Director of Public Prosecutions v Gonzaga
[2013] VCC 1122
•1 August 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-13-00095 & CR-13-00097
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ZIGFRED GONZAGA |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 1 August 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. Gonzaga | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1122 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal law – plea - sentence
Catchwords: Trafficking - commercial quantity – methylamphetamine – possession precursor chemical – community corrections order inappropriate – poly-substance abuse – prior criminal convictions – imprisonment
Legislation Cited: s.71AC, s.71AA, s.71D and s.73 of the Drugs Poisons & Controlled Substances Act (1981) - s.145 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 - s.195 of the Crimes Act 1958
Cases Cited:Ibbs v. R (1987) 163 CLR 447 - R v. Pidoto [2006] VSCA 185 - Mili Bala v. R [2010] VSCA 78 - R v. Cheung Wai Man & Ors (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 22 March 1991, unreported) - Mustica v R [2011] VSCA 79 - R v. D'Aloia [2006] VSCA 237 - R vMcLeish (1982) 30 SASR 486 - Hall v. R [2010] VSCA 349 - DPP vLeach [2003] VSCA 96
Sentence: Four years imprisonment with non-parole period of two and a half year years plus two penalty units.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr B. Nibbs | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M. Amad |
HIS HONOUR:
1 As has been remarked, you have pleaded guilty to four counts in this matter, being Case Numbers CR-13-0095 and CR-13-0097. You were represented by Mr Tovey of Her Majesty's Counsel and have this day been represented by Mr Amad. Mr Nibbs appeared for the Director on both days.
2 The first of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty is one of trafficking methylamphetamine, an offence against s.71AC of the Drugs Poisons & Controlled Substances Act (1981) (“the Act”). The period involved in such trafficking is one of two months from 17 April 2012 to 17 June 2012. As has been pointed out by your counsel and is obvious from the record of interview, such details of such period of trafficking came about from essentially your own admissions. The instigating factor insofar as all of these offences are concerned is the fact that you were apprehended on 17 June 2012 and, again, as a result of a warrant and a search of your premises, you were found to be in possession of the items that make up the most serious charge in this case.
3 It should not be underestimated the seriousness of Charge 1, however, the maximum penalty proscribed in that matter is one of 15 years. By distinction, the second charge, an offence against s.71AA of the Act, trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, involves a penalty imposed by Parliament of 25 years' gaol. That, in itself, indicates the seriousness with which Parliament views such offences. The defined figure under the Act for a commercial quantity of pure methylamphetamine is one of 100 grams. In this instance, you were found with 228 grams which is approximately two and a quarter times that figure.
4 Charge 3 is one of possession, also on 17 June 2012, of a prescribed precursor chemical, in this case, 4.7 litres of same. That is an offence against s.71D of the Act for which the maximum penalty proscribed for a breach of that provision is one of five years.
5 The final offence is under s.73 of the Act and that is an offence of the possession of 0.8 of a gram of methylamphetamine. The relevant penalty, given that amount, is one of 30 penalty units in the circumstances of that case and that offence occurred on 5 May 2012.
6 The Court was also asked, pursuant to the provisions of s.145 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, to deal with a summary matter which was a breach of s.195 of the Crimes Act 1958, that is that you dealt with the proceeds of crime, in this case $890 cash and a number of other items. The maximum penalty that can be proscribed for that matter is two years' gaol.
7 I have been asked to sign a s.464ZF retention notice, a disposal order and a forfeiture order. I am not certain, Mr Prosecutor, where we are with those have I signed those or not.
8 MR NIBBS: Copies were emailed to your associate, I have hard copies if you require them.
9 HIS HONOUR: In the circumstances, in the seriousness of the matter I do intend to sign the retention order because of such seriousness.
10 I have signed all the relevant orders. It is also to be pointed out that you have served two days by way of pre-sentence detention.
11 As was detailed, you are a mechanic by occupation and were born on 12 July 1988. At the time of these offences you were aged 24, you are now 25. Essentially, your prior matters are unrelated to offences of this seriousness. You had a driving matter which was essentially unrelated, however, in July 2008 you had an offence for assault in company and recklessly causing injury. You received leniency from the Court in that instance, in the sense that you were placed on a Community-based Order and apparently you complied with the requirements of that order.
12 With the consent of both counsel, Exhibit A was tendered being a Summary of the Prosecution Opening in this case.
13 The circumstances of this offending, as I have said, came to light after your apprehension, the issuing of the warrant and, upon the attending at your home and the finding of the various items which are drug trafficking accoutrements. Those matters are set out in particular at Paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Summary.
14 As I have said, the precise circumstances as to your trafficking over the period of approximately two months came about from your own admissions. That particular admission concerned, in particular, the circumstances set out at Paragraph 11(c), that during such period you discussed the issue of prices. As you said the price of buying Ice was approximately $8000 to $10,000 an ounce and it would be sold for between $11,000 to $12,000 an ounce. (See Questions 109 to 117.)
15 Clearly, the drug that you were dealing with, as shown by Exhibit B, Certificate of the Analyst, was of high purity. The amount you were found with was 255 grams, making up the quantity detailed in Charge 2, 228 grams of that amount being pure methylamphetamine.
16 Your role, as you indicated in the record of interview, answers 271 through to 214, was essentially one of holding drugs of this type and quantity and delivering them, as you were bidden. Your role was not a role which related to the price at the street level and indeed, as you said at Question 18, you did not know what one gram would actually sell for. Your role was, as you described it, to simply drop off drugs which you would do some three to four times per week, as you set out in your answer to Question 360. You confirmed your position in the hierarchy, in the sense that, at Question 298, you said you did not sell to the punters.
17 As I pointed out, the accoutrements of trafficking were found at your premises. Insofar as the profits that you attained as you describe in your record of interview, even on your income which was relatively good because of your skills, you could not continue with paying for the drugs you were consuming. As a result of your trafficking enterprise, at Question 346, you said you made “a couple of grand”, plus you obtained supplies for yourself.
18
To get a proper appreciation of your role and your knowledge, there is nothing better than going to your own words and I want to read from p.42 of the record of interview. At Question 378 you were asked this:
Q: "Have you thought about the implications of what you've been doing?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "Upon society?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "What do you think about it?"
A: "It's not good."
Q: "Why is that?"
A: "Because it's like supplying them with a bit of, like, you know, that's harming themselves by doing all this and I just, you know, supplying it to them."
Q: "Are you aware of the dangers of people using Ice? Of people using it?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "Are you using it yourself?"
A: "On the odd occasion, yeah."
Q: "How often are you using it?"
A: "Probably four times a week or so."
Q: "Sorry, how many?"
A: "Four, four times a week."
Q: "And how long have you been using it?"
A: "Probably about six months or so."
Q: "Did you start off paying for it or was it given to you?"
A: "Yeah, started paying for it."
As we know, the consequences were inevitable and eventually you got to a stage where you couldn't pay for your drugs and here you are today having pleaded guilty to these serious charges.
19 As to the general principles involved in heinous offences like this, Mr Gonzaga, the Court is required to determine the level of criminality in a manner as set out by the High Court in the case Ibbs v. R (1987) 163 CLR 447, 452. It is necessary to recall in such consideration that the Court of Appeal in this State in the case of R v. Pidoto [2006] VSCA 185 considered principles appropriate to sentencing in these cases. At Paragraph 34, four of the Court of Appeal Justices noted the structure now adopted by Parliament as being "a hierarchy of seriousness defined by and only by the quantity of the drug of dependence which is being trafficked".
20 It is to be pointed out, as is obvious by your plea in regard to the most serious charge, that you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity. Equally, though a less serious matter, the charge of trafficking simpliciter is over the period of two months. The Court of Appeal in regard to such crimes said further, in Mili Bala v. R [2010] VSCA 78, the following,
"The sentencing regime for drug trafficking offences is quantity based, which means that quantity trafficked will ordinarily be a key indicator of the seriousness of the offence, though it is never determinative of penalty."
21 I finally want to refer to the words of Sully J in R v. Cheung Wai Man & Ors (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 22 March 1991, unreported) which related generally to the trafficking of drugs and it is pertinent, in particular, to the sentence that I am to pronounce here. His Honour said, as to such trafficking, such a crime is:
"… in a very real sense, a declaration of war upon this community. It is a distinct challenge both to concepts of human dignity and to moral values otherwise which are fundamental to our way of life. It is no less a challenge to the rule of law which is in the end the ultimate guarantor of the personal freedoms and of the social stability which all of us Australians take for granted."
22 Hence as to the objective circumstances of your case, the objective criminality in regard to Charge 2 clearly is primarily indicated by the quantity itself. As I have said, two and a quarter times the defined amount for a commercial quantity, or higher than what is known as the threshold.
23 In regard to Charge 1, the amount is simply the amount described as trafficking simpliciter and the criminality is also defined in this case by the period, albeit only a period of two months. Clearly in that period, to use the words of Ashley JA in Mustica v R [2011] VSCA 79, you were an active and persistent trafficker. You were a supplier to suppliers to street vendors and, as best as I can ascertain, you were the person facilitating the supply of drugs at the wholesale level in this particular hierarchy. You were the person obtaining the drugs from whoever your associates were higher in the chain, you were holding them for appropriate times and then distributing them, as you said, sometimes up to three or four times per week. But, as you maintained, you were not dealing with the street punters.
24 As a general approach to sentencing, Judges in crimes of this type are helped by the words of Nettle JA in R v. D'Aloia [2006] VSCA 237 at [56] where His Honour said:
"…so far as the effects of (cannabis and) MDMA are concerned, the matter may still be approached on the basis that all of the drugs which are proscribed have deleterious consequences of anti-social proportions and that trafficking in any of them is therefore properly to be regarded as a serious criminal offence. - 15#15."
25 I also point out the case of R vMcLeish (1982) 30 SASR 486, 492, where the Court spoke generally about the failure of the authorities to be able to find and prosecute the top persons in these drug rings and of the circumstances where it is often that this Court is involved in sentencing persons lower down the chain, where you are. His Honour said this:
"It seems to me to follow that after making all due allowances for the personal circumstances and antecedents of a prisoner, the facts of the particular case and the need to show such mercy as is compatible with the safety of the public a court should impose such a sentence as will spell out clearly to those minded to establish or continue an unlawful organisation for purveying drugs as well as potential recruits, the simple truth that man who participates in such an organisation, at any level, must expect and will receive a heavy penalty."
26 Your objective criminality upon your plea and after taking account of the circumstances is therefore to be classified, in particular in regard to Charges 1, 2 and 3 as in the high range.
27 As explained in the case of Hall v R [2010] VSCA 349, having assessed the heinousness of the conduct the next task is to consider the personal factors relevant to you and they are, of course, the factors put to me by Mr Tovey on the plea and, of course, by Mr Amad today as to the issues of mitigation of penalty. It is to be pointed out that the Director, for whom Mr Nibbs appeared, having heard the circumstances and plea, put to me by your Counsel and solicitor, were of the view that a Community Corrections Order would be an inappropriate determination and submitted to the Court that a term of immediate imprisonment, given the seriousness of these matters, was warranted.
28 Mr Tovey referred me to two cases, not in any way to indicate that I should necessarily follow them, but in each case to indicate that the course that he proposed was possible. To that there is, of course, no dispute. No Court is proscribed or restricted in the penalties it might impose and the full range of penalties are available, albeit the seriousness of such matters. The point Mr Tovey was making was that, despite the serious nature of your offences, Mr Gonzaga, it is not always necessary for an immediate custodial sentence to be placed.
29 Insofar as DPP vLeach [2003] VSCA 96 was concerned, referred to by Mr Tovey, , albeit that the sentence in the particular circumstances of that case involving a non-custodial sentence was upheld, it is to be pointed out that at [9] of the decision, the Court said:
"This Court has, on a number of occasions, emphasized its concern with the destructive effects of drugs in our society and the importance of general deterrence as a sentencing consideration. The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment and involving immediate incarceration would, I consider, in all but rare circumstances be required for the commission of the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs whether in the role of courier or some other capacity."
30 Mr Tovey, of course, relied upon, in [15], the comments referred to by King CJ, in R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212, 212-3 where he stated:
"There must always be a place for lenience which has traditionally been extended even to offenders with bad records when a judge forms the view almost intuitively in the case of experienced judges, that leniency at a particular stage of an offender's life may well lead to reform."
I can assure you that in regard to a person of your age, with your background, that principle weighs very heavily on all Judges, in particular this Judge in this case.
31 Mr Tovey also referred me to DPP vTokava [2006] VSCA 156. Again in that instance in the particular circumstances of that case and the youth of the person involved, the sentence below of the Court was not interfered with. And indeed, as was referred to me at [21], the Court noted that a sentencing Judge should be astute to investigate whether a non-custodial disposition is to be preferred, even in a case of a serious offence if, in the long term the community's interests would be best served by that course. The President, in particular, spoke of the effects of gaol and the impact of gaol upon reformation and those matters are well acknowledged by the Court.
32 It was for the ultimate purpose of the submission that your case be dealt with by way of a Community Corrections Order with the imposition, if necessary, of three months' gaol, and Intensive Treatment Orders to be imposed, that Mr Tovey took me to those cases. Indeed, the matters put by Mr Amad today developed a slight variation upon that ultimate submission, based upon the tendering of the report from ASCO and also the report of Mr Newton, from Central Melbourne Psychology, backing up the comments of Mr Lambretti and upon the advice to me today from Mr Amad that you have undergone assessment for admission to a residential facility, that Mr Lambretti has still been working with you and it is your intent, if you are allowed, to leave work immediately to undergo reformation in the sense of rehabilitation from your drug effects at such a residential facility.
33 Insofar as your background was concerned, it was pointed out how skilful you are, in particular, your work as a mechanic with Audi and the fact that in 2011 you won, within that organisation, the award for the Apprentice of the Year. The Court was advised that you live at home with your parents and all the drug items, as we've already heard, were found in that home. You receive, for your age, a good wage of $600 per week. It was put that your distribution work, in this case of drugs, was being done on behalf of someone else and that, clearly, is acknowledged.
34 Your family's background was set out. The manner in which they had come to Australia and raised and educated a family and worked very hard within the community. You were supported totally by your family. You went on to do Computer Science at RMIT. You have been involved in coaching of junior baseball sides and generally you are held in very high esteem by your friends, family and community. Many of those persons being here today have offered strong support for you.
35 As to the circumstances leading to you being involved in such serious criminality, given the fact that there was no indication in your past that you would be involved in such matters, and further, that you have been the product of a caring and dedicated family, I must say, the Court struggled to try and understand what was the basis of you being involved in such criminality. Mr Tovey put, consistent with your record of interview, that you first became involved because a friend of yours owed money for drugs and that you therefore, although you were already significantly involved in personal borrowings, you borrowed to pay off his debt of $13,000. It was a result of that loan that led you to these circumstances. I must say I found that very difficult to accept. It sounded like some crazy form of circular reasoning, but for whatever reason somehow, and it is very difficult to know, you have, despite your background, gone askew someway or somewhere and involved yourself in this very serious criminality.
36 Exhibit 2 contained references as to the your employment. They speak highly of your circumstances, your exceptional commitment to work, the representation that you have effected on behalf of Audi and a description of you as a person being one of the three top technicians in the organisation and our employer indicated that he trusts you unreservedly.
37 Exhibit 3 made up 12 personal references that all talk about you as being held in very high esteem and personal references which confirm my comments about the manner in which you have been raised, and caringly raised, by your family. Evidence in particular of a member of your family was given by Ms Albaran. She has known you since the age of 15. She was not aware of any indication that you were on drugs and was totally without knowledge of same until these circumstances came about. She had accepted your advice as to how you got involved. She wondered why when you got into financial problems, you didn't seek your family's help. She could only think that for some reason you were too proud to seek help. As I say, I find the whole background based upon that line is incomprehensible, and I do not accept it.
38 Ms Albaran said she had spoken to you about these offences and she offered her personal strong support as was the strong support offered by all the personal references and your family, as I say, evidenced again here today.
39 Mr Lambretti then gave evidence on your behalf. He is, and always is, a very impressive witness. He was positive about your capacity to rehabilitate in the sense of being able to rid yourself of this addiction which has caused you so much trouble. However, as he truthfully described, this is never easy. You have, unfortunately, shown by way of the drug screens, a minor relapse in March and April this year. It is clear that you continue to struggle with your drug problems as those positive screens showed and, equally, as the report of Mr Newton, tendered today, has shown.
40 Mr Lambretti spoke generally about your intent and desire to rehabilitate and about the dangerous nature of the drug that you were peddling. Indeed, as he said, in his opinion in this community today, and certainly that is my experience in this Court, Ice is a far more dangerous drug in this community than heroin. You were, according to him, in need of intensive physiotherapy. He thought that you had to date put in a significant effort and were keen to continue, and he was keen to assists you and was positive about the future outcome and, as I say and have confirmed through Mr Amad, his views are still the same as of today and indeed, you have continued under his treatment to the extent that the next proposed step is a residential facility.
41 It was as a result of all of those matters that the final plea in support of a Community Corrections Order with a short gaol sentence was put to me. It was put to the Court that in this instance, given your relative youth, rehabilitation should loom large. In the plea, it was put that your addiction was not an excuse but as an explanation for how a person with your background, your job and your position in the community can suddenly be involved in such serious offences. Your confession, your co-operation and admissions were stressed. Indeed, the very co-operation that, for example, led to the finding of 80 grams in a canister which might not have otherwise been found. It was submitted by Mr Tovey that essentially you are a man without any severe priors, especially in regard to drugs, with strong family support who has pleaded guilty and has shown genuine remorse.
42 Your addiction is such that you are trying to rehabilitate, but you are in a vulnerable position and you would benefit, it was put, by significant psychotherapy. In further support of your case today was tendered the reports that I have indicated. As I said, I was prepared to seek a report from the Community Corrections authorities and the Department of Justice have supplied that. I also indicated that that should not be seen as an indication I had decided upon any sentence. It was a report that was positive and indicated that the Department of Justice, should the Court deem it was prepared to allow you and did give you a positive report in regard to that matter.
43 The ASCO report was also filed as a result of this court's request. It gives a very strong and detailed history of your problems with drugs. Such is far more extensive than I was aware, until I read that report. Clearly, you have had problems of some degree, and of length, with many, many drugs. You obviously are a poly-substance abuser, although your major issue now appears to be with Ice.
44 Somehow, it would appear, certainly as a result of considering the totality of that report and in particular Mr Newton's report, that despite suffering perhaps one drug induced psychosis and another, you have not at this stage, according to Mr Newton at any rate, suffered from any psychiatric or psychological illness. My experience with persons who indulge in Ice to the extent that you have been is such that you must have been lucky to this stage.
45 That, if nothing else, would indicate to you, I would think, given the serious nature of the circumstances you now find yourself in that if you do not rid yourself of this addiction, and indeed all of the conclusions that led you to sample all those various drugs, then your future is somewhat clouded.
46 I am not particularly influenced as Mr Amad said by the comments as to your involvement and the fact that you underscored your involvement according to that interviewer.
47 Of more assistance to me was the report of Mr Newton, as I said, tendered today. It confirmed your background history, your education and occupational achievements and the extent of your substance abuse. It noted, however, at Paragraph 19, that despite your role and attempt with Mr Lambretti, not in any way that this has been hidden from the Court, but that unfortunately you have only been able, to this stage, to reduce your drug use. Indeed, your advice that you gave to Mr Newton was that at the time of assessment, you were still using methylamphetamines and GBH approximately once or twice a month. Your goal was to eliminate such use from your lifestyle altogether.
48 As I said, it was determined by Mr Newton that you have no abnormalities of any nature in your mental status nor did you meet the diagnostic criteria for any mental disorder. You were, as he described, in the early stages of recovery from an addiction which has led to a compulsion to use drugs, which has been closely integrated in your social activities and which has been used by you as a primary coping strategy. I am not too certain, I must say, from what psychological factors you have been suffering, there does not appear to be any great moment, identified to me, in your life.
49 Insofar as your treatment of that addiction, Mr Newton was on the view that concerted treatment was necessary to overcome that problem. Progress, in that regard, he was of the view at Paragraph 36, was continuing but must be seen as, even with that progress, tentative even as today. He expressed concern as to the impact on such progress, if you are incarcerated and was concerned about you mixing with more hardened criminals. They are, of course, the matters that the Court is well aware of as referred to by the learned President in Tokava, and referred to also by your counsel.
50 Fortunately for you considering your poly-substance abuse and use of Ice, your cognitive function was good, according to Mr Newton. You were lucid and orientated, there was no indication you suffered any form of thought disorder or psychosis. He also was of the view that your moral reasoning and reality testing were unimpaired. That indicates to me what I have already said, how inconsistent it is, given your background and family, how you have become involved in such serious crime. It has been noted that you will continue to struggle with your severe problem but, to date, that your behaviour was positive. The issues, he said, remained serious even today and his recommendation was that you participate in a residential de-tox program. He thought, insofar as a period of immediate imprisonment, that you would be a vulnerable prisoner and would had concerns about the impact upon you of such a term.
51 It is not an easy consideration for a Court with such evidence to determine what is the appropriate sentence.
52 Unfortunately for you, Mr Gonzaga, and for your family and friends, I have concluded that it would totally inappropriate to accord with your counsel's submission. I accept the submission of Mr Nibbs, on behalf of the Director, that a period which did not involve an immediate period of incarceration would be totally inappropriate in their case. I consider the community would be outraged and I would be failing in my duty if I did not take into account the significant sentencing factors involved in objective criminality of this type. Even taking into the account the substantial subjective factors that have been put to me, deterrence and punishment must be the very factors in sentencing for the community good and you, unfortunately, despite the personal factors that are put to me, must be seen to be a subject of those.
53 I have no doubt, upon the principles of Verdins that you are a person who is vulnerable and that you will serve your sentence hard. I take into account the comments of Mr Newton and Mr Lambretti as to the effects upon your recovery from drug addiction of going to gaol. I would hope by the addition of those reports to the authorities that you will get appropriate treatment in gaol. As I say, I have no doubts also that this criminality has come about from your addiction. As you describe so succinctly in your record of interview, you firstly used to pay for drugs and the clear consequences thereafter are when you cannot pay for it, then you have to deal in it. That is exactly what you have done. However, it is clearly that addiction which is the basis of your criminality. As your counsel says, it is not put as an excuse but it explains the circumstances in this case.
54 I propose to sentence you as follows: on the first charge, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years; on the second charge, to a period of imprisonment of four years. On the third charge you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of one year and on the fourth charge I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of payment to two penalty units. On the count under s.145, that is the proceeds matter, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two months.
55 Given the factors that have been put to me about you and the attempts that you have made and the positive material that is put before me, I do not intend to cumulate any of the sentenced that I have imposed upon you. The ultimate effect of that will be that the total effective sentence imposed upon you will be a period of four years gaol. I have determined that the period that you must serve before being eligible for parole is a period of two and a half years.
56 I order and declare that the two days that you have already served are to be taken as service of this sentence, and a declaration to that effect be lodged in the records of this Court.
57 Parliament requires me, pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act to try to determine, amongst all the other factors, what would have been the sentence I would have imposed had you not pleaded guilty. Doing as best I can do to accord with the requirement of Parliament, I say to you now, Mr Gonzaga, had you not pleaded guilty the period of imprisonment that I would have imposed upon you is a period of six years with a minimum of three yeas and four months.
58 To make it clear to you in layman's terms, the maximum effective sentence imposed for all of these offences is a period of four years, with a minimum of two and a half and two penalty units will be imposed in regard to the other matter. I will simply make a stay in that matter of three years. The penalty unit appropriate is a figure of $122.14.
59 Mr Gonzaga, can I only hope that you continue on the period of rehabilitation that you have effected. Let us hope that you stay off drugs when you are in gaol. We unfortunately know that drugs can be obtained in gaol, it sounds amazing but they can be. For you it would be a disaster. You have got to beat this habit, you have already met disaster in your life by having to go to gaol, I can only wish you well but your whole future depends upon you getting rid of your addictions.
60 Take the prisoner away. Any questions?
61 MR NIBBS: No, Your Honour.
- - -
0
11
0