercise with reference to the cases I just mentioned. I have approached the use of comparative cases with a degree of caution. They are certainly of assistance but do not set the outer limits of my sentencing discretion.
Other drugs
57As for other drugs, as the Court of Appeal explained in Mitchell,[17] separate acts of trafficking or possession of different drugs must be treated as involving separate criminality, the seriousness of which must be assessed separately for each drug and that will be reflected in the sentence I impose.
[17][2016] VSCA 321, [27].
58You possessed nearly three times the trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine. That is a significant amount by any measure but there is no objective support for the contention it might be for a purpose relating to trafficking. I cannot exclude that it was for your own use and that much is consistent with your prior history. The amount of the other drugs are comparatively modest and do not appear to be for sale, like that which is the subject of Charge 1, but rather are consistent with your own drug use. I propose to impose short and current sentences on those charges. I note that Charge 3 is rolled up. My view is that they do not add much to the criminality encompassed in Charge 1.
Identification information
59The possession of identification information is concerning. The possession of the victim's identification in your wallet is obviously concerned with the trafficking. Section 192(C1) of the Crimes Act1958 criminalises not just the possession of identification of others, but it also requires proof that they be possessed essentially for nefarious purposes, and you accept that that is so through your plea. Your possession of the identification of another was for the purpose of committing the offence of trafficking a commercial quantity of drugs. There is of course a degree of overlap here with Charge 1, but that overlap is not complete. I have been careful not to doubly punish you for this and have imposed a sentence of imprisonment that is subsumed by way of concurrency in relation to Charge 1.
Weapon
60The possession of the double-edged flick knife is inexcusable. There is no reason for you to have such a dangerous item, and you could offer none. You have no prior convictions for violence although you do have prior convictions for possession of weapons and dangerous items of different types.
Proceeds of crime
61Proceeds of crime offences carry a broad spectrum of activity and can be committed in a number of ways under Division 2A under the money laundering provisions. You of course pleaded to the charge under 195, which requires only proof that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is the proceeds of crime. Such a charge carries with it only a maximum penalty of two years. I have had regard to the amount of money you have dealt with, the duration and nature of the dealing. I still consider a modest amount of cumulation necessary and appropriate here.
Plea of guilty
62You entered a plea of guilty at an early opportunity and that plea is an important sentencing factor. You are entitled to a meaningful discount,[18] it demonstrates a willingness to accept full responsibility for your offending and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice, as well as demonstrating remorse. The savings to the community are noteworthy.
[18]Phillips v The Queen [2012] VSCA 140 at [38].
Rehabilitation
63It is submitted that you have demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation through your participation in prison programs. That is impressive, given the issues that you faced in prison.
64Ms Kennedy notes that you present with a number of challenges to your rehabilitation in the community, most notably you have severe personality disorder symptoms and your means of coping are often through drug use. You are not without hope though. You may rebuild your life with the help of an active multi-disciplinary support system in the community. Though youth is not on your side, you have previously demonstrated that you can emerge from prison and lead a normal life. The setting of a meaningful parole period would further the community's interest in ensuring your ongoing rehabilitation through therapeutic interventions administered by the Adult Parole Board.
65I find your prospects to be guarded but not extinguished. Under the right circumstances you may be reclaimed and perhaps even prosper. That will be a matter for you.
Totality
66I am mindful of the significance in this case of the application of the principle that requires me for sentencing you for multiple offences, to ensure that the aggregate term I impose is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved. There must be appropriate relativity between the totality of all criminality and the totality of the total effective sentence, and that is true when I consider the interaction between the many charges on the indictment, as well as the related summary one for that matter. I have considered how the intervening sentence of two months imposed while you were on remand impacts on this sentence too.
67I have determined an appropriate length for each charge taking the applicable sentencing considerations into account and designated the highest term, being the base, and then determined to what extent there should be any cumulation regarding each count and finally stood back and considered in light of totality, what an appropriate sentence ought to be.[19]
[19]Norman v The King [2023] VSCA 213 [54]-[55].
68It appears to be accepted that the proper application of principle results in head sentences and non-parole period that fall within a common proportional range and that comparisons to these ranges is permissible in exercising the sentencing discretion. While courts have repeatedly stated there is no usual non-parole period, the empirical observation is that non-parole periods usually fall within a period of 60 per cent to 70 per cent range that still informs the sentencing task by performing an important guide to sentencing judges.
69You will undoubtedly require supervision, monitoring and assistance upon release. In affixing an appropriate sentence for you and allowing for a parole eligibility component, I have had regard to the principle of parsimony; that is the requirement not to impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purposes for which sentence is imposed.
70The period I have set pays due regard to your prospects for reform while maintaining an appropriate weight to be given to the necessary and important countervailing factors when sentencing. I have allowed for a measure of mitigation of punishment in favour of your reform through conditional freedom, when and if the Adult Parole Board sees it appropriate. [20]
[20]Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
71I have set a non-parole period for you not too far in the future, to encourage you to continue your efforts at reform.
72I come now to those parts of my reasons where I formally pass sentence on you. There are obviously serious matters in mitigation that temper the sentence I impose, and I have endeavoured to explain to the best of my ability what they are in this process.
SENTENCE TO BE IMPOSED
73I come now to the part of my reasons where I formally pass sentence on you. There are obviously matters that mitigate or temper the sentence I impose, and I have endeavoured to explain what they are in this process. I sentence you as follows
#
Charge and particulars
Max
Sentence
Cumulation on base on each other
1
Trafficking a Drug of Dependence in a Commercial Quantity
(1,4 BD)
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s71AA(1)25 years imprisonment
3 years 4 months
Base
2
Possess drug of dependence
(Methylamphetamine
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s73)5 years
4m
Concurrent
3
Possess Drug of Dependence (Valium, Oxycontin and
Suboxone
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s735 years
2m
Concurrent
4
Posses ID
Information
Crimes Act 1958
s192C(1)
3 years
3m
Concurrent
RSO 3
Possess Prohibited
Weapon
Control of
Weapons Act 1990 s5AA2 years
4m
1m
RSO 4
Deal with property
suspected of being proceeds of crime
Crimes Act 1958 s1952 years
10m
3m
74It is my intention to sentence you to a TES of 3 years 8 months (44 months). I set a non-parole period of 2 years 2 months (26 months).[21]
[21]Which represents approximately 60% of the head sentence.
PSD
75I declare that you have served 342 days in custody and that will be deducted from your sentence.
Section 6AAA
76But for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four and a half years with a non-parole period of three years and three months.
Ancillary
77I will order disposal of the drugs of dependence and forfeiture of the flick knife, cash, and mobile phone.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
13
0