Director of Public Prosecutions v Farah
[2025] VCC 1536
•21 October 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-24-00315
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ABDIWALI FARAH |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4 September 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 October 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Farah | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1536 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW --- SENTENCE
Catchwords: Plea of Guilty --- Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence – Large Commercial Quantity --- Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence – Commercial Quantity --- Possessing an Unregistered General Category Handgun --- Cocaine --- Methylamphetamine --- Heroin --- Pseudoephedrine --- Serious Drug Offences --- Engaged in Active trafficking --- Type of drug and Harm Caused not relevant Sentencing Consideration --- Trafficking to Fund Offender’s Addiction --- Unsophisticated --- Somali Refugee --- Offender Exposed to Civil War --- Drug Use to Numb Past Experiences --- Little English --- Intellectual Disability --- PTSD --- Borderline Personality --- Medicated with Anxiolytic and Anti-Psychotic Medication --- Anxiety --- Depression --- Bugmy v The Queen considerations --- R v Verdins considerations --- Prospects of Rehabilitation somewhat Guarded --- Isolated in Custody --- First Time in Custody
Legislation Cited: Drugs Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1991 --- Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) --- Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151 --- Fernando v The Queen [2017] VSCA 208 --- DPP v Condo [2019] VSCA 181 --- Nguyen v The Queen [2021] VSCA 59 --- R v Nguyen (2010) 205 A Crim R 106 --- R v Pidoto and Odea [2006] VSCA 185 --- Adams v R (2008) 234 CLR 143 --- McCabe v The King [2023] VSCA 329 --- Acciarito v The Queen [2019] VSCA 264 --- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 --- Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119 --- DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293 --- Jawarhiri v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287; DPP v Hermann [2021] VSCA 160 --- Esser v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287 --- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA --- R v Verdins & Ors (2007) VSCA 102
Sentence: 12 years and 10 months' imprisonment --- Non-Parole Period of 6 years and 8 months’
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms N. Simpson | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Y. Yehia | Burn City Legal |
HER HONOUR:
1Abdiwali Farah, on 18 July 2023 police attended your residence at 165/110 Elizabeth Street in Richmond for the purpose of executing a search warrant under the Drugs Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1991. They located a large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine, a commercial quantity each of heroin, methylamphetamine and cocaine, an unregistered firearm and ammunition, and cash and jewellery suspected of being proceeds of crime.
2On later analysis of your Apple iPhone, text messages revealed your active participation in the sale of drugs of dependence.
3The prosecution case which you have accepted by your pleas of guilty, is that you were involved in the trafficking of those drugs by possession for sale and that you intended to traffic in the relevant quantities.
4You have pleaded guilty to three charges on indictment, being Charge 1, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine; Charge 2, a rolled-up charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence being cocaine, methylamphetamine and heroine; and Charge 3, possess unregistered general category handgun, as well as the related summary offences of deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime and possess ammunition without a licence.
Summary of offending
5The details of those matters are as follow. At approximately 6.39 am on 18 July 2023, police executed a search warrant at your residential unit where you were the sole occupant and had resided for 10 years.
6While searching the linen cupboard police observed a makeshift hide above the inside of the cupboard door (the hide). The hide consisted of a small piece of wood which had been secured into the cupboard's internal wooden frame to allow objects to be wedged above the door. A small white cloth bag was wedged in the hide. Police recognised that that white cloth bag contained drugs, and you were placed under arrest.
7During the search of your premises police located the following:
a)Inside the white cloth bag were clear plastic bags containing a white powdered substance wrapped in white paper towel and substances concealed in foil.
b)Also inside the white cloth bag was a jewellery box containing various items of jewellery - Summary Charge 9, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.
c)Two small plastic bags were located on the kitchen counter, one contained a white coloured rocky powdered substance, the other contained a white coloured crystal substance.
d)On the top of the fridge was a silver-coloured revolver wrapped in a blue 'CHUX' cloth (Charge 3). The revolver was not loaded with any ammunition.
e)Next to it on top of the fridge was a green box containing multiple rounds of ammunition inside a white bag (Summary Charge 12 – possess cartridge ammunition).
f)A set of digital scales and a large quantity of empty clip seal deal bags on the kitchen bench.
g)A shopping bag on the floor contained rubbish and two smaller bags wrapped in paper towel. One of the bags contained a white coloured substance and the other a white powder.
h)A Pyrex dish, spoon and razor were also located on the kitchen bench.
i)On the couch in the living room there was a black coloured briefcase which contained $4,800 in $50 and $100 notes (Summary Charge 9, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime).
j)In the pocket of pants on the lounge room floor under the couch a further A$540 (also part of Summary Charge 9).
k)Inside the inner left pocket of a black coloured Prada branded jacket hanging in the wardrobe in your bedroom, was a bundle of notes totalling A$670 (also part of Summary Charge 9).
l)On the floor, next to the front entry door police located a large rubbish bag. Inside were four packages containing a white powdered substance.
8Police also located a grey Apple iPhone 11 and an Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max with an extra SIM card. You provided the code for that phone.
9The total quantity of cash seized was $6,010.
10You were arrested and taken to Melbourne West police station for interview.
11During your interview you admitted residing at the address for approximately 10 years and to the use of the Apple iPhone 12, however, you otherwise denied the offending conduct.
12Analysis of the two phones revealed a number of text messages consistent with the trafficking of large quantities of drugs of dependence between 3 June 2023 and 11 July 2023 (uncharged/context evidence). Messages include references to purchases for several hundred dollars and as much as $5,000. What they also demonstrate is that some purchasers had bought drugs from you on other occasions. This evidence is relied on as demonstrating that the offending was not an isolated incident and as providing a wider context to the offending.
13Analysis of the revolver found on the fridge determined it is a .38 S&W special calibre Smith &Wesson manufactured 10-3 model, selective double action
six-shot revolver. The serial number had been erased. The barrel was shortened and measured 75 millimetres. The gun was able to be discharged in both single and double action (Charge 3).14The ammunition consisted of 56 cartridges (Summary Charge 12). Of those, 55 were able to be discharged from the firearm.
15Your DNA was located on three different plastic bags containing various amounts of cocaine.
16Items of jewellery seized during the search warrant were expertly valued at a total of $8,170 (part of Summary Charge 9). Those items of jewellery included a 1.55 carat blue sapphire, an 18karat white gold and diamond ring, a pair of 18 karat gold Tiffany earrings, a gold and pearl pendant and a white gold chain.
17The total amounts of drugs located is as follows.
Charge
Drug
Gross weight
Total net weight
Charge 2
Cocaine
663.4
522.955 grams
Charge 2
Methylamphetamine
196.4
174.24 grams
Charge 2
Heroin
191.2
141.26 grams
Charge 1
Pseudoephedrine
2477.8
2,148.136 grams
18In relation to the pseudoephedrine that is approximately 2.9 times the large commercial quantity of 750 grams.
19Each of the amounts of cocaine, methylamphetamine and heroin are above the commercial quantity. The amount of cocaine is approximately 2 times the commercial quantity of 250 grams. The amount of methylamphetamine is approximately 3.48 times the commercial quantity of 50 grams, and the amount of heroin is approximately 2.8 times the commercial quantity of 50 grams.
20You were remanded on 18 July 2023 and have accrued - can I just confirm is it 779? I will revise that in due course.
21MS SIMPSON: Sorry, Your Honour, that was at the date of the plea, I will confirm.
22HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. I will confirm that number but those days of pre-sentence detention.
23This is your first experience of incarceration and you have no prior criminal history.
Sentencing Principles
24This is serious offending. Drugs are a scourge on our community. Any offence which involves movement of drugs from supplier to the consumer in our community is serious. That is so because of the significant deleterious effect of drugs on any person who consumes them. Drugs have the capacity to ruin lives - they do so daily. This court sees every day not only the ruined lives of addicts, but the harmful impact drugs cause to victims of violence and abuse at the hands of addicts. Those who traffic in them must expect significant penalties to result.
25The sentence I impose must justly punish you. It must denounce your conduct on behalf of the community, and crucially, it must send a message to other would-be drug traffickers that they should expect significant terms of imprisonment on being arrested and prosecuted. It must achieve community protection by removing drug traffickers from circulation.
26Trafficking offences are governed by a quantity-based scheme. That is, Parliament has determined that there is a sliding scale of seriousness of a trafficking offence based on the amount of drugs trafficked. For an offence of trafficking simpliciter the maximum penalty is 15 years' imprisonment. For an offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity, the maximum penalty is 25 years' imprisonment, and for an offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Quantity is thereby a key indicator to the offence seriousness and a key point of comparison between cases.
27Quantity is, however, only one of the many factors which must be synthesised for the purpose of arriving at an appropriate sentence in an individual case,[1] it determines the category of offending and the maximum penalty. However, it is not of itself determinative of the outcome. In other words, it is a starting point and not an end point[2].
[1] See Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151, Fernando v The Queen [2017] VSCA 208, DPP v Condo [2019] VSCA 181, Nguyen v The Queen [2021] VSCA 59.
[2] R v Nguyen (2010) 205 A Crim R 106.
28Parliament has created a statutory regime reflecting those matters. In addition, the following legislative structures apply.
29Charge 1 of trafficking a large commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine is a Category 1 offence which must be met by a term of imprisonment. A standard sentence of 16 years' imprisonment applies. Upon conviction, I must make an order declaring you to be a serious drug offender[3].
[3] pursuant to section 89DI of the Sentencing Act
30Further, it is a 'serious drug offence' pursuant to the Confiscation Act 1997.
31When I sentence you to a term of imprisonment on Charge 1 you will then fall to be sentenced as a serious drug offender in respect of Charge 2.[4]
[4] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), Part 2A.
32That charge, of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, in your case is a rolled-up charge reflecting three different types of drugs as I have outlined. Each was over the applicable commercial quantity of that substance.
33That charge is a Category 2 offence warranting a term of imprisonment unless an exception applies. It was not suggested that any exceptions apply in your case.
34Mr Farrington properly conceded on your behalf that a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period is warranted.
Objective Gravity
35The gravity of your trafficking offending is elevated by a number of factors.
36First, there are four different types of drugs present – one in a large commercial quantity and three in a commercial quantity.
37Second, although I am to sentence you for the single date offence reflecting the day on which the search warrant was executed, the evidence bears out that you were engaged in active trafficking. In the main that is evidenced by the text messaging over a number of weeks and with various people.
38It is also evidence in the amount of drugs in your possession, the accoutrements of trafficking such as the scales, large quantity of deal bags and the Pyrex dish and cutting implements, along with your possession of amounts of cash obtained as proceeds of crime and other items suggesting involvement in exchange of goods for trafficking.
39Those matters do not aggravate the offending but confirm that this was not an isolated event or a one-off aberration, they provide the context in which I am to sentence you.
40Those matters also support the conclusion that you were the main, if not sole operator, running what can only be described as a business for profit. I accept that given the amounts of drugs involved and discussion on text messages, for example, about a sale worth $5,000, the profit was likely to be reasonably significant.
41Mr Farrington on your behalf argued that I should view Charge 1 as being of less seriousness given the drug involved is pseudoephedrine. He submitted that is a drug not ingestible by a buyer, but rather its value is as a precursor used in manufacture. He submitted that the Commonwealth sentencing context where it is often dealt with should provide guidance. Further, that within that forum it is met by generally lower penalties than methylamphetamine, for example. He submitted that the reason for that distinction lies in the fact it is not a drug consumed by users.
42The prosecution disputes this approach. Ms Simpson referred me to the well-known authorities of R vPidoto and Odea[5], and Adams v R[6] and the more recent authority of McCabe v The King[7], where the Court of Appeal stated:
As a general proposition, trafficking in a commercial quantity of one drug of dependence is no more or less serious than trafficking in a commercial quantity of another drug of dependence listed in Schedule 11 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1991. The same logic applies in respect of the large commercial quantity thresholds.
[5] R v Pidoto and Odea [2006] VSCA 185.
[6] Adams v R (2008) 234 CLR 143.
[7] McCabe v The King [2023] VSCA 329.
43I accept the submissions of Ms Simpson. First, by its inclusion as a drug of dependence in Schedule 11, pseudoephedrine is clearly intended by State Parliament to be subject to the same sentencing regime as other Schedule 11 drugs.
44However, Parliament has chosen to reflect the relative difference in likely value and seriousness of the drug involved by setting the amount of drug required before the threshold of large commercial quantity will be passed. In other words, where a large commercial quantity for heroin is 500 grams, for pseudoephedrine an offender must possess 750 grams before crossing that threshold and being exposed to the higher penalty.
45Second, higher courts have spelt out that the type of drug and harm caused is not a relevant sentencing consideration. Even if I were to take that into account, the reality is that pseudoephedrine is used in the illicit manufacture of methylamphetamine, a highly addictive and dangerous drug. In other words, the end point is the same.
46I also note that pseudoephedrine is a drug which tends to be difficult to obtain. Most often it is imported, which is prosecuted by the Commonwealth DPP under a different regime.
47That regime of Commonwealth sentencing does not include a category of large commercial quantity, nor a standard sentence. In relation to importation of commercial quantities of pseudoephedrine, the maximum penalty is 25 years' imprisonment, whereas other drugs such as methylamphetamine, are met by life imprisonment. That maximum penalty must be taken to be a relevant matter in comparing sentences which result in lesser terms.
48While I can take into account the likely value of different drugs, I have no evidence here of what that would be for the pseudoephedrine or how it would compare to other drugs. I accept, however, that it is likely to be less than an ingestible drug such as methylamphetamine.
49I accept Ms Simpson’s submission that ultimately this is a minor consideration in sentencing.
50I do, however, take into account that the end range for large commercial quantity of any drug is infinite. There are many cases involving more significant amounts and offending committed over a much longer period and for much greater profit.
51Other cases too often involve sophisticated operations, other criminal behaviour, syndicates of offenders.
52I accept in part that your trafficking was in order to fund your own addiction.
53I accept that there was nothing particularly sophisticated about the trafficking, apart from the hide.
54For those reasons, in my assessment the trafficking reflected in Charge 1 is lower level, while not being at the lowest level of that offence. Having reached that conclusion, I have determined to depart from the standard sentence.
55Charge 2 is a rolled-up charge reflecting three discreet offences. In sentencing for that charge, I am bound by the single maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. However, I must consider all the circumstances of that offence.
56Each drug possessed of itself exceeded the applicable commercial quantity for that drug. The quantities involved mean a significant profit was likely. That is a particularly aggravating feature of that offence, and in my view, this is a serious example of that offence for that reason.
57I accept that the acts of trafficking of each drug were likely similar and overlapping, and indeed likely overlapped with those involved in Charge 1.
58In relation to your possession of the revolver, that is also a serious offence due to the risk of serious harm or death that weapon poses. I accept Ms Simpson’s submission that the risk is heightened when the possession of a firearm is associated with ongoing criminal conduct, even where there is no evidence of its use.[8] I must view it in the context of your other offending. It was part of your involvement in the criminal milieu and sensibly was not suggested to be for any other purpose.
[8] Acciarito v The Queen [2019] VSCA 264, [55]
59That revolver was easily accessible and capable of firing. Although not loaded at the time of the search, ammunition was handy. Its serial number had been erased and the barrel shortened, although I cannot conclude whether those acts were done by you or someone else. What they show is again that it is part of unlawful activity.
60The applicable maximum penalty for that offence is seven years' imprisonment. In my view it warrants a degree of cumulation.
61Your possession of money and jewellery forms part of the overall picture of trafficking.
62Overall, the picture here is one of serious criminal behaviour for which your moral culpability is high.
Personal Background
63Turning to your personal background. You are 43 years old and were born in Somalia, the tenth child in a sibship of 14 children. You were exposed to the widespread violence of civil war that followed the fall of the Siad Barre regime. You recall your school being stormed and a man being shot in front of you.
64Your family scattered. Your parents had already separated and you, with your mother and some siblings, fled and were forced to hide in the jungle. Food was scarce. Many people you knew died because of famine or animal attacks.
65Your family ultimately fled Somalia for Kenya and a refugee camp. You were about nine years old. You lived in the camp until getting a visa to Australia when you were about 14.
66Life in the Dadaab refugee camp was similarly difficult. It was intended to house approximately 80,000 Somalis but the numbers ballooned. Food supplied by humanitarian aid organisations was scarce and shelter was created out of whatever was available. Your family lived under plastic sheeting. Climate was marked by dust storms or rain.
67As a young boy without an adult male present, you were vulnerable to predative men who committed sexual offences against you. Those acts, inflicted without consequence, did not stop until you left the camp.
68Your family was further splintered when you came to Australia in the mid-1990s with your mother, two brothers and two sisters, after being granted asylum and arriving as a 14-year-old. Your father passed away when you were a teenager.
69Of course, those early experiences were the backdrop to you coming to a foreign country.
70You had little English. After a short language course, you were enrolled in a high school in Heidelberg. It was difficult. You were bullied. You struggled to make friends. To your credit you remained in school to the end of Year 12, although you did not pass. Your modus operandi in school was to keep quiet and avoid interactions with others. In Year 9 you had a teacher’s aide. Your now diagnosed intellectual disability no doubt also played a part in your academic difficulties.
71After leaving school you obtained work as a machine operator at Heinz where you remained for about seven years. That job was a menial one involving repetition which suited your abilities. You have held other similar jobs, up until the mid-2000s when you were retrenched. Since that time, you have been largely directionless.
72You have been a drug user for most of your life, starting with cannabis as a 15-year-old then progressing to cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin from your late adolescence.
73Your one relationship which produced your eight-year-old child, broke down because of your drug use. You have no contact with your child. Your addiction continued until the time you were remanded for this offending.
74At the loss of your job, you descended further into addiction, actively selling drugs in part to fund your use. Your trafficking snowballed to the point of the large quantities seen at the time of your arrest.
Bugmy v The Queen
75Mr Farrington on your behalf submitted that your personal background, in particular prior to your life in Australia, enlivens the principles enunciated by the High court in Bugmy v The Queen[9]. That is, as restated by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Marrah v The Queen:[10]
Circumstances of deprivation, abuse and other social disadvantage occurring during an offender’s formative years are more than matters of historical significance to the administration of justice. The effects of such social disadvantage do not generally diminish with the passage of time and are likely to have profound and lasting consequences.
[9] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.
[10] Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119.
76The consequence of a finding that Bugmy is applicable is that your subjective culpability cannot be equated with a person who committed the same offences but had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment.[11] Even where, as here, those circumstances are some time ago, it is well recognised that childhood trauma can leave a mark on a person, permanently damaging and seriously distorting a person’s view of the world around them.[12] That finding of significant deprivation is therefore a matter which does not diminish with time and must be given full weight in sentencing.[13]
[11] DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293 quoted in Jawarhiri v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287; DPP v Hermann [2021] VSCA 160.
[12] DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293.
[13] Esser v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287.
77I accept that the applicability of principles of Bugmy v The Queen is a mitigating factor which reduces your moral culpability.[14]
[14] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 at [44].
78You have been assessed by consultant clinical neuropsychologist Mr Warwick Brewer for the purpose of your plea. He opines that your resort to drug use in your teens was in order to numb the effects of your experiences in Kenya and Somalia. I extrapolate that drug use may also have been a way to fit in.
Verdins
79Mr Brewer conducted various psychometric tests and assesses you as having an intellectual disability. He opines that your IQ of 52 to 60 falls in the 'impaired range'. I must therefore take into account the principles outlined in Bugmy viewed through that additional prism.[15]
[15] Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA; Esser v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287.
80Mr Brewer also states that on testing you 'exceed the threshold criterion to warrant further clinical exploration of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder,' stemming from your early life experiences. You continue to experience flashbacks which are recurrent and intrusive. You have ongoing traumatic nightmares, dissociative reactions, prolonged distress after exposure to memories or triggers which act as reminders, and physiologic reactivity.
81In a similar vein you meet clinical threshold for a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Mr Brewer’s caveat on both diagnoses is that they should ordinarily follow a longer therapeutic relationship.
82It was not disputed by the prosecution that those diagnoses are made out on the expert material, but with that caveat. You are currently medicated in the prison system with anxiolytic and anti-psychotic medication.
83Mr Brewer also opines that you suffer diagnosable anxiety from your untreated PTSD and are at risk for diagnosable levels of depression on the back of past history of suicidal ideation. He also states that your assessment raises questions of an acquired brain injury potentially sustained through a workplace accident or from your chronic drug use.
84Mr Brewer properly concedes that your intellectual disability is in some contrast to your capacity to offend in the way you have done, and likely with past employment. Substance abuse is also a likely contributor to your intellectual compromise. There is no suggestion that you are in any way unable to understand right from wrong.
85Mr Farrington submitted nonetheless that the principles of Verdins[16] are also enlivened here, specifically that your moral culpability is reduced on account of your intellectual disability in combination with PTSD and likely BPD. I accept your moral culpability is reduced on account of your mental impairment.
[16] R v Verdins & Ors (2007) VSCA 102.
86Mr Farrington further submits that you are not an appropriate vehicle to be held up as an example to others for the full application of general deterrence. I accept that to be the case. Similarly, on the basis of the report of Mr Brewer I accept that your limited intellectual capacity means I should moderate the impact of specific deterrence. Those considerations of course are not eliminated.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
87In terms of your prospects of rehabilitation, in my view they are somewhat guarded. Although you receive the benefit of your prior good character, this offending is serious and often committed by people without a past criminal history. Although you receive the benefit of the mitigating effect of Verdins' considerations, Mr Brewer opines that you are not likely to benefit from targeted or evidence-based treatments for that offending or your drug use until underlying trauma is addressed. That is likely to be a long-term process.
88In addition, your limited intellectual facility, entrenched scripts associated with trafficking and your limited social supports, are significant hurdles to your demonstration of significant and sustained improvement.
89Without being able to demonstrate meaningful and sustained therapeutic engagement, he opines you are a moderate to high risk of reoffending.
90I take into account what I was told that you are motivated to regain your relationship with your child.
91I take into account that your brother, who spoke to Mr Brewer and is present on the link today, is a support to you.
92However, you otherwise have very limited supports.
93I take into account that you are likely to be quite isolated in prison. You and your siblings have elected not to tell your mother where you are and as such you have no contact with her. Contact with siblings has been limited, in particular, as you are housed at Fulham some hours from Melbourne.
94Although it was not specifically submitted that your mental health will make imprisonment more difficult or is at risk of decline in custody, in my view that environment is a conflictual and stressful one which would be more difficult to navigate with an intellectual disability and PTSD. It may also trigger your past trauma.
95Mr Brewer does note that the structured and routine environment may have a paradoxically beneficial effect. Without fulsome treatment, however, his view is you will continue to experience significant distress, 'as indeed [your] current presentation of trauma features demonstrates’ despite being medicated. I take those matters into account.
96I also take into account this is your first time in custody.
Plea of Guilty
97I take into account that you have pleaded guilty to this offending. You must receive the benefit of that plea.
98Although in my view this is not an early plea of guilty and you ran a contested committal, your plea has a utilitarian benefit in that it saves the court and the community the cost and time of a jury trial.
Current sentencing practices
99I have had regard to current sentencing practices. I have considered in relation to Charge 1 sentences imposed on standard sentence offences. I have looked at both Victorian and Commonwealth offences.
100Standard sentencing is not a starting point nor an end point but a legislative guidepost I must, and do, consider.
101I have had consideration to a number of cases including those helpfully referred to me by counsel, along with the JCV sentencing summaries.[17] As always there are similarities and differences between offending and offender. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
[17] Judicial College of Victoria, ‘Sentencing Manual Case Summaries’ (Web Page) < was no dispute in all the circumstances that a head sentence and non-parole period is the appropriate disposition here.
103In assessing the length of that term of imprisonment, I must take into account the principle of totality and ensure that the total effective sentence reflects the overall criminality and is not crushing.
104The sentence on Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
105In relation to Charge 2 you are to be declared a serious drug offender. In sentencing you as such I must regard protection of the community as the primary purpose of sentencing. It was not suggested that a disproportionate sentence was warranted.
106Cumulation is warranted given the seriousness of Charge 2.
107In addition, I propose to cumulate a modest term to reflect the seriousness of Charge 3.
108In determining the overall non-parole period, I have taken into account your prior good character and lack of any other offending, your plea of guilty, your background and mental impairment and your isolation in custody. Those matters have led me to conclude that I should reduce the non-parole period from the 60 per cent required where there is a standard sentence in play. That will also ensure that when you are released to parole you are under supervision for some time.
109I am just going to stand down for a couple of minutes. I believe the pre-sentence detention is 828 days.
110MS SIMPSON: I had 826 days.
111HER HONOUR: I might ask counsel to just confirm that. I'm just going to have a couple of minutes, thanks.
(Short adjournment.)
112HER HONOUR: Thanks very much. Have you confirmed the PSD - - -
113MS SIMPSON: I have 826 days, Your Honour.
114HER HONOUR: 826.
115MS SIMPSON: Yes.
116HER HONOUR: And that's agreed, Mr Yehia.
117MR YEHIA: It is, Your Honour.
118HER HONOUR: All right, thanks. And the declaration as a serious drug offender has to be for Charges 1 and 2, correct.
119MS SIMPSON: Yes. That's right, yes.
120HER HONOUR: Thanks. All right, thanks very much. Mr Farah, the sentences I impose are as follows - you can remain seated there.
121On Charge 1 of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years and eight months' imprisonment.
122On Charge 2 of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
123On Charge 3 of possessing an unregistered general category handgun, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
124On Summary Charge 9 of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
125On Summary Charge 12 of possessing cartridge ammunition, you are convicted and fined $500.
126I make the following orders for cumulation:
127Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
128Two years and eight months of Charge 2 and six months of Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively on each other and on the base sentence.
129The total effective sentence therefore is one of 12 years and 10 months' imprisonment.
130I declare that you are to serve a minimum term of six years and eight months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
131I declare that you have already served 826 days' imprisonment and that that term should be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
132But for your plea of guilty - so if you had not pleaded guilty - the term I would have imposed would have been one of 15 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years.
133I declare that you are a serious drug offender in relation to Charges 1 and 2 and that that should be entered in the records of the court.
134I make the forfeiture and disposal orders in the terms sought by the crown, noting they were not opposed.
135Are there any matters to raise, counsel.
136MR YEHIA: Nothing further, Your Honour, thank you.
137MS SIMPSON: No, Your Honour.
138HER HONOUR: All right, thanks very much. I have another matter, Mr Yehia, but I'll ask my associates just to leave you on the link with Mr Farah or to leave the link on for a few minutes when I leave - - -
139MR YEHIA: I'll be very quick, Your Honour.
140HER HONOUR: All right.
141MR YEHIA: Thank you.
142HER HONOUR: Thanks very much counsel for your assistance in this matter.
- - -
0
14
0