Director of Public Prosecutions v Bridges
[2018] VCC 1566
•25 September 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-18-00745
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SHANAN BRIDGES |
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 August 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 25 September 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bridges | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1566 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence –
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr A Albert (Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C Farrington (Plea) | Marcevski Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1 Shanan Bridges, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing 7 charges. Charge 1 alleges that you trafficked in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, namely 1-4 butanediol. Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 allege that you trafficked in the drugs of dependence, methylamphetamine, MDMA, alprazolam and diazepam, respectively. The maximum penalty for trafficking in a commercial quantity is 25 years’ imprisonment. For trafficking simpliciter, it is 15 years’ imprisonment. Charges 6 and 7 allege that you possessed the drugs of dependence, N, N-dimethyltryptamine and cannabis, respectively.[1] As this Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you did not possess either drug for any purpose related to trafficking, the lower maximum penalties apply. For charge 6, the maximum penalty is 1 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 30 penalty units while for charge 7, it is a fine of 5 penalty units.
[1] The amount of cannabis was 6 grams while the amount of substance containing N, N-dimethyltryptamine was 1.5 grams.
2 You also consented to this Court hearing two related summary offences and pleaded guilty to those charges. Summary Charge 16 alleges an offence of deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, namely $8,000 in cash, and carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment. Summary Charge 17 alleges an offence of drive whilst suspended and carries a maximum penalty of 4 months’ imprisonment or a fine of 30 penalty units. I note that in relation to this driving offence, s. 28 of the Road Safety Act 1986 provides the Court with a general discretion regarding cancellation and disqualification of an offender’s driving licence.
3 Mr Bridges, the circumstances in which you came to commit the offences for which you now fall to be sentenced, are set out in the typed prosecution opening dated 23 July 2018 and were, to some extent, discussed and clarified during the plea hearing. I have had regard to that opening and those discussions when determining the appropriate sentence in this case. For present purposes, the following outline will suffice.
Circumstances of the offending
4 You were 24 years of age when you offended and are now 25, having been born on 20 May 1993.
5 At 5.45 am on 15 November 2017, police intercepted you as you drove away from your home address where they had attended in order to execute a search warrant. You readily admitted to knowing that your driving licence had been suspended. The suspension was effective from 11 November 2017, and resulted from your failure to undergo a test to determine your fitness to drive. You were advised of the pending suspension by letter on 3 October 2017. That is the factual basis for the summary charge of driving while suspended.
6 You also told police that you had more than 10 litres of the drug GBH in your bedroom. You were then arrested. When police searched your vehicle, they located a plastic shopping bag on the front passenger seat which contained the following drugs:
· .3 of a gram of methylamphetamine in 3 snap lock bags;
· 454 tablets containing alprazolam in 8 snap lock bags; and
· 476 tablets containing diazepam in 10 snap lock bags.
7 You then assisted police to enter your home and search your bedroom. You provided them with the combination needed to unlock a wardrobe containing two small safes, both of which were unlocked. In that wardrobe police located further drugs as follows:
· 15.4 kilograms of 1-4-butanediol in 20 plastic bottles;
· 28.8 grams of methylamphetamine;
· 5.6 grams of MDMA (ecstasy) in the form of 14 purple tablets;
· 214 tablets containing alprazolam (‘Kalma’ ‘Xanax’);
· 200 tablets containing diazepam (Valium);
· 1.5 grams of N, N-dimethyltryptamine; and
· 6 grams of cannabis.
8 The total quantities of the various drugs and the purity levels of those that were analysed is as follows;
· 15.4 kg of 1-4-butanediol;
· 29.1 grams of methylamphetamine at 72% purity;
· 5.6 grams of MDMA at 33% purity;
· 1.3 grams of alprazolam (pure);
· 6 grams of diazepine (pure);
· 1.5 grams of N, N-dimethyltryptamine (never tested for purity); and
· 6 grams of cannabis.
9 The traffickable and commercial quantity (if any) for the various drugs trafficked is as follows:
· For 1-4-butanediol, 50 grams and 2 kilograms, respectively; there is no large commercial quantity;
· For methylamphetamine, 3 grams and 250 grams, respectively[2];
[2] The statutory threshold amount for a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine was reduced from 500 grams to 250 grams, effective from 1 November 2017, as a legislative response to Haddara v The Queen [2016] VSCA 168.
· For MDMA, 3 grams and 500 grams, respectively;
· For alprazolam, the traffickable quantity is .5 of a gram pure;
· For diazepam, the traffickable quantity is 2 grams pure;
10 In terms of the drugs which were found and made the subject of trafficking charges, I note the following:
· The 1-4-butanediol represents almost 8 times the commercial quantity threshold;
· The methylamphetamine represents almost 10 times the traffickable quantity and 5.82% of a commercial quantity;
· The MDMA represents almost twice the traffickable quantity and just over 1% of a commercial quantity;
· The alprazolam represents nearly 3 times the traffickable quantity; and
· The diazepam represents 3 times the traffickable quantity.
11 In respect to charge 1, trafficking of the drug 1-4-butanediol, the prosecution case extends beyond the 15. 4 kilograms Mr Bridges possessed for sale on the day of his arrest. Analysis of the mobile phone found in his possession on that day revealed that he had also been engaged in sourcing and selling that drug in the 3 month period between 16 August and 15 November 2017.[3] Whilst the amount cannot be specified with any particularity, the evidence derived from the forensic analysis of the phone reveals that it was relatively significant and to be measured in litres.[4] As such, this Giretti style charge is to be contrasted with the single date possession for sale trafficking charges that relate to the drugs methylamphetamine, MDMA, alprazolam, and diazepam.[5]
[3] The relevant evidence from the phone was tendered as exhibit B on the plea.
[4] A litre of 1-4-butanediol equates to about 1 kilogram and was priced at about $1,000 for a litre and $650 for ½ a litre.
[5] Charges 2-5, respectively.
12 It should also be noted that during their searches, police also located various indicators of drug trafficking and use, including the following:
· $8,000 in cash;
· Digital scales;
· Hundreds of small snap lock bags;
· Hundreds of empty pill capsules;
· Numerous empty small plastic bottles;
· Plungers;
· Ice pipes; and
· A mobile phone containing various drug related messages, images and videos.[6]
[6] That material is summarised in the Table at pages 6-8 of Exhibit A and was not disputed by the Defence.
13 Insofar as the phone material related to any drugs other than 1-4-butanediol, I will only have regard to that material for ‘context’ purposes; it is relevant insofar as it shows that on the day of his arrest, Mr Bridges was trafficking a number of other types of drugs by being in possession of them for the purpose of future sale.
14 Mr Bridges possession of the $8,000 cash and the circumstances in which it was found by police, provides the factual basis for the summary offence of possess property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
Arrest and Interview
15 As already indicated, Mr Bridges was arrested on 15 November 2017. When he was interviewed by police later that day, he largely exercised his legal right to give ‘no comment’ answers. He did, however, acknowledge that the police had found and counted the $8,000 cash in his presence and he admitted to driving while suspended. As he explained it, his licence was originally suspended pending a fitness to drive test that he was required to undertake because he had crashed his car after falling asleep at the wheel.
Pre-Sentence Detention
16 After the interview, Mr Bridges was charged and then remanded in custody where he remained for 6 days until being released on strict bail conditions on 20 November 2017. He has remained on bail ever since.
17 Accordingly, for the purposes of section 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the period of pre-sentence detention to be declared is 6 days. I will make a formal declaration in that regard later in these sentencing reasons.
Plea of Guilty
18 I note that this matter resolved at a further committal mention hearing on 11 April 2018. I consider that to have been a plea entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. As a result of taking the course that he did, when he did, Mr Bridges has saved the community the cost and time associated with a trial and shown a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. As such, he is entitled to and will receive a significant sentencing discount.
Criminal History
19 Mr Bridges has admitted the criminal record filed with this Court. It reveals a very limited and largely inconsequential criminal record. On 9 November 2012, he was convicted and fined by a Magistrate for six driving related offences. His licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from obtaining any other for a period of 18 months.
20 Given the limited extent of that history and the disparate nature of the prior offences compared to all but one of the current offences, it is of very little relevance to my sentencing task save in respect of the summary driving offence.
Personal Circumstances
21 I will now briefly describe your personal circumstances, Mr Bridges.
22 As I have already noted, you turned 25 in May of this year. You are the youngest of four brothers and come from a stable and loving family. You were well supported by them and others at the plea hearing.
23 Your counsel described your upbringing and schooling as ‘unremarkable’. You left secondary school at the end of Year 10 as you were intent on becoming an electrician and wanted to work.
24 Initially, you worked for six months in a sheet metal factory. In August 2010, you commenced a 4 year electrical apprenticeship at Gordon & Palmer. After becoming a fully qualified electrician, you were laid off in 2015 when the business had to downsize. The favourable reference from your former supervisor refers to your good work ethic and your eminent employability.
25 You next worked in a warehouse for a few months. Following that, you worked as an electrical fitter from July 2016 to July 2017. You then worked in a similar capacity elsewhere from July to November 2017.
26 From January to July this year, you were employed as an electrician building industrial printers at the business Matthews Australasia. In his written reference, your former supervisor refers to your hardworking nature and impeccable record.
27 Since being released on stringent bail conditions, you have been living in your family’s Glen Waverly home and undertaking casual work through agencies. You are, however, keen to obtain full time employment and I accept that you should have little difficulty doing so when the opportunity presents itself.
28 Like your two work referees, your father, your oldest brother and two of your friends were shocked when they became aware of your offending, which they consider to have been out of character. Each of them consider you to be remorseful, as does the clinical psychologist who assessed you recently.[7]
[7] The references were tendered as a bundle (exhibit 4) while the psychologist’s report was tendered separately (exhibit 2).
29 According to your counsel and others, your arrest and short remand for this matter appears to have been a ‘wake-up call’. Since being released on bail, you have made some positive changes to your life, including undertaking drug treatment, undergoing counselling and making better choices as to who you associate with. You enjoy continuing and strong support from your family and a number of friends. They obviously see a number of positive aspects to your character and believe that you have considerable potential in your working and personal life.
30 You were assessed by the consultant psychologist, Ian Mackinnon, in August of this year. He saw you in his rooms on 1 August and spoke to you on the phone six days later. You attended his rooms in a mildly substance-abuse affected state. On being questioned by him about that, you eventually acknowledged that was so and attributed it to your recent struggle with intermittent substance abuse, especially in the context of your approaching court date and the anxiety that you were feeling about your fate.
31 As noted by Mr Mackinnon, you are in good health and have no history of psychiatric treatment. You are not currently being prescribed any medication.
32 You provided him with a history in relation to your drug use, which he noted as follows. It commenced at age 13 when others in the skateboarding scene introduced you to cannabis. Not long after that, you became a regular user of the drug ecstasy. From age 15, you have sometimes used other substances, including alcohol, cocaine, speed, GHB, Ketamine, LSD and methylamphetamine (“ice”). At around age 20, you were frequently attending nightclubs and using ice regularly. Over the last two or three years, you have tended to use ice, GHB and Valium, often staying awake for several days on end.
33 As noted by Mr Mackinnon, you reported attending approximately fifteen sessions with the counsellor, Ms Amanda Brown, from November 2017 to March 2018.[8] You have also reported seeing a clinical psychologist in Ringwood on some three or four occasions but could not remember their name. You told Mr Mackinnon that you were in the process of arranging admission to a residential substance abuse program.
[8] According to Ms Brown, the period was longer and is continuing: see exhibit 3.
34 He assessed your functional intelligence and general cognitive functioning as falling within the normal adult range. He concluded that you were suffering from a longstanding Poly-Substance Abuse Disorder (PSAD) which was not attributable to any deep seated emotional issues or any particular remote traumatic event. However, you attributed your recent relapse to the fact that your drug using girlfriend broke up with you and moved out of the family home. As you put it: “That messed me up. I relapsed and started using again.” The stress from your imminent sentencing for this matter has caused you additional distress which has tended to fuel your impulse to abuse drugs.
35 With regards to your offending, Mr Mackinnon noted that you did not possess an inherently antisocial or criminal character. Rather, he thinks it probable that your Poly-Substance Abuse Disorder degraded your ability to reason and make sound judgement.
36 He believes that you are remorseful and have a genuine desire to overcome your substance abuse problem. You have acknowledged that you need more assistance than counselling alone can provide and it was to that end that you made the recent enquiries you did with Odyssey House about a residential based drug treatment program. As your counsel explained to this court at the plea hearing, you have been placed on a waiting list and are not sure when you will be offered a place there.
37 In Mr Mackinnon’s view, you require comprehensive treatment for your poly-substance abuse. Given the efforts you have made thus far, including undertaking counselling and therapy and commencing the process for entering a residential treatment program, he is of the view that you have very good prospects of rehabilitation.
38 In the event that you are gaoled, Mr Mackinnon is of the view that you will find the prison environment very distressing and difficult to cope with. I have no reason to doubt that and have taken it into account when sentencing you.
39 The letter from the drug and alcohol counsellor, Ms Amanda Brown, is dated 16 August 2018. She notes that you were drug free for most of the 9 months that she had been seeing you. In her view, your preparedness to attend regularly and undergo frequent urine drug screens as requested, demonstrated your continuing motivation to treatment. As she also notes, however, you relapsed into use of GHB when the emotional distress and pressure from the relationship break up became too much. Ms Brown considers that your dawning realisation of the risk of being incarcerated for these offences may also have also played a part in that relapse. She concludes by observing that you are motivated to change.
Matters in mitigation
40 Your counsel was able to rely on a number of matters in mitigation on your behalf, Mr Bridges. I have already referred to some of those.
41 You have pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity and have demonstrated remorse for your offending.
42 You have a very good work history. I consider that you will have no trouble obtaining further full time work in your area of expertise once you finish serving the custodial sentence that I am about to impose.
43 You are still a relatively young man and your age and prospects are important considerations despite the seriousness of your offending.
44 You have strong and ongoing support in the community.
45 Since being arrested and charged for this offending, you have shown motivation to address your entrenched drug problem with a view to improving your future and reducing your chances of reoffending.
46 As for assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, it must be acknowledged that any such attempt must be undertaken cautiously as much hinges on you successfully overcoming what must be an entrenched and serious drug problem. Your treatment for that addiction must be viewed as being in the relatively early stages. Your recent relapse notwithstanding the counselling and therapy that you had received to that point, and despite the fact that you were facing sentencing on serious drug offences, highlights the difficulties. The road to your long term rehabilitation will not be an easy one and I do not underestimate the difficulty of the task that you face.
47 But, after also taking account of your relatively young age, your lack of any similar or serious criminal offending in the past, your very good work record, your support in the community, the steps that you have already taken to address your drug problem, your remorse and your acceptance of personal responsibility for your criminal wrongdoing, I have concluded that your prospects of rehabilitation, while guarded, are relatively good. In the event that you undertake a residential drug treatment program as you intend to do, I believe those prospects would be considerably enhanced.
Gravity of the offending
48 There are, of course, other matters to which I must have regard apart from those personal to you, Mr Bridges.
49 One of those considerations is the gravity of your offending on this occasion.
50 As indicated by the 15 year maximum penalty for trafficking in a drug of dependence, that type of offence is intrinsically serious.[9]
[9] Charges 2, 3, 4, and 5.
51 That is even more so for the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity which attracts the very high maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.[10]
[10] Charge 1.
52 In respect of the offending alleged in charge 1, trafficking in a commercial quantity of the drug, 1,4, buatnediol, I note the following. It involved not just the possession of a significant quantity of that drug for sale on the day of arrest, but also the earlier conduct of sourcing and selling an unspecifiable but not insignificant quantity of that drug in the preceding months. The quantity of the drug trafficked is one of the factors to be considered. Even the quantity that was found by police during the search of Mr Bridge’s bedroom was very significant, amounting as it did to nearly 8 times the threshold for a commercial quantity. That said, it must also be acknowledged that there is no upper limit for a commercial quantity of this drug, unlike some other drugs. It is also relevant to note that this drug is ‘toward the lower or cheaper end of the illicit drug market’. Therefore, the value and profitability of this quantity of 1,4, buatanediol is considerably less than would be the case for the same quantity of many other types of drugs.
53 By contrast, the trafficking simpliciter offences involved much lower quantities and were restricted to a single date. Rather than encompassing offending that was being undertaken on a continuing basis like that in charge 1, the offences in charges 2-5 inclusive occurred on the same single date and involved the possession of those drugs with the intention of selling them.
54 The fact that the trafficking offences charged in this indictment involved multiple forms of drugs is of considerable concern to this Court, as is the acknowledged fact that there was a profit motive involved. Unlike some cases, the trafficking which occurred here is not wholly explained by the offender’s need to get money to buy drugs for personal use. The trafficking here went well beyond that and, it must be noted, occurred whilst Mr Bridges was engaged in full time employment as an electrician.
55 It is also important to note that Mr Bridges did not voluntarily desist but rather, his offending was only curtailed as a result of the intervention of the police.
56 Given the nature and quantity of the drugs that are the subject of the possession charges, together with the fact of Mr Bridges longstanding drug addiction, I am prepared to accept and find that he did not possess either of those drugs for any purpose related to trafficking. Accordingly, the lower maximum penalty applies in each case. Neither of those offences are trivial in nature but nor do they represent serious examples of their type.
57 The quantity of money the subject of the proceeds of crime charge is by no means insignificant. However, cases involving higher amounts, sometimes much higher, whether involving cash or other types of property, are regularly seen in this Court. I consider this to be a mid-range example of this type of offence.
58 When viewed in its full context, this offending by Mr Bridges was clearly very serious and involved a significant level of moral culpability on his part.
Relevant Sentencing Principles
59 For obvious reasons, general deterrence and denunciation are very important sentencing considerations in this case.
60 For understandable reasons, the community abhors drug trafficking and the harm that it can cause to users and to society more generally. There is a justifiable expectation that the Courts will deal sternly with anyone prepared to commit such a serious offence. A stern response from the Courts sentencing such offenders is necessary in order to appropriately punish those offenders as well as to discourage anyone contemplating engaging in such criminal conduct in the future. The message must be clear; the potential gains are not worth the risk of being caught and severely punished.
61 The very nature and extent of this offending makes it necessary to impose a sentence that goes some way towards personally deterring Mr Bridges from any repetition of this or any similar offending in the future. In that context, it would be naïve to think that there is no chance of Mr Bridges relapsing and reoffending on his future release from custody. That said, I accept that his salutary experience on remand and the drug treatment he has engaged in while on bail have, for different reasons, reduced his chances of reoffending and, in turn, the weight that needs to be given to this sentencing consideration.
62 As Mr Bridges is in the early stages of his rehabilitation from a serious drug problem and as his offending on this occasion was very serious, there is a consequent need for this Court to give some weight to the protection of the community from him when imposing sentence today.
63 Mr Bridges must be justly punished for the serious criminal conduct in which he engaged. When assessing what is just in that context, the Court must have regard not only to the nature and seriousness of his offending but also to his personal circumstances, including the matters in mitigation upon which he can rely.
64 And, this Court must also have regard to his age and prospects of rehabilitation. As I have already noted, he is still a relatively young man who has a very limited and largely inconsequential criminal history. He is someone for whom rehabilitation is a worthy and achievable aim, albeit that considerable and continuing motivation, discipline and effort will be required on his part.
Section 5 (2H) of the Sentencing Act
65 In their sentencing submissions, the prosecution drew the Courts’ attention to s. 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991. That section states, in effect, that in sentencing an offender for a category 2 offence, a Court must impose a custodial sentence (other than one imposed in combination with a community correction order under s.44) unless one or more certain defined criteria are established. Those criteria include where the offender has provided assistance to the prosecuting authorities or promised to do so, where the offender is under 18 and has a particular psychosocial immaturity that has resulted in a substantially diminished ability to regulate his or her behaviour compared to the norm, where the offender had impaired mental functioning that is causally linked to the offending and substantially reduces his or her level of moral culpability or where such impairment would result in the offender being subject to significantly more than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment, where the Court proposes to make a Court Secure Treatment Order or a residential treatment order, or where there are substantial and compelling circumstances that justify not making a custodial order that is not a combination sentence imposed under s.44.
66 In regards to the latter criteria, s.5(2)(ɪ) states that in determining if there are substantial and compelling reasons that justify not making a custodial order of the required type, the court must have regard to the Parliament’s intention and whether the cumulative impact of the circumstances of the case would justify a departure from such a sentence.
67 It was common ground at the plea hearing, that by reference to s.3, the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity alleged in charge 1 of this indictment is, by definition, a category 2 offence for the purposes of s.5 (2H) of the Act.
68 Further, the defence did not seek to persuade the Court that any of the criteria just mentioned could be established in this case. I consider that to have been an appropriate concession in all the circumstances.
Sentencing submissions
69 Accordingly, and in any event, the prosecution submit that nothing short of a term of imprisonment comprising a head sentence with a non-parole period is appropriate in this case.
70 The defence do not argue to the contrary but rather urge the Court to impose the minimum sentence that the law allows, including a relatively disparate non-parole period in order to facilitate and encourage Mr Bridges ongoing rehabilitation.
71 Again, I consider that to be an appropriate submission. So, within the legitimate sentencing constraints imposed on it, this Court will do what it can to foster and maximise what prospects Mr Bridges has.
Analysis
72 Apart from the sentencing submissions made by the parties, this Court has also had regard to the small number of cases to which it was referred on the plea hearing. The decisions from the Court of Appeal were of obvious general import when it came to considering the particular drug 1,4 butanediol. Other sentencing decisions from this Court were provided more for comparison purposes. There are obvious limits to any such exercise, particularly where the number of cases is small. There are numerous points of difference between those cases and this case when it comes to the circumstances of the offending and of the offender. Of course, none of those cases stand as precedents for current sentencing purposes.
73 I have also had regard to the recent High Court decision in Dalgleish. In the end, I must and do keep firmly in mind the particular circumstances of this case and the relevant maximum penalties.
74 After having carefully considered, balanced and weighed the relevant sentencing considerations as best I can, I have concluded that nothing other than a relatively substantial term of imprisonment is appropriate in this case. I would have come to that same conclusion whether or not s. 5 (2H) applied. This was serious offending for which the applicable sentencing principles, if given their proper weight, demand such a disposition.
Sentence
75 In the end, I have decided to sentence Mr Bridges as follows.
76 He will be convicted of each charge.
77 In respect of charge 1 on the indictment, he will be sentenced to a term of 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
78 In respect of charges 2, 3 4 and 5 on the indictment, he will be sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 months’ imprisonment.
79 In respect of charges 6 and 7 on the indictment, he will be fined the aggregate sum of $750.
80 On Summary Charge 16, deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, he will be sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment.
81 On Summary Charge 17, drive while suspended, he will be fined $500. Further, any driver’s licences or permits held by him are cancelled and he is disqualified from obtaining any others for a period of 3 months, effective from the date of his release from custody.
82 The sentence of 2 years and 9 months imposed for charge 1 will be the base sentence.
83 I make the following order regarding cumulation.
84 In respect of the aggregate sentence imposed for charges 2-5, I order that three months of that 12 month sentence is to be served cumulatively with the base sentence. Otherwise the sentences imposed by me today are to be served concurrently.
85 The total effective sentence is therefore 3 years.
86 In respect of that head sentence, I fix a non-parole period of 18 months.
Pre-sentence detention
87 I declare that Mr Bridges has already served a total period of 6 days pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date, in respect of this sentence and I order that such declaration be entered in the records of the Court and that the period be deducted administratively.
6AAA Indication
88 Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had Mr Bridges pleaded not guilty to the charges for which he has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment today and been found guilty of them at trial, he would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 ½ years with a non-parole period of 3 years.
Ancillary Orders
89 I note that the prosecution have made a number of applications for ancillary orders, none of which were opposed by the defence. I consider it appropriate in the circumstances of this case to grant each of those applications. Accordingly, I make the following orders.
90 First, under the relevant provisions of the Confiscation Act 1997, a forfeiture order in respect of the mobile phone and the sum of $8,000 in the terms sought.
91 Second, under the relevant provisions of the same Act, a disposal order in relation to the items listed in the schedule attached to the application and order, in the terms sought.
92 And finally, I order, pursuant to s.464ZF(2) Crimes Act 1958, that Mr Bridges undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from the mouth in accordance with sub-division 30A of Part 3 of that Act, until a sample of sufficient standard is obtained for placement on the database. Having considered the seriousness of the circumstances of the forensic sample offences, I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the making of the order is justified for the following reasons: the seriousness of the circumstances of the offending warrant the order, the granting of the order is not opposed, and the granting of the order is in the public interest.
93 Mr Bridges, I must tell you that if, at the time you are requested, you do not consent to the taking of a mouth scraping under the supervision of an authorised member of the police force, then the sample to be taken will be a blood sample, and police may use reasonable force to enable that forensic procedure to be conducted. Do you understand that Mr Bridges?
94 OFFENDER: Yes.
95 HIS HONOUR: Very well.
96 Mr Marcevski, are there any custody management issues that you consider should be noted on the relevant documentation that will accompany your client into custody?
97 MR MARCEVSKI: No, your Honour.
98 HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
Miscellaneous
99 Are there any other matters which either counsel wish to raise at this stage, either in relation to the sentence or my sentencing reasons?
100 MS HENG: No, your Honour.
101 MR MARCEVSKI: No, your Honour.
102 HIS HONOUR: Thank you counsel. Mr Bridges may now be taken downstairs, thank you.
103 (Mr Bridges was taken from the Court at this stage)
104 Adjourn the Court please, Mr Tipstaff.
2