Director of Public Prosecutions v Mathis (a pseudonym)

[2025] VCC 393

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

LEE MATHIS (A PSEUDONYM)

---

JUDGE:	Karapanagiotidis
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 March 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Mathis (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 393

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing

Catchwords:              trafficking in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity – possession of a drug of dependence – possession of equipment and substances for the purpose of trafficking in a drug of dependence – possession of a prohibited weapon – possession of cartridge ammunition without licence – possession of Schedule 4 poison – dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime

Legislation Cited: ss 5(1), 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:

Sentence:Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms R. Flemming	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Brown	Balmer & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Lee Mathis,[1] you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:

[1] A pseudonym.

2One charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence (commercial quantity) (charge 1); three charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence (charges 2, 3 and 4), two charges of possession of a drug of dependence (charges 5 and 6) and one charge of possession of equipment and substances for the purpose of trafficking in a drug of dependence. 

3You have also agreed to this Court hearing, and have pleaded guilty, to the following summary charges:

4Charge 16 – Possession of a prohibited weapon (2 flick knives; 2 extendable batons and a laser pointer)

5Charge 24 – Possession of cartridge ammunition without licence

6Charge 26 – Possession of Schedule 4 poison (Sildenafil, Temazepam, Armodafinil)

7Charge 29 – Dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime.

Circumstances of the offending

8The full circumstances of your offending are outlined in the summary of prosecution opening dated 7 March 2024 and marked as Exhibit A. 

9The charges largely arise from the execution of search warrants at your home in Macleod on 28 March 2024. You had just arrived home, police seized your phone and after a preliminary search revealing content relating to trafficking drugs, they placed you under arrest.  The search warrant was then executed.  Your co-accused, Ms Elisa Zhang,[2] was located asleep in the bedroom, where police observed the presence of a variety of drugs and she too was placed under arrest.

[2] A pseudonym.

10Police located and seized a variety of drugs as outlined in the prosecution opening  different quantities and locations in the home, including on top of and underneath the bedroom coffee table, on a set of shelves and under the couch in the bedroom and in a storage area underneath the house.

11In total, and upon subsequent analysis, the following drugs and/or poisons were seized:

128,743 grams of 1, 4 butanediol (charge 1 – trafficking in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity)

13114.9 grams of methylamphetamine (mixed) (charge 2 – trafficking in a drug of dependence)

1424.9 grams of ketamine (mixed) (charge 3 – trafficking in a drug of dependence)

1580.2 grams of MDMA (mixed) (charge 4 – trafficking in a drug of dependence)

1610.8 grams of cocaine (mixed) (charge 6 – possession of a drug of dependence);

17The seized cannabis was not tested however it is accepted by the prosecution that the amount in your possession was a small quantity (charge 5 – possession of a drug of dependence). 

18Additionally, police observed several other items of interest including various scales, a large number of empty capsules and unused clear ziplock bags and numerous syringes, plungers and bottles.

19Police also located the following items that are the subject of the summary charges

i.Four zip lock bags containing a total of 47 capsules of Sildenafil (RSO 27 – possess Schedule 4 poison) 

ii.22 non-prescribed Temazepam tablets (RSO 27 – possess Schedule 4 poison)

iii.12 Armodafinil tablets (RSO 27 – possess Schedule 4 poison)

iv.Two extendable batons, two flick knives and one high powered laser pointer (RSO 16 – possess prohibited weapon)

v.A total amount of $19,210, six blocks of five-ounce silver bullion and collector coins   (RSO 29 -dealing with suspected proceeds of crime)

20You were then transported to the Mill Park Police station for the purpose of a record of interview and you exercised your right to silence. 

21Analysis of your mobile phone revealed, as outlined in the prosecution opening, hundreds of text messages between yourself and others arranging prices for the sale of drugs, locations to meet to exchange drugs and arranging for samples of drugs. Example of relevant conversations are included at Annexure A. 

22You have been remanded in custody from the time of your arrest and have a total of 369 days in presentence detention. 

23On 10 May 2024 police executed a search warrant at a storage locker in Epping. Police observed a packed down non-operating clandestine laboratory, and seized a number of items including pseudoephedrine, hypophosphorous acid and various types of glassware and funnels (charge 7 – possession of equipment and substances for the purpose of trafficking). A complete list of the equipment and substances seized is outlined at Annexure B. 

24Police also located and seized 185 boxes of Lego, which is part of summary charge 29, 80 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition (RSO 24 – possess cartridge ammunition), two Victoria Police Drug Squad Boxes (also part of RSO 29 – dealing with suspected proceeds of crime) and folders containing paperwork in the name of Elisa Zhang.

Nature and gravity of offending

25The charges that you have pleaded guilty to, in particular the charge trafficking in a commercial quantity of 1,4 butanediol, are plainly serious.  This is indicated by the maximum penalties that apply (as outlined in the prosecution opening and as amended in the prosecution email of 31 March 2025).  Also, charge 1 is a category 2 offence which, subject to some exceptions, mandates a term of imprisonment.

26In Brian Gregory (a pseudonym) v. R[3] the Court of Appeal set out the manner in which trafficking charges should be approached by a sentencing judge. The sentencing regime for trafficking offences is quantity-based. While quantum is an important factor it is of course not the sole, determinative factor and there are other relevant considerations.

[3] [2017] VSCA 151.

27Your charge is limited to one day. Annexure A obviously suggests that your involvement extended beyond that single day.  Both Counsel accept that the surrounding facts are relevant to your intention on the date of the charge and provide a relevant context as to your role in the offending.  While I take these circumstances into account in this respect, I make clear that you will not be sentenced for acts which do not form part of a charge. 

28I take into account that all the trafficking charges were committed by way of possession for sale on a single date. Also located were a number of items at your residence consistent with indicia of drug trafficking including various scales, empty capsules and unused ziplock bags. On another date, after your remand, Police also located a substantial ‘packed down’ non-operational clandestine laboratory at the storage unit.  Annexure B indicates its relative level of sophistication.  Also, in combination a total of $19,210 in Australian currency, other proceeds of crime and weapons and 80 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition were located at your home or at the storage unit.  You were also in possession of three Schedule 4 poisons (47 tablets of Sildenafil (Viagra), 22 tablets of Temazepam and 12 tablets of Armodafinil (stimulant)). 

29While there is no clear hierarchy in which your role can be assessed, I accept the prosecution submission that, when consideration is given to all of the evidence, you were actively involved in the organised sale and supply of a variety of drugs.  I accept that there is a lack of some aggravating features, as raised by your Counsel, such as operational violence or intimidation.  I also accept that your addiction contributed to your offending, noting that you report engaging in a pattern of daily use prior to your remand with methamphetamine (ice) as your primary substance of dependence. However, given the quantity and different drugs involved I accept that your offending was also financially motivated. Overall, your offending is serious and your moral culpability high.   

30In respect of charge 1, while there are other cases involving greater amounts of 1,4-butanediol, the amount you trafficked was still substantial. The 1,4-butanediol related to charge 1 is 8,743 grams, which is 4.37 x CQ threshold.  The prosecution accept that the Court is entitled to take into account that 1,4-butanediol is less profitable than other drugs of dependence and I do so[4]. 

[4] See R v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.

31The indictment also contains 3 other charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence relating to methylamphetamine, ketamine, 3,4 methylendedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA).  While these charges do not relate to commercial quantities, the amounts discovered were not small.

32The methylamphetamine related to charge 2 was 114.9 grams mixed (38.3 x TQ threshold); the Ketamine related to charge 3 was 24.9 grams mixed (8.3 x TQ threshold) and the MDMA related to charge 4 was 80.2 grams mixed (26.7 x TQ threshold)[5].

[5] For further multipliers, see prosecution submissions of 26 March 2025 paragraph [14].

33I accept the prosecution submission that general deterrence, just punishment, denunciation and protection of community assume considerable significance for the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. I accept also, particularly in light of your relevant prior criminal history, that specific deterrence has an important role to play in the sentencing exercise.

Plea of guilty

34You entered a plea at the earliest reasonable opportunity and this entitles you to an important sentencing discount.  Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value, avoiding the time and expense of a trial.  I accept your plea of guilty reflects an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.   

Outline of personal circumstances

35Your personal circumstances were outlined by your Counsel and are also canvassed in the 2021 psychological report of Ms Sandra Cokorilo.  In summary, you are now 43 years of age.  You were born in Iceland and came to Australia as a young child. You are an only child and you had a supportive childhood and you continue to enjoy a good relationship with your parents.

36You were schooled and completed your VCE in 2000, reporting no significant issues.  You went on to TAFE to study computer science however found it difficult to balance study with work and didn’t complete this. Instead, you started working in warehousing and for an AV company. 

37Up until 2020 and the onset of Covid and its economic impact, you had a strong employment history. You worked in warehousing with your father in Port Melbourne and at other locations. You had also worked in the civil construction industry. Your long term goal is to return to work in this industry and you hold construction tickets and hope to complete further studies in civil construction. 

38In 2020 the loss of your employment and a deterioration in your relationship led to increased drug use and marks the commencement of your offending as reflected in your criminal history.  While your history is certainly relevant and in particular contains three previous appearances for trafficking in drugs, in the main, it doesn’t commence until 2021.  Prior to that time, your first appearance was at the age of 36 for driving matters and then in 2019 for possessing drugs, for which you were fined.    

39In recent times you have received a variety of dispositions, including imprisonment.  You were last released on 13 June 2023 and spent some 6 weeks successfully on parole.  The current offending occurred approximately 10 months after your release and in the context of you relapsing into drug use.

40In terms of your history of drug use, this is canvassed in the various reports before the Court.  You started using cannabis from the age of 16. You were first introduced to amphetamine (speed) when you were 18 years of age in the context of your peer group.  You used it occasionally and on weekends.  You started using ice in your late twenties and by your early thirties you had developed a daily dependence.  You also grew dependent on GHB, first using it to counteract ice use.  You have a history of past cocaine use but this appears to have never developed into a regular pattern. Your only period of abstinence was in custody or during your last parole period. 

41Several months ago, on remand, you were placed on a long-acting buprenorphine which has led to your abstinence from any illicit substance use in custody. 

42Psychologist Ms Cokorilo assessed you in 2021 in respect of other offending, which was similar in nature.  She assessed you as suffering from Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and stimulant and sedative/hypnotic use disorder (see paragraphs [66]-). In her report she canvasses the self-medicating function of your substance use and your avoidant disposition, which contributed to your previous reckless offending conduct. Back then, she assessed your risk as moderate but considered that some of the risk factors were amendable to treatment.  She regarded you as appearing genuine in your motivation to reform your life and she refers to some protective factors, including the birth of your daughter.

43You have a daughter who is now 4-year-old daughter with your ex-partner. Your ex-partner and daughter were living in Queensland but had just moved down to Melbourne to co-parent at the time of your remand for this matter.  They have visited you while you have been on remand in custody.  You report a good relationship with the mother of your child, Ms Gracie Lam.[6] 

[6] A pseudonym.

44In more recent times you had developed a relationship with your co-accused, Ms Zhang.  You used drugs together and currently she is in the community though has not been permitted to see you, given your status as co-accused. 

45Your Counsel submits that the continued support of your parents, ex-partner, and your motivation to ultimately co-parent your daughter are significant protective and motivating factors.

46You have accommodation available to you with your ex-partner’s (Ms Lam) mother in St Kilda East.  This address has been assessed by the DATC Case Manager as suitable (see addendum report of 24 March 2025).     

Matters relevant to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Determination Hearing

47Addressing now the matters relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are outlined in s.18X of the Sentencing Act1991 and are to facilitate your rehabilitation, to take account of your drug or alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminality associated with drug or alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency. 

48Importantly, in considering whether to make such an Order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of the community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence. The primacy given to your rehabilitation is significant in your case, given the nature of the offending and the prominence otherwise given to denunciation, specific deterrence and general deterrence.

49The criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act1991. 

50As I indicated at the determination hearing, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs. I take into account the history of your substances use and also that you scored 41 out of 44 on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test, indicating that you were likely to have been heavily dependent on drugs over the 12 months prior to your arrest (see clinical advisor assessment report, 17 March 2025).  

51I am also satisfied that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending now before me.  I make this finding again taking into account your personal circumstances and the history of your substance use, your previous diagnosis of stimulant use disorder, and the recent opinion that this diagnosis was likely to have been satisfied at the time of your offending; all of which are broadly consistent with your self-report of having offended to assist fund your own habit (see case management report of 17 March 2025). 

52I note in your case that neither the dependency criteria nor the contribution criteria were in dispute between the parties. 

53In order to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order I must also be satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years. This matter was in dispute between the parties with the prosecution submitting that it was not open to the Court to impose a sentence of no more than four years. 

54On this issue, both Counsel referred me to current sentencing practices and I have carefully considered the cases they have referred me to.  The prosecution referred to the case of Gregory (A pseudonym) v R[7].  The case is factually different to yours, involving as it did operational violence and several charges of trafficking, including traffick in a commercial quantity of methamphetamine over an eight month period. The case was referred to in support of general principles when sentencing for trafficking offences and for the Court’s observations as to the inadequacy of current sentencing practices for commercial quantity trafficking in the upper category of the offence.  The Court of Appeal also observed that there is a wide variation in the seriousness of commercial quantity trafficking offences, in the culpability of the offender, the role played, period of offending, and quantities involved that would be expected to produce a ‘spread of sentences across the statistical range.’   

[7] [2017] VSCA 151.

55Both Counsel also referred to the case of Ellis v The Queen[8] and the review undertaken of first instance decisions including those that pre and post-date Gregory.  The review revealed that sentences well below 4 years might be imposed where there are no relevant prior convictions (Bugeja) or where there are unusual mitigating features (Muthia).  Otherwise, the sentences range from 2 and a half years to 5 years imprisonment.’   In the case of Ellis, the applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in alprozalam and a commercial quantity of 1,4 butanediol, representing 1.75 times the prescribed commercial quantity.  The police also located cannabis and cash as proceeds of crime.  The applicant was 24 at the time of offending, had a relevant criminal history, and the offences were committed on bail and during the operation period of a community corrections order for similar offending. On the commercial quantity trafficking charge she was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment and her appeal of manifest excess was refused. 

[8] [2018] VSCA 221.

56Your Counsel also referred to the case of DPP v Moustafa[9], as ‘instructively different’ or as standing in contrast to the circumstances and level of gravity of your offending.  In that case, the respondent had pleaded guilty to several charges, including trafficking in a commercial quantity of 1,4.  The total amount of 1,4-butaneidol was 8865 kilograms (at [15]), totalling 4400 times the commercial quantity of the drug.  In addition, the ecstasy seized was 11 times the large commercial quantity. The overall offending involved trafficking in drugs with a street value of tens of millions of dollars. Relevant factors advanced on behalf of the respondent related to the assistance he had provided and the Renzella, or ‘dead time’, he could call upon. Ultimately the Court found the sentences were inadequate and on charge 2, which was the commercial quantity trafficking in 1,4B-D, imposed a sentence of 8 years imprisonment, as the base. 

[9] [2018] VSCA 331.

57In Arici v The Queen[10] the appellant pleaded guilty to the principal charges of trafficking in a commercial quantity of 1,4 Butanediol in the amount of 74.5 kg and trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (442.7g). I note that the appellant had an intellectual disability and that the original sentence imposed was reduced for reasons of parity.  On appeal his sentence on the CQ trafficking in 1,4 Butanediol was reduced to 3 years imprisonment. In allowing the appeal the Court made clear that it was not suggesting that the original sentence imposed (4 years on this particular charge) was excessive.  Your Counsel submits the case is still instructive because even though it turned on the issue of parity, parity itself would not have justified the imposition of a manifestly inadequate sentence.

[10] [2019] VSCA 228.

58In Roach v The Queen[11] [2020] the appellant pleaded guilty to a range of offences including trafficking in a CQ of 1,4-Butanediol, in the amount of more than three times the commercial quantity. On this charge the sentencing judge imposed an individual sentence of 3 years and 3 months as the base.  The appellant had a relevant prior criminal history and was on a CCO at the time of the offending.  He had good evidence of rehabilitation.  The appeal centred on the misapplication of category 2 to the offence, which was conceded by the prosecution.  The Court however was not satisfied that a different sentence should be imposed, observing that the sentence imposed on this particular charge was ‘a benevolent disposition’ when viewed against the gravity of the offence, the appellants relevant prior history and that it took place in the course of a CCO.

[11] [2020] VSCA 205.

59Last of all, your Counsel referred to the case of Al-Dimachki v The Queen[12].  In brief, the appellant pleaded guilty to a range of offences including trafficking in a CQ of 1,4-Butanediol in the amount of approximately 98 kilograms, that is, nearly 50 times the commercial quantity threshold.  Relevant items were seized across a residential home and a separate storage facility. The appellant had a significant criminal record, was on bail at the time of the offending and was sentenced as a serious drug offender. On this charge he received a term of 4 years and 2 months imprisonment. The appeal centred on issues of parity and totality and ultimately was dismissed.    

[12] [2012] VSCA 98.

60Having carefully considered your case and in particular having regard to s.18X(2) of the Sentencing Act, I accept your Counsel’s submissions and have determined that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years.  To be clear, in coming to that conclusion, I have considered the relevant maximum penalties for the offending for which you have pleaded guilty, the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability, the general sentencing landscape, as relevant to the instinctive synthesis, and the various mitigatory factors present in your case, including your early plea of guilty.

61Pursuant to s18Z(3) of Sentencing Act1991, I must not make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order unless satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so.  This involves a consideration of your suitability for an intensive Order such as a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. I have also read and considered the reports from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court assessors (clinical advisor assessment report of 17 March 2025; case management assessment reports of 17 March 2025 and 24 March 2025). 

62The clinical advisor was satisfied that the treatment and supervision component of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order would be an appropriate intervention to address your substance use disorder, and that there are no significant concerns regarding your capacity to participate in such an order.   The case management report also recommends your suitability for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, with such an order capable of addressing your offending behaviours and providing a better understanding and management of the drivers and triggers that underpin your long term substance use.  I have also had regard to the individual treatment plan, which has been devised by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court clinical team in conjunction with those named in the individual treatment plan as your care team. 

63Having carefully considered the criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act1991, and having considered all of the relevant reports and submissions, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case.

64You told the case manager that you would comply with a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and that you thought it could help you.  You stated ‘I wouldn’t go back to that.  It is a fresh start; I have had enough.  Using is the trigger to where it all spirals and goes on.’  You currently present as motivated however you also have a criminal history that is relevant to an assessment of your rehabilitative prospects. Your challenge will lie in maintaining the commitment that you are voicing over a sustained period of time.  It will require you to engage, reflect honestly, build therapeutic relationships, challenge yourself, be accountable and work hard to achieve and maintain the change that you want for yourself.   

Sentencing principles

65In respect of the sentence I am about to impose I also take into account the principles of proportionality, parsimony and, as already canvassed, totality. I intend on imposing appropriate individual sentences and the principle of totality will be reflected in the orders for concurrency/cumulation.  Overall, I must have regard to the total criminality involved and impose a just and appropriate sentence.

66For completeness, last of all I note that Ms Zhang was also arrested and charged. Plainly, different sentences are justified between you for a range of reasons, including that her matters were finalised in the Magistrates court; she did not plead guilty to trafficking charges, and she was not dealt with in relation to the significant quantity of 1,4-Butanediol located under the house or the items located in the storage unit. 

Sentence

67In relation to all charges, you are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO).  This order commences today.

68A DATO has two parts: the treatment and supervision part and the custodial part.  The treatment and supervision part itself has two parts which are as follows:

69The core conditions, which are that you (s.18ZF):

(a) must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment; and

(b)     must attend the Drug Court when required by the Drug Court to do so; and

(c)     must report to a Melbourne Drug Court House or other specified place within 2 clear working days after the order is made; and

(d)     must undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court.

(e)     report to and accept visits from a member(s) of the Drug Court.

must give notice of any change of address within 2 clear working days before the change to a specified Drug Court officer,       

(g)     must not leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court.                

(h)     must obey all lawful instructions from the Drug Court Team.

70The core conditions will operate for 48 months (4 years) or until further order.

71The program conditions, which are that:

Comply with the individualised treatment plan dated 1 April 2025 and signed by you on 1 April 2025.

(a)   must submit to drug or alcohol testing specified in the order as directed; and

(b)   must submit to detoxification or other treatment specified in the order (whether or not residential in nature) as directed; and

(c) must attend vocational, educational, employment or other programs as directed; and

(d)  must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed; and

(f)  must reside at [address provided] St Kilda East VIC 3183 until further order. 

(g) comply with a curfew that you remain at the [address provided] St Kilda East between 9:00PM and 6:00AM.  This curfew is required until further order.    

(h) do or not do anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning:

(i) your drug and alcohol dependency; and

(ii) the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.

(i) Not use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation.

(j) Abstain from alcohol. 

72These program conditions will operate for two years or until further Order. 

73In signing this order you are waiving all right of confidentiality in respect of communications between the drug court and various government providers.

74The custodial part of the DATO is the term of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I note placed on an order, and it is a term of imprisonment of 48 months.  This is not to be served unless the Court orders this to occur.

Sentence

75This term is comprised of the following individual sentences:

76Convicted and sentenced as follows:

77Charge 1, 3 years and 4 months imprisonment. 

78Charge 2, 16 months’ imprisonment.

79Charge 3, 10 months’ imprisonment.

80Charge 4, 14 months’ imprisonment.

81Charge 5, convicted and dismissed.

82Charge 6, 7 days imprisonment. 

83Charge 7, 9 months’ imprisonment. 

84Summary Offence charge 16, 14 days imprisonment. 

85Summary Offence charge 24, convicted and fined $300.00.

86Summary Offence charge 26, convicted and fined $200.00.

87Summary Offence charge 29, five months imprisonment. 

88Charge 1 is the base sentence.

89Orders for cumulation as follows: Charge 2, three months imprisonment; charge 3, one month imprisonment; charge 4, one month imprisonment; charge 7, 2 months imprisonment and summary charge 29, one month imprisonment. 

90That arrives at a total effective term of 48 months imprisonment. 

91Pursuant to S.18 I declare that you have served 369 days of pre-sentence detention.

92Pursuant to S.6AAA I declare that but for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to 5 years and 10 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

93I will make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought by the prosecution, that were unopposed.