Director of Public Prosecutions v Lowson
[2025] VCC 1565
•28 October 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-22-01814
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| NATHAN LOWSON |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE RIDDELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 April 2025; 4 June 2025; 19 September 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 October 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Lowson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1565 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal Law
Catchwords: Plea of Guilty --- Trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine --- Manufacturing methylamphetamine --- Criminal syndicate --- Six week period of offending --- Party to and closely involved in offending --- Likely financial motivation --- High moral culpability --- Possess 1,4-Butanediol for personal use --- Relevant criminal history --- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on offending --- Delay --- Modest prospects of rehabilitation --- Parity a significant factor in sentencing
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances
Act 1981
Cases Referred to: 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 14 VR 269; DPP v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50; Johnson v The King [2022] VSCA 228; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 179
Sentence: Total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole of three years imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr T. Wallwork | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. L Barker | SLKQ Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Nathan Lowson, on 4 June 2025 you pleaded guilty to three charges on indictment; Charge 1 of trafficking in a drug of dependence namely methylamphetamine, Charge 2 of possession of substance, material, documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence and Charge 3 of possession of 1,4 Butanediol.
2Charges 1 and 2 are framed between dates being between 26 August 2021 and 4 October 2021. Charge 3 relates to the date of your arrest being 4 October 2021.
3You were 38 years of age at the time of the offending, and you are now 42.
4The trafficking charge relates to your involvement with others, namely, Ms Toni Delahunty, Mr Chris Veveris and Mr Jaroslav John, in the manufacture of methylamphetamine at an isolated property situated at 106 Breakneck Road, Yarra Glen, and possession for sale to various consumers.
5The amount of methylamphetamine located at the Breakneck property was 2.2 kilograms of which 427 grams was pure methylamphetamine. That amount is in excess of the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, however, your plea, as accepted by the prosecution, is on the basis that you were unaware of the quantity of drug to be manufactured. It is on that basis that I sentence you.
6In contrast, your co-offender Ms Delahunty pleaded guilty to trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. Mr Chris Ververis has pleaded guilty to the same charges as you and his plea has been adjourned. Mr Jaroslav John indicated an intention to plead guilty but recently changed his mind and is now progressing again toward a trial.
7The maximum penalty for trafficking is 15 years' imprisonment, for possessing substances, material, documents and equipment is 10 years' imprisonment, and for possession, one year imprisonment or 30 penalty units or both.
Summary of offending
8In July 2021, Victoria Police Clandestine Laboratory Squad undertook operations targeting drug manufacturing and trafficking activities in the Yarra Glen area. You were identified along with your co-offenders as being involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.
9Police identified the Airbnb property at 106 Breakneck, Yarra Glen, which was rented on an unknown date in 2021 by Ms Delahunty. That rural property was isolated. It comprised a large single level dwelling with a three to four car garage on the side of a hill. Access was restricted to a long driveway.
10When police later raided, they found the remains of a clandestine laboratory set up in the garage.
11Some members of the group also accessed a storage unit in Cheltenham.
12Police used telephone intercepts along with closed circuit television and physical surveillance of you and your co-offenders, along with information from telephone towers regarding your locations. Those investigative tools placed you at the property at various times during the period of offending.
13Surveillance commenced from 12 August 2021. You and your three co-offenders were associated with each other, including for the purpose of drug trafficking during that period.
14You used various vehicles, a Kia Sportage wagon registered to your partner and a Hertz HiAce van hired by Mr John in June 2021, and later by Ms Delahunty and renewed at various times by her extending to 4 October 2021.
15Conversations obtained via telephone intercept warrants show that you were known as 'Ski' and that you used a telecommunications service number which was not connected to your personal details.
16Several codes for communications regarding various drugs were used between you and your co-offenders. You and your co-offenders also communicated through encrypted message and voice call service 'Signal'.
17The details of surveillance and the contents of conversations are contained in the summary of prosecution opening which you accepted on your plea as an accurate reflection of your involvement.
18In summary, and as background to this offending, you and your co-offenders were in the same areas of Yarra Glen and Lysterfield on various days in July 2021. At various times in August your co-offenders were seen at your home address in Clyde.
19Between 25 August and 3 September, call charge records show all four offenders' mobiles were using phone towers in close proximity to the Breakneck property and at times your co-offenders were seen moving between the garage and kitchen on the property. On 18 September you were observed travelling northbound on the Melba Highway in Yarra Glen in a hire vehicle.
20On 22 September 2021, you had several conversations with a male called Poppenbeck, stating that you were at Yarra Glen and providing the Breakneck property address. He said he was going to visit and drop off firewood before asking if you could sort him out with half cash and half other. You agreed.
21On 23 September 2021, in a conversation with your partner Ms Van Bakel, Ms Delahunty says you needed to 'be back here' to 'start working'. At the time her phone was linked to cell towers in the vicinity of Yarra Glen.
22That evening there were several conversations between Mr John and Ms Delahunty with references to the storage unit key, communications on Signal, and the fact that because you had been in Yarra Glen and had 'taken off', they now had to produce $125,000.
23On 24 September 2021, you had several conversations with Mr Poppenbeck discussing providing 'stuff' i.e. drugs. You spoke with an associate who was coming up to meet you in Yarra Glen in a series of phone calls discussing pricing before agreeing to talk on the encrypted Signal application.
24On 25 September 2021, Mr John discussed with Ms Van Bakel and then yourself about fixing her bill, before you came on the phone and talked about 'sue' i.e. pseudoephedrine.
25Later that evening you communicated with an unknown male via text messages whereby you organised to deliver drugs of dependence to him.
26On 26 September 2021, in a call with Mr Poppenbeck, you confirmed you had what he needed, and he agreed to 'head out' in 45 minutes.
27A Mr Antic contacted you asking if you had any left and you spoke about the quality of the 'stuff'. Mr Antic confirmed that he had a customer who wanted three to four bags and you replied you had approximately that amount.
28Later that night a Mr Bosman contacted you and confirmed that he had half a bag and that he would pop around in a little bit.
29Later again you and a Ms Bulesic had a discussion about exchanging a gun for 'glass’, i.e. methylamphetamine.
30On 27 September 2021, Ms Delahunty and Mr John exchanged text messages regarding getting some bags. His phone was using cell towers in the vicinity of your home address.
31Later she contacted you and had a conversation about you coming up to Yarra Glen. You had that conversation on the phone as you said Signal was not working.
32Between 27 September and 3 October 2021, you had numerous other conversations with associates as to supplying drugs of dependence.
33On 3 October Ms Delahunty contacted you and discussed you grabbing a 'ten' because the last one broke. A 'ten' is alleged to be a 10-litre glassware item for the purpose of manufacturing. You contacted another associate about finding one and agreed to meet in Yarra Glen before moving the conversation to the encrypted application.
34On 4 October Ms Bulesic contacted you asking for better gear.
35Those facts, along with the location of items and drugs at the premises, form the foundation of Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment.
36On 4 October 2021, physical surveillance of the Breakneck property showed the Hertz HiAce van parked in the driveway. About 20 minutes later the van was driven away. You were observed driving west on Maroondah Highway, Chirnside Park, in the van with Mr Ververis in the front passenger seat.
37At 4:05 pm, you parked at a BP service station, southbound on Eastlink to get petrol. You and Mr Veveris were arrested. Inside the Hertz HiAce van police located two Ziploc bags containing a white crystal substance shown to be methylamphetamine, one Ziploc bag containing a brown crystal substance also revealed to be methylamphetamine and a small plastic container of liquid being 1,4 Butanediol. That is the basis of Charge 3.
38At the time of your arrest a mobile phone on the driver’s seat of the van showed Google Maps was open with the intended location being the address of a glass blower. You were attending a glass blower to source glassware used for drug manufacture.
39You and Mr Ververis were arrested and taken to the Melbourne police station. At interview the following day you elected to exercise your right to silence and make 'no comment.'
40On the evening of 4 October 2021 investigators attended the Yarra Glen property and executed a search warrant. Ms Delahunty was present and was arrested. Evidence of the clandestine laboratory was identified.
41The following day forensic chemists for Victoria Police CLU and members of the Chemical Biological Radiological/Disaster Victim Identification Unit seized 146 clandestine laboratory related exhibits including numerous unknown liquids and solids, scientific glassware, a heating mantle, vacuum pump and Buchner funnels, a 10-litre glassware/reaction vessel with a trace solid within it, retort stands and a large three head condenser, a container with traces of pseudoephedrine and precursor chemicals including iodine and hypo-phosphorus acid.
42A search of the property also led to seizure of 33 related exhibits including a cash counter, $14,100 in cash, six mobile phones and composite bow and arrows.
43Police located another mobile phone on you at the time of your arrest. It was registered in the name Caitlyn-Ann Barker. It was found to contain a downloaded 225-page e-book entitled 'Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture' by 'Uncle Fester' containing a step-by-step guide from materials to production. Further, it contained various images supporting the inference of methylamphetamine, including a photo of a heating mantle and association with your co-offenders and the Breakneck address, including photos and videos.
44Ms Delahunty’s mobile phone contained messages on Signal which reveal discussions of equipment used in drug manufacture and trafficking drugs using the application Signal with various people including you. One such message dates to 29 July 2021.
45Analysis of the mobile phone located inside the Hertz HiAce van at the time of your arrest reveals videos dated 23 June of a sophisticated clandestine laboratory set-up and active; images of a sophisticated clandestine laboratory set-up and active on 24 June, and on 17 July images of a sophisticated clandestine laboratory set-up with a large amount of chemical spillage around the reaction vessel.
46Forensic examinations identified your fingerprints on a glass side arm flask and a glass Pyrex dish located at the Breakneck property.
47Drug analysis confirmed the total net quantity of methylamphetamine was 2211.3 grams with the approximate quantity of pure methylamphetamine being 427 grams.
48You were charged and remanded, spending 72 days in custody, before being granted bail with a support letter from the CISP Outreach and Referral Program and a support letter from OnTrack counselling.
49You ultimately indicated your intention to plead guilty on the first day of your trial, being 21 January 2025. Your matter was listed for plea on 28 April 2025. That morning a further adjournment was sought to allow for a neuro-psychological assessment to take place. At a further listing on 4 June 2025, you were arraigned and the matter was again adjourned for the purpose of obtaining further material. I ultimately heard your plea on 19 September 2025.
Sentencing Principles
50This is serious offending. Drugs are a scourge on our community. Any offence which involves manufacture of drugs and their movement from supplier to 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.
51For those reasons, the 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 condign punishment on being arrested and prosecuted. It must achieve community protection by removing drug traffickers from circulation.
52Trafficking 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.
53Quantity 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.
54In assessing the objective gravity of your particular offending, I take into account the following matters which in my view aggravate your offending.
55You are a mature aged man.
56You were involved in a syndicate or group of people engaged in the business of manufacturing methylamphetamine.
57Your offending covers a period of approximately six weeks, and I make clear, that is the period for which I am sentencing you. That period is placed in the context of the background of activity contained in the summary of prosecution opening.
58The hire by your group of the Airbnb property was purposeful. It was isolated and in a rural setting for the obvious purpose of secrecy. It had restricted entry. I accept the submission by Mr Wallwork that the hire of the Airbnb is demonstrative of the inherently commercial nature of this enterprise. This property was clearly rented for the purpose of this offending and the cover for this activity.
59You used multiple vehicles and two mobile phones, none of which were registered to your name, to avoid contact to the contents of those items. You and your co-offenders engaged in conversations via encrypted phone services to avoid detection.
60Although not the primary offender here, you played an active, enthusiastic and important role. I do not accept you were a mere lacky or gopher; you were a trusted member of the inner sanctum. You engaged in obtaining equipment, discussing pricing and distribution of drugs.
61I cannot determine whether you were personally engaged 'on the tools' in cooking the methylamphetamine, but I find to the requisite standard that you were party to and closely involved in that activity. That is apparent based on the e-book of instructions for manufacture found on your phone, the fingerprints found on glassware and your DNA, in particular found inside a face mask and inside a glove found in the garage.
62Your DNA was also found on the inside of a pair of gloves located at the Cheltenham storage unit. I cannot conclude, and do not conclude, that you attended that property but that finding allows me to reasonably infer your contact with items moved between that storage unit and the Breakneck property.
63You were engaged in delivering drugs, discussing quality of drugs, confirming you were able to supply, on one occasion, three to four bags of drugs, in swapping drugs for a firearm and in obtaining cooking equipment.
64Although the harmfulness of the relevant drug is not a sentencing consideration[3], the likely value is[4].
[3] R vPidoto and Odea (2006) 14 VR 269
[4] DPP v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50
65I reject Mr Barker’s submission that there is no evidence or suggestion that you would share in any profits of the manufacture. I can, and do reasonably infer, that you were to receive some benefit for your role given the risk you were taking, and together with the money that was found at the premises upon investigation. I can reasonably infer it was likely to be financial, as well as likely to support your own addiction. Beyond the conclusion that it was likely to be financial, I cannot determine the amount.
66In relation to Charge 3, I accept your possession of 1,4-Butanediol was a small amount for your personal use. It is a charge met by a much lower maximum penalty and given the amount will not be subject to any cumulation.
67In my view this is a serious example of trafficking and of possession of a vast array of items to be used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.
68Your moral culpability is very high.
Personal Circumstances
69I turn now to your personal circumstances, outlined in the written submissions of your counsel, Mr Barker, together with various reports.
70You were born in August 1983 in Neerim South. You were between the ages of 37 to 38 during the offending and are now 42.
71You are the youngest in a sibship of four. Your parents separated when you were seven years old. Following their separation, you moved with your mother and siblings to Upper Beaconsfield.
72Your mother performed home duties while your father was a landscape gardener.
73Your oldest brother is 15 years older than you and adopted a 'man of the house' role. Unfortunately, he had a heroin addiction, and he began to take you and your sister to 'drug dens' where he would score and use. I accept that his pattern of illicit drug use normalised drug use for you during your formative years. In a sad irony, given your offending, your brother ultimately experienced a significant substance-related brain injury and continues to have ongoing mental health and functional needs.
74You attended Upper Beaconsfield Primary School and Berwick High School for Years 7 to 10 before leaving school after Year 10.
75After leaving school you began working with your father in landscaping. You commenced your own landscape gardening business after five years of working with him. That business continues to the current time, although at times it has suffered as a result of your drug use and legal issues.
76Your oldest brother introduced you to cannabis at the age of 14 and you began using alcohol at 16. You have used 1,4-Butanediol over the years and claim that this has not been a huge problem for you. In contrast, you acknowledge being introduced to amphetamine at the age of 16 years by your peers and that you began to use methylamphetamine when you were about 19 or 20 years of age.
77The frequency of your use varied, however, during periods of use you were at times using up to 3.5 grams of amphetamine per day and up to four grams of methylamphetamine a day.
78You acknowledge that you have a long-term problematic pattern of illicit substance use. You say in relation to this offending, however, you 'got caught up in something, a situation I couldn’t get out of'.
79You have a prior criminal history largely connected to your drug addiction. In 2003 you were dealt with for trafficking a drug of dependence, along with possess and use of various drugs of dependence, possess weapons and an unregistered handgun without a licence. You were placed on a 12-month undertaking without conviction. That sentence seemed to be to good effect as you were not before a court again until 2010 when you were fined for using methylamphetamine.
80There was a break of another five years. In 2015 you were again fined for possessing a prohibited weapon, possess amphetamine and using an unregistered vehicle.
81Of significance, in April 2016 in this court you received a 12-month community correction order for possessing substances, material, documents and equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence. Conditions of the CCO included supervision and assessment and treatment for programs as directed.
82On the same date, on appeal to this Court from the Magistrates’ Court, you were placed on a second 12-month CCO with 60 hours work, and again, assessment and treatment for programs for offences of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, dealing with proceeds of crime and failing to answer bail.
83You breached both of those CCOs but were given the opportunity to continue them by way of a variation when the matter was dealt with in January 2018 in this Court.
84Four months later, in May 2018, you were dealt with in the Magistrates' Court for possess amphetamine and a Schedule 4 poison, possess ammunition, dealing with proceeds of crime, four charges of possessing prohibited weapons, a charge of possessing a silencer and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, along with failing an oral fluid test and driving disqualified. You initially received a term of six months' imprisonment along with a 12-month community correction order. However, again, you successfully appealed to this Court, and your appeal was allowed in October 2019. Without conviction you were fined an aggregate sum.
85In August 2018 you were dealt with in the Magistrates' Court for dealing with proceeds of crime, unlicensed driving, fraudulent use of number plates, possessing 1,4-Butanediol, possessing a prohibited weapon and committing an offence on bail. You were sentenced to an aggregate term of 70 days' imprisonment which equated to time served.
86Two months later you were dealt with for breaching the two CCOs which had been varied in May 2018. In this Court those breaches were proven and your CCOs were again varied to allow you to complete them.
87You are not to be sentenced again for your prior criminal history. However, as affirmed not long ago in Johnson v The King[5], those matters, and in particular the charge of trafficking and the charge of possessing items for the purpose of manufacture of a drug of dependence along with the many possession of drugs charges, have an impact on the sentencing process in a number of ways: as an indicator of your moral culpability; your prospects of rehabilitation; your propensity (and the community’s need for protection); and the increased importance of specific deterrence in a factor in sentencing, having regard to the failure of more moderate penalties as a means of deterrence.
[5] Johnson v The King [2022] VSCA 228
88At the time of this offending before me I accept you had descended back into drug use. The context of 2021 in Victoria will escape no-one. The State at that time was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. I accept your landscaping business had not been able to function fully in the 2020 and 2021 period and that that provides the context of your relapse to heavier drug use and association with your co-offenders.
89I also accept that your period of remand must be viewed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the significant difficulties that created for prisoners. You were placed in isolation for a month and thereafter subject to lockdowns and pandemic protocols. I take those matters into account.
90In relation to your mental health, I have had the benefit of a May 2025 assessment report, and two addendum reports dated May and September 2025 from clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Laura Anderson.
91She ultimately concluded that you meet the diagnostic criteria for the neurodevelopmental disorder attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, with predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation of moderate severity.
92Psychometric testing also revealed your overall general intelligence is likely to fall in the low average to average range. Dr Anderson also notes you have experienced intermittent periods of low mood, particularly in response to life stressors. You have experienced fleeting suicidal ideation.
93In her earlier reports she also noted a significant hypoxic episode you experienced as an infant, and the additional impact of your early exposure and longstanding use of illicit drugs on you cognitively. You have also sustained multiple head injuries throughout your life, including being struck with a baseball bat and motorcycle and car accidents.
94Mr Barker submitted that the principles of R v Verdins[6] are enlivened in your case on account of your diagnosis of ADHD. Specifically, he referred to and relied on Limbs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Verdins. The prosecution did not cavil with that submission, though submitted any discount should be moderate.
[6] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
95I cannot see a basis for concluding that Verdins applies. In my view there is no real nexus between your ADHD and your offending. I note you conceded that your illicit substance use is a predominant driver of your offending and that you were using illicit substances at the time of this offending. If I am wrong in that conclusion, the relationship between your ADHD and your offending here is not to an extent where any substantial moderation of the principles of deterrence should result.
96I do accept that I should nonetheless take your psychological and cognitive profile into account in a broad sense in understanding your involvement in offending of this kind. To that end, in her September report, Dr Anderson repeated her earlier opinion that there is likely some level of inadvertent, maladaptive, 'self-medication' for underlying ADHD symptomology by way of your long history of illicit substance abuse. I take that interplay into account. I accept that your drug use commenced at a young age; that it was normalised through the influence of your brother; that addiction is very difficult to defeat, and particularly so for a person who may be self-medicating to dampen the effects of ADHD, even when it is undiagnosed.
Plea of Guilty
97You have pleaded guilty to this offending, and you receive the benefit of that plea. A plea of guilty has a utilitarian benefit in that it saves the Court and the community the cost and time of a jury trial. I accept that a trial involving you, Mr Ververis and Mr John had capacity to be complex.
98Mr Barker submits that you offered a plea of guilty to charges similar to the current indictment in approximately September 2023. It was not really disputed that this was the case. I take that timing into account.
99Mr Barker submits that the Worboyes v The Queen[7] discount applies in sentencing you given your plea to charges similar to the current indictment was made in approximately September 2023.
[7] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 179.
100He submits the court was still under the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, however, the Court was largely back to normal listing, and although I allow some adjustment, any discount is modest.
Delay
101Mr Barker argues that delay is relevant. I accept that the course of this year, since you indicated your intention to plead guilty at the time of your January 2025 trial, has been a long one while material was obtained and availability of both counsel and the Court has had to be obtained. I take that period into account.
102In relation to the delay which preceded the trial listed in January 2025, that is more complex. I accept there were some delays, for example when the trial was listed in 2024 and the prosecutor was unwell, and the matter was adjourned. I accept a multi-header trial is always likely to be more complex and there are inherent delays. I accept that discussions in September 2023 were along a similar vein to how the matter ultimately resolved, and I take into account the period between September and the ultimate resolution in January 2025, in addition, as I have said, to the delays this year.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
103I accept that your work history, though at times patchy, demonstrates a capacity for hard work. You have a business to return to.
104I accept that at times there have been significant gaps in your offending history, and in your drug use as reported to Dr Anderson.
105You have a relationship with your family which is positive. Your father is now 80 and retired. He suffers diabetes and heart problems which necessitated a recent coronary bypass. You maintain a close relationship and help him wherever possible.
106Your mother is 75 and also in poor health suffering a chronic pain condition. She lives with your sister.
107While not exceptional, I accept that any separation from your parents at their age and in their state of health, will be difficult for you and will weigh on you during any time in custody.
108Your sister provided surety for your bail and has been present throughout these proceedings. She clearly loves and supports you.
109You have ongoing contact with your young adult daughters. One lives with you and is studying.
110You have what has been described as a 'semi-permanent' relationship with your current partner.
111You have complied with bail conditions and there is no subsequent offending. That is significant given the time period since this offending. You engaged with CISP Remand Outreach Program while in custody and sought the help of OnTrack Counselling.
112Your prospects of rehabilitation in all of those circumstances should be reasonably positive. However, it is your longstanding drug addiction which is your hurdle, and a significant one to overcome. You admit ongoing use at times during the period when you have been on bail for these matters. If you do not deal with that issue, you are at risk of reoffending.
113Prison authorities should be aware that Dr Anderson recommends medication for ADHD via psychiatric engagement. Engagement with therapeutic interventions should mean you are less likely to self-medicate via illicit drug use, which in turn should decrease your risk of reoffending.
114In my view your prospects of rehabilitation are modest at this stage. However, I accept that after a term of imprisonment you will be drug free and that this will be your first significant sentence and should have a deterrent effect on you. If you can engage with therapeutic treatment in custody your prospects will be enhanced.
Parity
115I am mindful of the issues of parity when dealing with co-offenders. Parity is an aspect of equal justice. There should be no unjustifiable difference in sentences imposed upon similar offenders for similar offending. The key words are 'unjustifiable difference'. That is because parity takes into account consideration of the offending and your roles in that offending but must also take into account your personal circumstances at the time and since. In that sense equal justice may result in different outcomes.
116I have given a great deal of consideration to parity in this case. Your co-offender Ms Delahunty pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking methylamphetamine in not less than a commercial quantity. She also pleaded guilty in relation to possession of a reasonably significant amount of precursor chemicals and items for trafficking found at the address she shared with Mr Ververis.
117She was sentenced by Judge D Sexton on 11 July 2024 to five years' imprisonment on the charge of trafficking methylamphetamine and received a total effective sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and three months' imprisonment.
118His Honour found that in terms of role she sat below Mr Ververis but was at least equal to, if not above, you and Mr John. He described her role as 'significant'. He also found that had it not been for her relationship with Mr Ververis she would not have engaged in the trafficking activity. That was on the back of findings on the basis of expert evidence that she had been in numerous abusive relationships, that she had a dependent personality style and had no past history of involvement in drugs other than her own serious addiction.
119I do agree with the submissions of your counsel that Ms Delahunty’s role was a pivotal and organisational one. Mr Barker submits on your behalf that your role was a lesser one than Ms Delahunty’s. I accept that submission. It seems on the material before me that you were taking various directions from her regarding attending at the Breakneck property, being requested to attend in order to assist there and assisting in collecting equipment.
120At times you were apparently engaging in transactions independently, though on behalf of the group. To that end you were at all times a willing and active participant. You were a trusted participant. Given the contents of some communications pertaining to Ms Delahunty requesting you attend Breakneck to help, and that they 'needed you', I can, and do infer to the requisite standard, that your role was an important one, likely involved at least in a close supporting role in the manufacture process.
121This is a case where the distinction between her plea of a charge of traffic commercial quantity and your plea to the traffic of charging simpliciter, is in my view a reasonably subtle one. The trafficking to which you have pleaded guilty resulted in production of a quantity which is over eight times the commercial quantity, although I accept you were unaware of the quantity of drugs to be manufactured. Nonetheless, your close involvement to the manufacturing would have made you aware that what was being produced was not a small or insignificant amount. The set up of the clandestine laboratory was sophisticated.
122In addition, in considering parity, Ms Delahunty had significant factors working in mitigation of her sentence. She is an aboriginal woman and her plea proceeded through Koori Court with her significant engagement with the sentencing conversation. She had been the victim of significant family violence and trauma at the hands of several, but one particular ex-partner. Her five children had been removed from her care. She had post-traumatic stress disorder and significant Verdins considerations. In the lead up to her plea she was targeted with violence and suffered homelessness. Her prior criminal history is limited to two dishonesty matters for which she was fined. She pleaded guilty at a very early stage, indicating her intention to do so in September 2022.
123Like you, she has had a serious addiction history.
124In contrast, your plea was flagged in 2023 but formerly pursued at the time of the trial in January 2025 and ultimately entered in 2025. You have a serious, lengthy and relevant prior criminal history. You have had the benefit of two community correction orders which have been varied twice despite your breaches. Specific deterrence plays a larger role in your case.
125Having said that, in sentencing you I do feel somewhat constrained by parity in this case. That has resulted in me reducing the sentence I would otherwise have imposed.
Current sentencing practices
126I have had regard to current sentencing practices. I have had consideration of a number of cases, along with the Judicial College Victoria Sentencing Summaries. I accept there are even more sophisticated operations, operations which span longer periods of time where more money is found at the time of search, and of course where there are greater amounts of drugs.
127As 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.
Submissions of Parties
128The prosecution submitted at your plea that the only appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period.
129Mr Barker on your behalf submitted that the term you have already served on remand, being 72 days' imprisonment, plus a lengthy community correction order is within range. In my view that is an unrealistic submission given the seriousness of the offending here, your mature age and the impact of your prior criminal history including the fact that previous sentencing dispositions and opportunities have not deterred you.
130Having reached that conclusion that a head sentence and non-parole period is the appropriate disposition here, I must then determine the length of both the head sentence and non-parole terms. In doing so, in particular the non-parole period, I am conscious this will be your first parole term. I have taken into account your efforts towards rehabilitation and being drug free on bail, and significantly, the length of time since this offending and your lack of subsequent offending.
131Taking into account your role and participation in what I have concluded is serious offending, and allowing for the factors in mitigation in your favour, after undertaking the sentencing synthesis that I am required to engage in, I have in fact come to the conclusion that a sentence which parallels that received by Ms Delahunty on the head charge, is the appropriate disposition. I have reached that conclusion despite taking into account the differences between you both.
132The sentence on Charge 1 will be the base sentence. There is considerable factual overlap with Charge 2, and I accept the submissions of both counsel that it is appropriate to order concurrency of that entire sentence.
133If you could stand now please, Mr Lowson.
Sentence
134On Charge 1 of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, you are convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
135On Charge 2 of possession of substances, material, documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
136On Charge 3 of possession of 1-4 Butanediol, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
137The total effective sentence is five years' imprisonment.
138I direct that you are to serve a minimum term of three years' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
139I declare that you have already served 72 days' imprisonment and that that term should be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
140But for your plea of guilty, so if you had not pleaded guilty, the sentence I would have imposed would have been one of seven years and eight months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years' imprisonment.
141I propose to make the forfeiture order and disposal order in the terms sought by the prosecution, noting that those orders were not opposed.
142Have a seat Mr Lowson.
143Are there any issues to raise counsel.
144MR WALLWORK: No, Your Honour.
145MR BARKER: No, Your Honour.
146HER HONOUR: All right, thanks very much. Thanks, counsel, for your assistance, we will now adjourn.
- - -
0
10
0