Director of Public Prosecutions v Carabott (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1684
•18 November 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LISA CARABOTT (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D. SEXTON |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 31 October 2025 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 November 2025 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Carabott (a pseudonym) |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1684 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Trafficking in a drug of dependence; Trafficking in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity; Possession of a drug of dependence
Legislation Cited: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50
Sentence:Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, a custodial part of 38 months; Fine of $350
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr P. Russell | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Melasecca | Melasecca Zayler |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Lisa Carabott,[1] at a Determination Hearing before me on 31 October 2025, you pleaded guilty to an Indictment containing one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment;[2] one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely 1,4-Butanediol, in a quantity that was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment;[3] and one rolled-up charge of possession of a drug of dependence which, in the circumstances of your case, carries a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment.[4]
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s71AC(1).
[3] Ibid s71AA(1).
[4]Ibid s73(1).
2You also admitted your criminal record.
Circumstances of offending
3The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Determination Hearing and Plea dated 9 October 2025, Exhibit 1 at your Determination Hearing. That document contained the agreed factual basis of your offending.
4Your offending occurred between 31 May 2024 and 6 June 2024, a period of one week.
5On 31 May 2024, at around 3.45am, two police officers observed your 2011 Mazda sedan driving erratically on Boldrewood Parade, Reservoir. That vehicle was being driven by you. Police observed that the headlights did not appear to be on, and the car was swerving from left to right at an uneven speed. After conducting a registration check, the police officers intercepted your vehicle and you were pulled over on Broadway, Reservoir at approximately 3.49am.
6The police officers confirmed your identity. You were identified as being on bail for drug possession charges at the time.
7You exited your vehicle and submitted to a pat-down search, which located no items. However, police located the following items inside your car:
(a) Nine (9) plastic bottles containing a viscous liquid, subsequently identified as 1,4-Butanediol;
(b) Four (4) mobile phones, including one that you were using at the time you were intercepted; and
(c) Two (2) black purses, one of which was locked.
8You were arrested and transported to Preston Police Station, where officers conducted a full search. A white crystalline substance, weighing 5.9 grams, was located in your bra. This substance was subsequently identified as methylamphetamine, or ice.
9Police unlocked the black purse found in your car and found four 'deal bags' containing a combined 4.6 grams of a white crystalline substance, subsequently identified as ice. Police also located other drug paraphernalia, including scales, empty Ziploc bags, and syringes.
10You did not participate in a record of interview, and you were remanded into custody on that date.
11Later that day, police executed a search warrant at your home in Bundoora. You shared this address with your mother, who was present during the search.
12Police located the following items in your bedroom and study, respectively:
(a) One (1) black shoebox, which contained, amongst other drug paraphernalia, an empty plastic bag containing 1 gram of a white crystalline substance, subsequently identified as ice;
(b) Three (3) bottles containing a viscous liquid in the weights of 468.8 grams, 485 grams and 330.9 grams respectively, subsequently identified as
1,4-Butanediol; and(c) A safe, which contained:
(i)Fourteen (14) bottles containing a clear viscous liquid, subsequently identified as 1,4-Butanediol, each weighing between 7.2 grams and 426.2 grams;
(ii)Eighteen (18) bags containing a white crystalline substance, subsequently identified as ice, weighing between 0.3 grams and 3.2 grams; and
(iii)Three (3) plastic bags containing various coloured tablets, subsequently identified as MDA and MDMA, respectively weighing between 0.4 and 0.5 grams.
13You were granted bail and released on 3 June 2024.
14On 6 June 2024, police executed a second search warrant of the Bundoora property. The purpose of this second search was to identify any electronic devices that could supply evidence of drug trafficking. You were present during this search, and you cooperated with officers.
15Police located the following items:
(a) A mobile phone;
(b) A glasses case containing empty deal bags and an ice pipe; and
(c) Four (4) bottles containing a clear viscous liquid, subsequently identified as 1,4-Butanediol, at weights between 28.1 grams and 358.4 grams.
16You were arrested and transported to Mill Park Police Station. Officers again conducted a search of you and located a small quantity of a crystalline substance in your bra, subsequently identified as ice.
17You participated in a record of interview, the primary focus of which was to explore how you came to possess drugs of dependence in the period between 31 May 2024 (the date of the first search warrant) and 6 June 2024 (the date of the second warrant), though you mostly made “no comment” to the allegations put to you.
18Charge 1 on the Indictment relates to trafficking ice between 31 May 2024 and 6 June 2024. It relates to the ice located in your car on 31 May 2024, in your possession on 31 May 2024 and 6 June 2024, and at the Bundoora address on 31 May 2024. The total combined weight of the ice in your possession was 42.3 grams. A traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine is 3 grams. Accordingly, you were in possession of approximately 14 times that amount. This charge is put on the basis that you were in possession of the methylamphetamine or ice with an intent to sell. In addition to the quantity of methylamphetamine located, the prosecution also rely upon various indicia of trafficking to support Charge 1, including the possession of scales, empty plastic bags and syringes; the fact that methylamphetamine was stored in a safe and locked purse; the fact that the ice was found alongside large quantities of 1,4-Butanediol; and the existence of various messages sent and received by you indicating your involvement in the selling of drugs of dependence. Some of those messages were set out at pages 9 and 10 of the Summary of Prosecution Opening.
19Charge 2 on the Indictment relates to trafficking in a commercial quantity of
1,4-Buntanediol between 31 May 2024 and 6 June 2024. It relates to the bottles containing 1,4-Butanediol found in your car and at the Bundoora address on 31 May 2024 and 6 June 2024. A commercial quantity of 1,4-Butanediol is 2 kilograms. When combined, the total weight of 1,4-Butanediol in your possession was 6,375.5 grams, or just under 6.4 kilograms, this representing 3.2 times the threshold for a commercial quantity. This charge is put on the basis that you were in possession of the 1,4-Butanediol with an intent to sell. In addition to the quantity of 1,4-Butanediol located, the Prosecution relies on various indicia of trafficking to support Charge 2, including the fact that the 1,4-Butanediol was found alongside quantities of methylamphetamine, and the various messages, examples of which are set out at pages 9 and 10 of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, indicating your involvement in the selling of 1,4-Butanediol.20Charge 3 on the Indictment is a rolled-up charge of possession of MDA and MDMA on 31 May 2024. The Prosecution has conceded in your case that the possession by you of these substances was not related to trafficking activities, hence the lower maximum penalty which is applicable of 12 months' imprisonment.
Nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability
21In terms of the nature and gravity of your offending, the relevant maximum penalties appropriately reflect the general gravity of your offending conduct. In particular, the maximum penalty for trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence is 25 years' imprisonment. It is often said that sentencing for drug-related offending, particularly trafficking, is a quantity-based regime and, all things being equal, the greater the amount trafficked, the more serious the offending. I have already referred to the quantities of the drugs forming the basis of Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment. You were in possession of approximately 14 times the traffickable quantity of ice and approximately 3.2 times the commercial quantity of 1,4-Buntanediol, both representing significant quantities.
22In relation to the substances themselves, as you would well know, methylamphetamines have caused untold grief to the community, and those who choose to traffic in this pernicious substance can expect significant punishment upon detection. There is a need to denounce such conduct, and general deterrence must appropriately be reflected in the sentencing synthesis.
23In relation to the 1,4-Butanediol, courts have recognised that this is a lower value drug and relatively easier to access, and the likely lower yields from trafficking particular amounts are relevant in considering the scale of the proposed operation; and indeed, comparatively lower sentences have been imposed given the reward differential.[5]
[5] DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50 at [33].
24In my view, the messages identified by the Prosecution reflect the broader context of your involvement in trafficking activities, accentuating [sic] both the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it.
25In relation to the substances found upon the execution of the second search warrant, whilst the circumstances arouse suspicion in relation to the ongoing accumulation of substances following the execution of the search warrant, I make no adverse finding in that regard, given that I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that such ongoing accumulation occurred.
26As accepted by the Prosecution in this case, I am of the view that your offending occurred in the context of your own substance addiction issues. There are no indicia in this case of significant sophistication to the offending, nor any accumulation of wealth. In all the circumstances, I have concluded essentially, again as conceded by the Prosecution, that you were involved in street level trafficking. Nevertheless, your moral culpability for this serious offending must be seen as significant.
27I note that you were on bail in relation to possession charges at the time of this offending. Whilst that matter was subsequently dealt with on 28 February 2025 by way of a conviction and discharge or dismissal, the fact that you were subject to a grant of bail at the time of the current offending does elevate your level of culpability for it.
Personal circumstances
28I turn now to your personal circumstances. In gaining an appreciation of your background, I have read and considered the various materials tendered in this matter; in particular, your Counsel's written submissions dated 28 October 2025 and accompanied by an annexure of medical documents,[6] the psychological reports of Luke Armstrong dated 2 July 2025 and 9 July 2025 respectively,[7] and the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court assessment reports.[8]
[6] Exhibit A.
[7] Exhibits B and C.
[8]Exhibit 3 (Case Management Assessment Report by Lauren Coligan dated 3 October 2025) and Exhibit 4 (Clinical Assessor Assessment Report by Krishna Jones dated 1 October 2025).
29You are now 40 years old. Your Counsel characterises you as “a woman who once led a stable and promising life” that was destabilised by your self-medication of untreated medical and psychiatric conditions.[9]
[9] Exhibit A, p. 3 at [11].
30You were born in Sydney in July 1985 to Polish migrants who had left their homeland due to the hardships of life under communist rule. You are an only child.
31You report idolising your father, an oil executive who has throughout your life travelled most of the year due to work.
32You have a more complicated relationship with your mother, a former public servant for whom you are now an unofficial carer. You report being spoilt by your mother as a child, particularly with food. You apparently were overweight as a result, something that your mother criticised you for. It was in this context that, around Year 8, your eating became disordered; your behaviours were anorexic at first, then bulimic.[10]
[10] Exhibit B, p. 3.
33Though you had been until then a conscientious and hard-working student, on a scholarship at a private school, you began to disengage. You report 'giving up' around Year 9. The remainder of your teenage years were highly dysfunctional, marked by weekly blackouts from binge drinking, experimentation with drugs, and at least four occasions of probable sexual assault by older men.[11]
[11] Ibid, pp. 3–4.
34Nonetheless, you graduated high school with an ATAR of 82, no small feat, and you commenced a Bachelor of Human Resources Management at Swinburne University. You moved into a share house and commenced a relationship which lasted until your early twenties. Around this time, you began using ice, which in addition to GHB would become for you a daily substance within three years.[12]
[12] Ibid, p. 4.
35Since your early twenties, you have experienced a plethora of comorbidities, the particulars of which would require significant time and sensitivity to adequately convey. Instead, I will provide only a general overview of your diagnoses: pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), narcolepsy, eating disorder, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, episodes of psychosis or paranoia, agoraphobia, anxiety, depression, and, of particular relevance to this matter, severe drug dependence.[13] Your pulmonary arterial hypertension, caused by your prolonged drug use, is considered life threatening,[14] and you may require a lung transplant in the future.[15] Even in the general sense, your health profile is self-evidently complex and concerning.
[13] Exhibit A, pp. 3 at [12] and 4 at [18]–[24]; see also generally Annexure to Exhibit A; Exhibit 3, pp. 4–5.
[14] Exhibit C, unpaginated – but see final paragraph of report.
[15] Exhibit 3, p. 7.
36You report an impeded ability to feel safe in intimate relationships because of family violence that you previously have experienced from a partner. Indeed, you are the listed Affected Family Member on an Intervention Order.[16]
[16] Ibid, p. 4.
37You first interacted with the criminal justice system yourself at the age of 21. Since then, you have repeatedly reoffended, at a regularity of at least every other year, almost entirely in relation to driving and drugs. Over the past twelve years, you have been sentenced to seven Community Correction Orders, of which you have successfully completed one.[17]
[17] Ibid, pp. 2–3.
38The matter for which you are sentenced today is your first in the County Court jurisdiction and does represent an escalation in the nature and gravity of your offending.
Matters relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order
39I turn now to matters relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
40The purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are to facilitate your rehabilitation, to take account of your drug or alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminal activity associated with drug or alcohol dependency and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency.[18]
[18]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s18X(1).
41Importantly, if I am considering making a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of the community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than the other purposes set out in s5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991.[19]
[19]Ibid s18X(2).
42The criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are set out in s18Z of that Act.
43Firstly, I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs or alcohol.[20] This criterion was conceded by the Prosecution in your case.[21] I note also that Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Clinical Advisor Krishna Jones is of the opinion that at the time of your offending, you suffered from a severe substance use disorder.[22] Accordingly, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the dependency criteria is established in your case.
[20]Ibid s18Z(1)(c)(i)
[21]Exhibit 2 (Prosecution Submissions for Determination Hearing and Plea dated 30 October 2025), p. 9 at [42].
[22] Exhibit 4, p. 6.
44I turn now to the contribution criteria. I may only make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending.[23] The degree of contribution is not stipulated in the relevant legislative provision. Accordingly, in my view I must take a commonsense approach to this criteria to determine whether on balance I am satisfied that your substance use dependency played a role in the commission of your offending. This was also conceded by the Prosecution in your case.[24] Having considered all of the relevant material in this case, I am satisfied of the contribution criteria.
[23] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s18Z(1)(c)(ii).
[24] Exhibit 2, p. 10 at [43]–[44].
45In order to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, I must be satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years.[25] Again, this criterion was conceded by the Prosecution in your case.[26]
[25] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s18Z(1)(d)(ii).
[26] Exhibit 2, p. 10 at [46].
46Ultimately, of course, this is a matter for me, having regard to orthodox sentencing methodology and having regard to the prioritisation of community protection viewed through the lens of your rehabilitation, as set out in s18X(2) of the Sentencing Act. In terms of the sentence that I would otherwise impose, I have already referred to the relevant maximum penalties, the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it, and your previous character. Furthermore, there are a number of mitigatory factors relevant to the sentencing exercise in your case.
47As accepted by the Prosecution, your plea of guilty was indicated at an early stage in the proceedings in the circumstances of your case, justifying a mitigatory allowance due to the utilitarian benefits arising from your plea, together with a reasonable inference that your plea reflects your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and to accept responsibility for your actions.
48In relation to your personal circumstances, I accept, as indicated by your counsel, that due to the multiple challenges in your life you have essentially been
self-medicating with illicit substances for many years. You have clearly shown great potential with regard to your studies in particular though for a considerable period of time you have been mired in what can only be described as complex and difficult circumstances, which have inhibited your ability to improve your circumstances. You have only minimal experience with residential rehabilitation, spending approximately one week at the Windana facility, and otherwise detoxing at various private facilities, before ultimately relapsing.49As conceded by the Prosecution, the complex matrix of your health issues would make any period of imprisonment particularly onerous for you, warranting a mitigatory allowance.
50In considering the sentence that I would otherwise impose, I have had regard to various other matters contained in the Sentencing Act. I have read and considered the various sentencing authorities referred to by both your Counsel and the Prosecution on the issue of current sentencing practices. Clearly, sentences of imprisonment of some length have previously been imposed for this type of offending, although, since the introduction of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court in 2021, Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders have on occasion been imposed for offending of this nature and gravity.
51Given the distinct nature of the offending captured by the Indictment, there is, in my view, a need for a measure of cumulation between Charges 1 and 2, subject as always to the overarching principle of totality.
52In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years in your case.
53Finally, pursuant to s18Z(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act, I must not make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order unless satisfied, in all the circumstances, that it is appropriate to do so. While some concerns were raised with regard to your physical health and your capacity therefore to comply with an intensive order such as a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, you were ultimately found suitable by Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Case Manager Lauren Coligan in her report dated 3 October 2025. Ultimately, in making my own decision with regard to the appropriateness of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case, I can do no better than to quote from the Prosecution written submissions document dated 30 October 2025, a document which, I might add, is of the highest calibre:
'It is acknowledged that Ms [Carabott’s] personal circumstances place her squarely in the cohort of an offender who is likely to benefit significantly from a judicially supervised, therapeutically oriented, integrated drug treatment and supervision regime. It will also go some way to reducing the health risks associated with drug dependency, which are especially pronounced in Ms [Carabott’s] case.'[27]
[27] Ibid, pp. 1–2 at [3].
54Having carefully considered the criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act, and having carefully considered all relevant reports and submissions, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case.
Sentence to be imposed
55Ms Carabott, would you please stand.
56In relation to Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment, you are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. This order commences today.
57A DATO has two parts: the treatment and supervision part, and the custodial part. The treatment and supervision part itself has two parts, which are as follows.
58The core conditions, which are that:
(a) You must not commit, whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment during the time the order is in force;
(b) You must attend Drug Court when required by the Court to do so;
(c) You must report to Melbourne Drug Court House or other specified place within two clear working days after the order is imposed;
(d) You must report to and accept visits from a member of the Drug Court;
(e) You must undergo treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court;
(f) You must give notice of any change of address at least two clear working days before the change, to a specified Drug Court officer;
(g) You are not to leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court; and
(h) You are to obey all lawful instructions from the Drug Court team.
59These core conditions will remain in force for 38 months, or until further order.
60The program conditions, which are that:
(a) You must comply with the Individual Treatment Plan dated 10 November 2025 and signed by you this day, 18 November 2025;
(b) You must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed;
(c) You must submit to detoxification or other treatments specified in the order as directed;
(d) You must attend vocational, educational, and employment programs as directed;
(e) You must submit to medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment as directed;
(f) You must reside at [omitted] Bundoora, 3083 until further order;
(g) You must comply with a curfew that you remain at that address between the hours of 9pm and 6am. This curfew is required until further order;
(h) You must not use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;
(i) You must abstain from alcohol;
(j) You must not drive a motor vehicle; and
(k) You are to do, or not do, anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning your drug and alcohol dependency and the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.
61These program conditions will operate for two years, or until further order.
62The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order is the term of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I not placed you on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, and it is a term of imprisonment of three years and two months. That is made up as follows:
(i)On Charge 1, trafficking in a drug of dependence, 15 months' imprisonment;
(ii)On Charge 2, trafficking in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity, three years' imprisonment – this is the base sentence.
63I order that two months of the term imposed for Charge 1 be cumulative upon the base sentence for Charge 2, making a total effective term of three years and two months, or 38 months, the custodial component of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. This term is not to be served until further order.
64Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of four years and four months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and two months' imprisonment.
65In relation to Charge 3 on the Indictment, possession of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and fined the sum of $350.
66Finally, I grant the disposal order sought by the Prosecution.
‑ ‑ ‑
0