Director of Public Prosecutions v Gardam

[2016] VCC 191

Pages 1 - 3   IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication

AT LATROBE VALLEY
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 15-00730

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DANIEL GRANT GARDAM

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 March 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gardam
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VCC 191

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr G. Hughan
For the Offender	Mr G. Casement

1HIS HONOUR:  Daniel Grant Gardam, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking cannabis simpliciter, one charge of prohibited person in possession of imitation firearm and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence.  You are now 37 years of age and you have a considerable criminal history.  You do have prior convictions and findings of guilt for drug use and the sale of substances and you have been, as I understand it, gaoled before and are certainly no stranger to the system.

2Your counsel tells me that you went to Mallacoota where all this took place to get off heroin which you appear to have achieved and I take that into account.  The plea of guilty is at an early reasonable opportunity, being in respect of a settled indictment and although it has been brought about by the dropping of one charge, you still must get the benefit of that.  Remorse of course in a situation like this would be somewhat problematic.

3The circumstances of the offending were that you were in a relationship in February of 2014 in Mallacoota.  You were selling cannabis and being specific, these charges relate to four trips to Melbourne, where you went and brought back an indeterminate amount, but probably around a pound on each occasion, which was then sold around the Mallacoota area.  It is not suggested it is a commercial quantity or even approaching that.  You are no stranger to the use of drugs and the like.

4Ultimately when police raided because of the suspicions, I suppose you could put it that way, of a neighbour, you were found to be in possession of a bag with drugs in it, cannabis in it.  There was also an imitation firearm which I am told was not a dangerous weapon but had it been used in a criminal way, the person on the other end of it may not have realised that.  That is always in my view a relatively serious offence and in my position usually attracts an active custodial sentence.  The drugs that were found in a bag were also synthetic LSD which in the normal course of events might not have carried a gaol sentence but in these circumstances I think it is probably easier if I do.

5The prospects of your rehabilitation are entirely up to you.  Looking at your priors, the risk of you re-offending is always going to be significant but the fact of the matter is that this matter has been, as I have indicated, very sensibly resolved.  You are now living with your parents in Healesville, you have got your driver's licence back and you are looking for work.

6You, upon arrest, were in custody for some 255 days.  You were ultimately bailed and in April of last year were given another sentence on other matters, as well as suffering the restoration of a suspended sentence.  You did another five months which can be interpreted as Renzella time.

7Accordingly it seems to me that in this overall situation, it is a sensible way of getting rid of the matter.  You are no stranger to the system.  You have been in gaol before.  I cannot see any point in sending you back for a short period at this stage.  It would achieve nothing in my view.

8Taking all those matters into account on the three charges, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for an aggregate period of 255 days and I direct that 255 days be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.  That order will be signed now but it will be amended when we get the forfeiture.

9MR HUGHAN:  Your Honour, the only thing, there was a slight mis-statement, completely irrelevant to the sentencing outcome, but Your Honour said April 2015.  It was July 2015 that the five months Renzella time commenced from, that's all.

10HIS HONOUR:  Well, the committal was in April.

11MR HUGHAN:  Yes.  It does not matter but just for the record, Your Honour, that's all.

12HIS HONOUR:  That is all right.  I think you also should be aware of what a bloke I was sentencing here in a trial in November yelled out to me from the dock, "What about me Rosella time?".  I think it was pretty neat.  Obviously got his law books out of the Kelloggs cornflakes packet, I think.  All right.  You can come out of there, Mr Gardam, just in case there are any accidents.  Thank you, gentlemen.

‑ ‑ ‑