Director of Public Prosecutions v Legg

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 19-02237

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JESSICA LEGG

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 September 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Legg
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 1459

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:DPP v Apostopoulos [2016] VSCA 201; McAleer v R [2015] VSCA 4; R v Lacey [2007] VSCA 196; The Queen v Koumis [2008] VSCA 84; DPP v Negrea [2020] VCC 970, Fortunato [2016] VCC 537; Scott [2017] VCC 401
Sentence:8 months imprisonment followed by 24 month CCO – conditions of drug treatment, mental health treatment, supervision. $500 fine.
S.6AAA Declaration: 3 years and 9 months imprisonment, non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. Sprague	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Barrera	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Jessica Legg, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences which carry the following maximum penalties:

Charge Nos.	Charge	Max Penalty
1, 2, 3	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	15 years
Summary Charge 7	Drive whilst authorisation suspended	2 years or 240 penalty units
Summary Charge 8	Possess a prohibited weapon without exemption/approval	2 years or 240 penalty units
Summary Charge 9	Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime	2 years

The Crown tendered the prosecution opening for plea as Exhibit A. A summary of your offending is as follows.
Your offending in this matter was identified during an investigation by the Clandestine Laboratories Unit, who were conducting 'Operation Hacksaw'. Although the Operation was not focused on you, you and a co-accused, Steven Tomazic, were identified as persons of interest. This occurred following a telephone intercept which showed one of the targets of Operation Hacksaw, Danny Vassallo, purchased drugs from you between 3 July 2017 and 5 December 2017.
I should state at the outset that both the Crown and defence submit that none of the offenders sentenced as a result of Operation Hacksaw are co-offenders such as to attract the principles of parity for sentencing purposes.
Following this finding, your phone was intercepted under warrant. The conversations heard through this intercept were coded by reference to the type of drug being discussed or references to previous drug purchases. These telephone intercepts revealed:
·     First, that you were selling methylamphetamine, butanediol and prescription medication including diazepam, whilst also using these substances yourself;
·     Second, your co-accused, Tomazic, was selling ecstasy to both yourself and others, and also purchasing methylamphetamine from you; and
·     Third, that there were a number of other co-offenders involved in buying from you and selling drugs to you. These other co-offenders have been sentenced in the Magistrates' Court.
Physical surveillance was also conducted, which showed you undertaking drug deals.
The trafficking charges are as follows:
·First, between 8 August 2017 and 8 August 2018, you trafficked 235.1 grams of methylamphetamine. This charge relates to drugs trafficked as shown through your telephone intercepts, as well as methylamphetamine seized from your home at the time of your arrest. In summary, the 235.1 grams is made up of:
o23.1 grams sold to Mr Vassallo between 3 July 2017 and 5 December 2017. There were almost 50 separate transactions over this period;
o206.8 grams being sold to at least 47 other associates between 2 March 2018 and 8 August 2018; and
o5.2 grams found at your home in Blackburn North when police executed a search warrant on 8 August 2018;
(Charge 1 – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Methylamphetamine)
·The second charge of trafficking in 1,4-butanediol occurred between 13 June 2018 and 8 August 2018 when you trafficked 0.4 grams and then 1.81 litres of butanediol. Again, this amount is calculated by the sales you made which were recorded on the telephone intercepts (and I have been provided with a sample of those intercepts), as well as the 0.4 grams found in your home; (Charge 2 – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – 1,4-Butanediol) and
·The third charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely diazepam or Valium, was that between 13 June 2018 and 8 August 2018 you trafficked 48 tablets of diazepam. This amount is based solely on the analysis of the telephone intercepts and again I was provided with a sample. (Charge 3 – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Diazepam (Valium))
When police conducted a search warrant executed on your home on 8 August 2018 they located the following items:
·a canister of OC, or capsicum spray, found in a car; (Summary Charge 8 – Possess prohibited weapon)
·cash in the sum of $695 found in the garage; (part of Summary Charge 9 – Dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime)
·Deal bags, scales, glass pipes and other drug paraphernalia;
·A purple notebook with names and amounts relating to your trafficking activities; and
·Two diaries outlining your movements between 30 March 2016 and 20 November 2016, and then between 1 January 2018 to 19 July 2018.
On 8 August 2018 police also executed a search warrant at a storage unit leased by you in Baywater. Inside the storage container a Ryobi bag was found which contained a range of Ryobi tools. These tools matched the description of tools in messages found in the telephone intercept. It appears the tools were provided to you in exchange for drugs. (part of Charge 9 – Dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime)
Your licence was suspended on 17 May 2018 due to demerit points. It was suspended for a period of 6 months from that date. Evidence obtained during the investigation against you shows that between 13 June 2018 and 8 August 2018 you drove your motor vehicle despite your licence being suspended. (Summary Charge 7 – Drive whilst authorisation suspended)
You were arrested on 8 August 2018 and interviewed. You provided a no comment record of interview. You were bailed the following day, and you have spent one day in custody for this offending.
You subsequently pleaded guilty on 11 April 2019 at a committal mention in this matter.
I note that at the time of your offending you had no prior convictions, but you have subsequent matters which occurred apparently both before and after this offending. I will return to them later on in these remarks.

Objective Gravity of the Offending

The transactions in which you sold methylamphetamines were all relatively low level. You seem to have been engaged in selling relatively small amounts of the drug, which in all probability were to be used by the purchaser. Put another way, you do not appear to have engaged in wholesale larger commercial transactions of large quantities of drugs to other traffickers or distributors. In this way, it is appropriate to describe offending as street level trafficking. Further, there is no evidence of enrichment, high living or financial reward. Finally in this respect, it is well documented (as I will set out later in the sentencing remarks) that you were using methylamphetamines during this period yourself. I accept that your trafficking substantially provided the means for you to fund your addiction, buy food and provide accommodation to you at a time when you were living precariously. This may be contrasted with those non-users who traffic only for greed.
Nevertheless, the seriousness of the offence of trafficking in drugs can be measured by the maximum penalty set by Parliament of 15 years' imprisonment. Moreover, your offending still remains a serious example of the crimes at this level:
·First, your offending was protracted and substantial: the trafficking of methyl amphetamines extended over a 13-month period, whilst you trafficked butanediol and diazepam over an almost two month period;
·Second, the frequency and breadth of your trafficking of methylamphetamines is set out in the Crown opening. In short, you sold methylamphetamines to 47 customers. Investigators documented over 1000 phone calls in the period of your trafficking, which predominantly related to your trafficking activity;
·Third, the quantity of methylamphetamines trafficked – being 235.1 g in total of mixed substance, of which 229 g was sold to customers and 5 g found in your possession – represents 47 per cent of the threshold for trafficking in a commercial quantity of the drug. The quantity of 1.8 litres of butanediol (mixed) also represents a significant quantity of that drug;
·Finally, it appears that the business was yours and yours alone.
Professor Carroll, who provided two reports dated 17 June 2020, considered that you were in possession of the OC spray because you felt anxious about your personal safety.
Time and again, the courts have described drug trafficking as a pernicious crime which attracts the principles of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and a measure of protection of the community. The dominant sentencing disposition for this crime is usually imprisonment. Usually, when committed in circumstances such as these, it involves a period of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period.
I will return to the question your moral culpability for your offending after I have considered your personal circumstances, which I will do now.
You are 29 years old and were born on 31 January 1991. At the time of the offending you were 26/27 years old.
You grew up with your older brother and parents amidst considerable family dysfunction. You describe your parents as alcoholics and cannabis growers and dealers. In addition, it seems your mother suffered from a mental illness.
On your account, you suffered years of neglect and emotional abuse. Your parents separated when you were eight years old. Initially, you lived with your mother. You have told health workers that this was a particularly chaotic time where you moved accommodation frequently. You have stated that you attended 17 schools over your schooling life, particularly in your early years.
After this initial period with your mother, you describe that, as a result of considerable pressure and manipulation, your father gained custody of you and your brother. When in his care, the neglect continued and you state you ended up living on and off with your aunt. It seems, on your account, that you received no greater care or affection from her.
Despite the adversity you faced growing up, you completed your VCE and obtained a good job in distribution and sales for Coca-Cola. You held that job for seven years.
As I have stated, your mother suffered mental health problems and substance abuse issues through your childhood. Although you were estranged from her between the ages of 11 and 17, after you left her care, you did reconnect with her when you were about 17 and in the couple of years before she died. On one occasion, during this period of reconciliation, she told you that you provided the reason for her to live. On one occasion, however, you argued. Shortly after that argument, in 2010, your mother committed suicide. You have carried the guilt of this all your adult life.
Up to 2014, your early adult life remained settled. You lived in rental accommodation in Seaford. Your partner at the time revealed himself to you as a methylamphetamine user. You also started using the drug and it is fair to say that your life soon turned chaotic.
Your relationship ended and you lost your accommodation. You moved in with your father but he forced you to leave when he became aware of your drug use. Your father notified your employer that you were a drug user. You lost your job and became homeless. In 2015, in that vulnerable state, you were subjected to sustained sexual assaults by a man who exploited your situation. He was then killed in a car accident in 2016. That man's friends committed an armed robbery on you and terrorised you in 2017.
This unstable and often precarious situation of homelessness and drug use was interspersed with periods living in your car, couch surfing, and accommodation provided by men who put you at their mercy. You were again subjected to a period of sustained sexual assault by a man who provided you with accommodation through 2017 and 2018. It appears that he also introduced you to selling drugs.
I was provided with VOCAT applications from 2015 and 2017 alleging domestic violence, stalking and contravention of intervention orders. A VOCAT award dated 29 July 2019 provided you with compensation and with a provision for 15 counselling sessions.
The period between 2015 to 2018 was dominated by your sustained drug use and social stressors (to which I have just referred), which in turn exacerbated your deteriorating mental health.
These three principal factors – drug use, social stressors and mental health issues – in this four or five-year period are documented in the admission records provided by the Forensicare report, the Northern Health records and the Eastern Health records.
Over this period, it is apparent that you tried to take your life on numerous occasions, you were hospitalised on about eight occasions for related issues of either suicide attempt and/or overdose, and you were referred back to community support services (see, for example, the letter dated 5 October 2018 from Michaela Sangster to Eastern Psychiatric Triage).
I have read the psychiatric reports provided by:
·Dr Shankar dated 7 March 2018 (p.30 of 62 Eastern Health records, Exhibit 15);
·Drs Hearn and Nguyen dated 19 July 2018 (p. 37 of 62 Eastern Health records, Exhibit 15);
·And the two reports of Professor Andrew Carroll dated 17 June 2020. One report is to fitness and one report is to sentence (Exhibits 2 and 3).
In addition to these reports I have reports from your community support workers: Ashleigh Williams from the Salvation Army Melbourne Project, dated 22 April 2020; and Anthony Cursio, dated 27 August 2019. Mr Cursio is a mental health nurse who has seen you for your counselling sessions since February 2019.
Mr Barrera, on your behalf, stated that you now also receive counselling from CBD Psychology pursuant to the VOCAT award.
The psychiatric reports to which I have referred (and a further report of Dr Best, referred to by Dr Carroll) assess you in this period as suffering from:
·First, Substance Abuse Disorder;
·Second, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (as a result of the sexual assaults and social stressors under which you were living); and
·Third, an Anxiety Disorder resulting from the neglect and chaos inflicted on you as a child.
More specifically, the other psychiatric reports of March and July 2018 state that there was an indication that you suffered from PTSD and an anxiety disorder at the time of each of those assessments. Professor Carroll considers that those disorders were likely to have existed at the time of your offending but expresses so in more confident terms than either Dr Shankar or Drs Hearn and Nguyen. It is important to note that Professor Carroll states that although he concludes those disorders were in existence at the time of your offending, they were only indirectly related to your offending.
I have also mentioned the fact that through 2019 you received substance abuse counselling from Mr Cursio. It is not entirely clear from the report whether Mr Cursio was aware that you continued to use methylamphetamines in the course of 2019.
The reference from Ms Williams from the Salvation Army outlines the fact that you were provided with accommodation though 2019 and continued support through 2020. Again, it is not clear that Ms Williams knew that you continued to use drugs through the whole of 2019 and up to March 2020.
And I say that for this reason: in the court management of this matter through the Magistrates Court, Magistrate Popovic placed you on the Court Integrated Services Program (known as CISP). The report of 10 April 2019 states at p.5:
'Throughout this period of CISP Ms Legg reported she had maintained abstinence to illicit substances.'
It is significant that after you were charged and bailed for these offences in August 2018, you committed further offences. On 16 April 2019, a magistrate was satisfied of your guilt of possessing methylamphetamine, committing offences whilst on bail, and driving offences, including failing an oral fluid test within three hours of driving, but dismissed the charges under s.76 of the Sentencing Act. Then, on 6 January 2020 you were placed on a CCO for 12 months on charges of possessing both methylamphetamine and 1,4 butanediol, possessing both a prohibited weapon and a controlled weapon, driving whilst suspended and committing an offence whilst on bail.
Although none of these offences match the seriousness of the trafficking charges of August 2019, their significance lies in the fact that they show the persistence of your offending behaviour and your persistent use of drugs, the same drugs that bring you before this court.
The CCO of January 2020 required you to perform unpaid community work, undergo supervision and submit for treatment and rehabilitation for drug abuse and to undertake mental health assessments and treatment as directed.
Mr Barrera stated on your plea that, rather than seeing this as a framework for support, you instead fell further into decline. In fact, as I have already adverted to, you continued to use methylamphetamines for the whole period that you had been on bail, and then recommenced smoking significant quantities of cannabis – a drug you had used briefly but stopped using in your teens.
I ordered a CCO assessment to determine your suitability to undertake a further CCO as part of the sentence in this matter. The assessment report noted that you were already on a CCO and you were facing a contravention hearing for that CCO in November 2020. The assessing officer noted your non-compliance with the earlier CCO in these terms:
Ms Legg made no progress on her current order and only attended two appointments before disengaging with CCS. It was noted by her case manager that Ms Legg's substantial mental health concerns have acted as a responsivity factor that has limited Ms Legg's ability to engage with the order and her inability to overcome her drug abuse has also resulted in her being unable to comply. Ms Legg reported that when placed on the order, she felt overwhelmed and not in the right frame of mind to engage in any order.
You were involuntarily admitted to the Broadmeadows Inpatient Unit on 6 March 2020 in a state of acute drug-induced psychosis. The hospital admission records outline your diagnosis on admission as 'drug-induced psychosis, with a differential diagnosis of schizophrenia, in the background of significant amphetamine abuse'.
I now quote from Professor Carroll's summary of this event in his report of 17 June. This is the sentence report.
At the time she had a range of psychotic symptoms including pathological disorganisation, religious delusions and hallucinations. She was discharged on 7 April 2020 and has been followed up by the Area Mental Health Service (AMHS) in Cranbourne. She has a presumptive diagnosis from the AMHS of a "Drug Induced Psychosis" together with Borderline Personality Disorder and Depression/Anxiety. In hospital, she was commenced on the antipsychotics quetiapine and olanzapine, and also the depot antipsychotic paliperidone. She told me that the dose of paliperidone had been reduced [by half] every fortnight and that the plan is for this to cease later this month [that is in the month of June].'
Several days ago she was commenced on the antidepressant sertraline because of problems with mood and motivation.
In terms of self-harm and suicide attempts, she reported a total of five or six overdoses, the most recent of which was in 2019.

As Professor Carroll outlines in the portion of his report I have just read, in April 2020 when you were discharged from hospital, you were placed on a six-month Community Treatment Order administered by the AMHS in Cranbourne. Upon discharge, you went to live with your partner Cameron Battye. You have known Mr Battye since your days at Coca-Cola. You had a brief relationship together 10 years ago but it was only rekindled in the months before your admission to hospital in March.
The reference from Mr Battye speaks of the positive steps you have taken in the last number of months to start the road to your rehabilitation. I use those words 'start the road' deliberately; Professor Carroll considers that it is only very early days for your rehabilitation.
I return to Mr Battye's reference. It is worth quoting from the reference at some length:
I was in shock and disbelief as to how Jessica's life had changed so drastically in the few years in which we lost contact, as she was always a high achieving individual within both the workplace and the community by doing extracurricular things like working with charities such as Tribal-Aid to raise money for cancer research at the Monash Hospital and achieving her workplace's highest honour, the John Pemberton Award for Excellence in her field of work whilst at Coca-Cola Amatil. She also volunteered her time to manage the body corporate at her father's factory in Boronia while already working two part-time jobs.
Jessica has always been honest with me about everything I've ever asked her and I trust the decisions she has made were only for a means of survival and had no malice intent whatsoever. She has expressed extreme remorse for her actions and continuously struggles with trauma and regret.
Since re-establishing myself within Jessica's life, she has had extreme ups and downs with her mental health, but I believe she is on the right path again as she has now been six months sober and since being on the Community Treatment Order I have noticed a huge difference in her recovery process and overall mental health.
I have now been living with Jessica again since April 2020 and from my perspective, couldn't ask for more reliable, trustworthy and honest person to be dating again and to be living with.
I was provided with the reference of Paul Legg, your father. Mr Legg speaks of the vast improvement he has seen in your well-being over the last few months. Having seen your behaviour in the past when you are taking drugs, he observes you are now a vastly different person, and that you have now settled with Mr Battye, whom he holds in high esteem.
Having done all of that, I now return to the assessment of your moral culpability for your offending. In my view, your moral culpability for your offending must be considered in light of your:
·First, mental health issues at the time of your offending;
·Second, sustained drug addiction; and
·Third, social stressors which dominated your life situation.
These factors do not operate to excuse or justify your offending. They must however have some mitigating effect on the sentence I impose upon you.
I turn now to consider the sentencing submissions made on your behalf and on behalf of the Crown.
Mr Barrera submitted that the sentence I impose upon you should be mitigated by the following factors.
First, he submitted that the plea of guilty has a utilitarian benefit. I agree.
Next, Mr Barrera submitted that you demonstrated remorse through your plea of guilty, as well as your expressions to Professor Carroll and to your partner. I do not consider the plea of guilty in April 2019 is particularly indicative of remorse; particularly in light of your continuing significant drug use, your what was then recent offending and the fact that you did not later comply with the CCO imposed for that offending. It hardly speaks of a mindset of putting your prior life behind you. Further, as I pointed out to Mr Barrera, Professor Carroll only briefly stated that you held some regret. I think the reference from Mr Battye perhaps shows more promise. I am prepared to find that you are beginning to develop insight into your offending and have a true desire to put that lifestyle behind you.
Mr Barrera relied upon your previous good character. The fact that you have no prior convictions counts in my opinion in your favour in the sentence I intend to impose upon you.
Mr Barrera submitted that you have good prospects for your rehabilitation. He pointed to a number of factors:
·First, that through 2019 you engaged in CISP, counselling with Mr Cursio, obtained stable accommodation through the Salvation Army, and you are now engaged with the local AMHS through the framework of your CTO;
·Second, he submitted you are in a strong, prosocial relationship with Mr Battye and now live a life far removed from the chaotic, dangerous, unhappy world where your life revolved around drugs;
·Third, he submitted that you have some very recent and very limited but nevertheless renewed contact with your father;
·Fourth, you have received a good and full secondary education, and a vocational education with a certificate in financial management; and
·Finally, that you have a previous solid work history, particularly with Coca-Cola, which speaks of your work ethic.
Mr Barrera points to the report of Professor Carroll, in which Professor Carroll expresses the opinion that you have a low likelihood of reoffending if you remain drug-free. If you are able to do so, then Professor Carroll considers you have good prospects for rehabilitation.
Taking all these matters into account, I consider that you may have good prospects for your rehabilitation; but like Professor Carroll, I predicate this entirely on you remaining drug-free. Also, as I have already stated, these are very early days in your rehabilitation.
Quite frankly, I can only conclude that your first real steps towards your rehabilitation probably only commenced in April of this year after you were discharged from hospital. Before that time, you had commenced some counselling and had been given support to stabilise your accommodation, but otherwise, your offending continued until about April 2019 – some eight months after your arrest on these offences. Your drug use continued at a significant level for some 20 months after your release on bail, and ended only when you were admitted to hospital involuntarily for drug-induced psychosis. Also, it is apparent that you lied whilst on the CISP, and you were entirely non-compliant with the CCO imposed as late as January 2020.
When seen in this way, two years after your offending, the truth is that your steps towards rehabilitation have only just commenced. It is commendable that it has started and I consider that a basis has been laid perhaps for some optimism, but it is but it is entirely predicated on you remaining drug-free.
Mr Barrera submitted that the seriousness of the offending and your moral culpability must take into account your circumstances at the time – the level of your offending, your drug addiction, your mental health issues, your social stressors and your motives. I have already made it clear that I consider the seriousness of your offending and your culpability for your offending must be tempered to some degree by these factors.
Next, Mr Barrera submitted that I must take into account the effect the COVID‑19 pandemic lockdown on prisons has had, as you would be required to serve any period of imprisonment in less than normal conditions. To this, Mr Barrera submitted I must take into account your mental health and the effect of imprisonment on that. I will address this second aspect separately.
Turning to the COVID situation, it is well documented that Victorian prisons have been locked down in the state-wide efforts against the pandemic. The immediate effect of lockdown are that all personal visits have stopped, movement around each prison is severely restricted, educational and vocational courses have stopped or are at least severely limited, and therapeutic interventions have been severely affected if not stopped altogether.
In your case, Ms Legg, a period of imprisonment will require a 14-day isolation period upon reception into the prison. Also, it may affect what therapeutic interventions are available and how they are delivered. I do not underestimate the hardship this will cause.
Mr Barrera submitted that limbs five and six of Verdins apply in your case. The Crown agrees. I agree also. Using the term Verdins is just a shorthand way of saying that I recognise that your mental health issues are likely to increase the hardship you will experience in prison, and that a less severe sentence is justified in this case as there is a serious risk that imprisonment could have a significant adverse effect on your mental health.
In this respect, I have taken into account the whole of your health records tendered on the plea and particularly the reports of Professor Carroll as to fitness (which was used as background) and then the sentence report; particularly at paragraphs 128 to 133. In summary, Professor Carroll considers that your anxiety would make you a vulnerable prisoner and that you will have to struggle with the inherent stress of imprisonment and estrangement from those that you love. I note that Professor Carroll asks that if you are imprisoned, the prison should be provided with a copy of his report. I will do that. Overall, Professor Carroll considers that your psychiatric condition would deteriorate in prison and your longer term rehabilitative prospects would be damaged by imprisonment.
I have taken account of Professor Carroll's concerns. I have also taken into account the submissions made by Mr Barrera.
Ultimately, Mr Barrera submitted that I should impose a community corrections order on the trafficking charges and a fine of money in respect to the summary charges. Mr Barrera principally referred to the cases of Apostopoulos, McAleer, Lacey, Koumis and to sentences of this court in Negrea, Fortunato and Scott.
Mr Sprague, who appeared for the Crown, responded to these cases and observed that they are all different when compared to your circumstances; either by the duration of the offending, the quantity of the drug trafficked or the role of the offender. With respect, I agree. I have read and considered all of these cases. Whilst there are points of similarity, each is marked by a great dissimilarity from your own position.
In recent years, the courts which guide our decision-making have made it clear: It is for the sentencing judge to make their own assessment of the seriousness and circumstances of the offending, and to take account of and bring into balance (so far as the law allows) those factors personal to the offender in mitigation. In other words, I am not to be unduly influenced by the sentencing results in other cases.
Mr Sprague ultimately submitted that I should impose a period of imprisonment but that it was open to impose term of imprisonment in combination with the community corrections order. He stated:
It is submitted that such a sentence would balance the seriousness of the offending with the mitigating factors.
In his written outline of submissions and then in his submissions before me on the plea, Mr Sprague emphasised that the Crown accepts Professor Carroll's opinion as to the state of your mental health. Moreover, as I have said, the Crown submits that principles five and six of Verdins are enlivened.
Mr Sprague submitted that the Crown position takes into account the factors personal to you when weighed against the seriousness of your offending. Whilst the matters personal to you are still relevant, the Crown submits that prison is still warranted. The key, Mr Sprague submitted, is to reduce the period of imprisonment and combine the sentence with a CCO.
I have already referred in part to the community corrections assessment report. The report assesses you as suitable for a CCO and recommends special conditions that you submit for drug treatment and rehabilitation, mental health treatment and rehabilitation and supervision. These conditions are in addition to the general conditions of a CCO.
Now, the general conditions of a CCO - I know these have been explained to you, Ms Legg, but I have to read them to you again. And I have got to get your acknowledgement that you understand the terms. They are as follows:
·First, you must not commit, whether inside or outside Victoria during the period of the order, any offence punishable by imprisonment whether a period of imprisonment is actually imposed;
·Second, you must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the regulations;
·Third, you must report to and receive visits from CCO personnel - that is Office of Corrections staff - during the period of the order;
·Fourth, you must report to the Community Corrections Centre specified in the order within two clear working days after the order comes into force;
·Fifth, you must notify the Office of Corrections within two clear working days after any change of address or employment;
·Sixth, you must not leave Victoria except with the permission either generally or in a particular case of the Office of Corrections; and
·Finally, you must comply with any direction given by the Office of Corrections that is necessary to be given to ensure you comply with the order and such a direction may be given either orally or in writing.
Ms Legg, do you understand the general conditions under which a CCO operates?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Do you consent to the making of a CCO?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Now, I understand you have already given your verbal assent also to the making of an order to the assessing officer. I have to make it clear also that if you contravene the order either by non-compliance or by committing a further offence, you are liable to be charged with the offence of contravening an order. You can be sentenced to a period of imprisonment for contravening the order and you come up for resentence on the original offences. Do you understand that also, Ms Legg?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. And with that, you still consent to me making an order?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
Now, I have made it clear since you appeared before me on 9 September that in my view, the seriousness of your offending warrants a period of imprisonment. I intend to impose a sentence of imprisonment but to do so in combination with the CCO rather than imposing a sentence with a non-parole period. The law says that I cannot impose a sentence greater than 12 months' imprisonment for offending if I order a sentence in combination with a CCO.
Given the great number of factors that I have already outlined, I intend to impose a sentence of less than 12 months.
Overall, I sentence you to a period of eight months' imprisonment in combination with a CCO of 24 months with special conditions that you undergo treatment and rehabilitation for mental health issues, treatment and rehabilitation for drug issues and submit to supervision.
I have imposed individual sentences in respect to each of the charges and I will give you the breakdown and the cumulation on them in a moment. But in doing so, I have had to have regard to the principle of totality. That is, I cannot impose a crushing sentence. And given the sentence I have already indicated, there is some unreality about this. I have decided to impose individual sentences rather than an overall aggregate sentence.
You are sentenced as follows:

Charge Nos.	Charge	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	15 years	7 months
2	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	15 years	3 months	1 Month
3	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	15 years	1 month
Summary Charge 7	Drive whilst authorisation suspended	2 years or 240 penalty units	$500
Summary Charge 8	Possess a prohibited weapon without exemption/approval	2 years or 240 penalty units	1 month
Summary Charge 9	Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime	2 years	1 month
TES	8 months IMP, followed by 24 month CCO

After your release, you are to report to the Frankston Community Office. It may still be by telephone but you will find that out later, within two clear days of your release.
I declare the period of one day's pre-sentence detention reckoned as already served.
The 6AAA declaration is but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 45 months' imprisonment with 33 months to serve.
Mr Sprague, I will make the forfeiture and disposal orders. I am going to have Ms Legg sign the CCO order and I am going to give Mr Barrera the opportunity to speak to her.
All right. Now, I am sure you have explained the order to Ms Legg before but I will have the order handed down to you, Mr Barrera.
If I could ask you to approach the dock and then after the hearing, before Ms Leg is taken downstairs, I am going to ask the prison officers to give you a moment to speak to Ms Legg so that you do not have to go downstairs. I think that is probably prohibited anyway.
MR BARRERA: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: So I will give you a moment to ensure that Ms Legg understands the order and perhaps if we can have the order signed.
MR BARRERA: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. Thank you for that time, Your Honour. There is just the address that Ms Legg has changed in her own handwriting.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Indeed, yes, thank you. All right. That order has been made. Is there anything else from your perspective that needs to be raised?
MR BARRERA: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you to the Crown. I take it there is nothing else from the Crown's position?
COUNSEL: No, Your Honour. That is all.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will stand down.
- - -

[2020] VCC 1459

14 September 2020