Director of Public Prosecutions v Meyer (a pseudonym)

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

CHAS MEYER (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE BLAIR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 December 2024, 20 December 2024, 29 January 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Meyer (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 64

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords:              Trafficking a drug of dependence of a commercial quantity – knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime – possession of a schedule 4 poison – early plea of guilty – drug and alcohol treatment court
Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151; Mourkakos v The Queen [2018] VSCA 26; Fernando v The Queen [2017] VSCA 208; Polos v The King [2022] VSCA 258; DPP V Moran (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1836
Sentence:                  Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for a period of 39 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms Georgia Hogg	Smriti Khazanchi
For the Accused	Mr Rob Melasecca	Luke Karakas

HER HONOUR:

Chas Meyer[1] on 11 December 2024 you appeared before me at a Determination Hearing in the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court in relation to an indictment containing one charge of trafficking a drug of dependence of a commercial quantity and one charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime. You consented to this court dealing with a summary related offence the possession of a schedule 4 poison, Viagra. You were arraigned and pleaded guilty to each of the charges and admitted your prior criminal history.
[1] A pseudonym.
Circumstances of the offending
The agreed factual basis of your offending is detailed in the Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 22 October 2024 that has been tendered to the court. On 25 March 2024, at approximately 8.20am, police executed a search warrant at your home in Shepparton. You were living at this address with your two children, aged 7 and 10 years old. You were all present when the police arrived.
During the execution of the warrant, Felecia Stewart[2] attended your home to take your children to school. The police permitted Ms Stewart to enter the residence and she remained under their observation.
[2] A pseudonym.
You retrieved a Titan cooler bag from the bedroom of your 10-year-old daughter, and handed it to Ms Stewart. The police intervened and searched the bag. They located two large ziplock bags containing Methylamphetamine, $23,900.00 in cash and 49 Viagra tablets, the tablets being the subject of the summary related offence of possess schedule 4 poison. (Summary charge 5 – possess a Schedule 4 poison, Viagra)
As a result of a search of your bedroom, police located: a black pouch containing a ziplock bag of Methylamphetamine and scales these were found on your bed; $1050.00 in cash found under your bed; $1016.60 in cash found inside a piggy bank and; a ziplock bag containing Methylamphetamine found on the floor.
After execution of the search warrant, you and all seized exhibits were conveyed to the Shepparton Police Station.
The preliminary weights of the drug exhibits were recorded as 258 grams, 183 grams and 26.63 grams. The cash exhibits were counted and totalled $25,966.60. (Charge 1 – trafficking a drug of dependence of a commercial quantity; Charge 2 – knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime)
On 17 April 2024, the drug exhibits were conveyed to the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre. The exhibits were subsequently analysed by an Analyst and were found to have a combined weight of 430 grams with approximately 80 per cent purity.
Nature and gravity of offending
The offence of trafficking methylamphetamine in a commercial quantity is an inherently serious offence. Not only is it punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years, but Parliament has designated it as a category 2 offence. Section 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act provides that the court must impose a custodial sentence (other than a term of imprisonment in combination with a Community Correction Order), unless at least one of the circumstances set out in subsections (a) to (e) can be established.[3] The consequence of this categorisation does not interrupt your eligibility for a DATO. However, it does reflect the Parliament's very real concern that people who trade in commercial quantities of drugs should receive condign punishment usually involving significant terms of imprisonment.
[3] Sentencing Act1991 (Vic) s 5(2H).
Ms Hogg, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that I should categorise your offending in the mid level of seriousness. She submitted this was so given the quantity of drug involved, being 1.7 times the commercial quantity threshold with a street value of approximately $50,000. Further, Ms Hogg submitted I should consider methylamphetamine to be a high reward drug that fell within a higher sentencing range because the potential to reap large profits from dealing with methylamphetamine is great and the need for community protection might therefore be regarded as greater.
As a sole offender, Ms Hogg submitted that your moral culpability was high. Further, she submitted that although addiction was likely a driving force behind your offending there was an element of financial gain involved and she contended that the culpability of an offender motivated by greed will be higher than one whose only motive is to fund their addiction.
In relation to the charge of dealing with proceeds of crime Ms Hogg submitted the seriousness of this offence is also informed by the value of the proceeds involved, in this case cash in excess of $25,000.
Mr Melasecca on your behalf submitted that your offending should be measured by the following features: the charge is a single date; possess for sale charge with no evidence of ongoing trafficking; examination of your mobile phone and your home did not reveal any evidence of further drug trafficking activities; you were not involved in a sophisticated drug syndicate and; there was no evidence of your enjoyment of a lavish lifestyle, and no evidence other than that you trafficking drugs to support your own addiction, which was significant. Mr Melasecca reiterated your instructions that you trafficked because you struggled to support your family in a situation where your partner had left the property and you were responsible for the mortgage and supporting your children.
I accept that you are to be sentenced for trafficking on one day, in circumstances where you had 1.7 times the commercial quantity of a drug of dependence in your possession for sale. I am not able to act on evidence that is not before the court. To this end, I note there is no evidence of your involvement in any sophisticated drug syndicate, there is no evidence of any sales or trafficking activity from any other source such as witnesses, phone messages, or the location of other drug trafficking paraphernalia. I accept that your reasons for trafficking were to feed your own addiction and to support your family. I do not consider these factors amount to a motive of greed or an attempt to profit that would increase your moral culpability.
On the evidence before me I am unable to find that the drug you possessed was a “high reward” drug and there was a potential for you to reap large profits that would mean your offending falls into a higher sentencing range. I do accept that drug trafficking in commercial quantities is a serious crime and that sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community are routinely given greater weight by the courts.
Personal Circumstances
You were born in Turkey in February 1968 and are now 56 years old. You immigrated with your parents to Australia when you were three. Your family settled regional Victoria, and ran a tomato farm. You have two younger brothers.
You completed primary, then attended a technical school, where you completed year 11. You did well with your education – you received good grades and had a supportive network, notwithstanding the racism you experienced in your early school years. You then went on to undertake a 16-month course to become a word processor. Following the completion of your studies you moved to Melbourne where you were employed in this field working for several different companies.
Your father passed away just prior to your 18th birthday following a truck accident. You returned to work at the family farm after your father’s passing to assist your mother and siblings, before deciding to spend 18 months in Turkey. Conditions in Turkey were antiquated and difficult and ultimately you decided to return to Australia. Back in Australia you lived in Melbourne, Mildura, Robinvale and then Tatura. You engaged in various employment, usually as a truck driver or as a forklift operator and, at one stage, you owned your own transport company.
Substance use history
Turning to your drug use history, you were introduced to cannabis at the age of 16. Your earliest memory of using cannabis was in the form of social bonding in your peer group. After your father’s passing, you recall smoking between half a gram on most days. Your usage was carried into your early twenties, where you recall smoking a gram most days alone or with peers.
Cannabis was the primary substance you used prior to developing a methamphetamine dependency in your mid-30s. Apart from a period of 6-months abstinence in 2019, your cannabis use has been persistent. In 2020, you relapsed to daily cannabis use, which escalated to 2 grams a day after your mother passed in late 2021. You found that cannabis relaxed you and you sometimes used it as a sleeping aid.
In your mid-30s, while you were working in the trucking industry, you abused methamphetamine (ICE) after being introduced to it by your peers. You started using ice a few times a week, quantifying this use as 2 points whenever you used the substance. You developed a dependency on ice and used it help you manage your emotional health. Your use escalated during periods of difficulties in your personal relationships and work pressures, as you used the substance to help you cope.
You achieved 6 months abstinence from illicit substances whilst on a parole order in 2019. However, you relapsed shortly after you completed parole and reverted to smoking 1 to 2 points of ice on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Alongside cannabis, your ice use escalated in 2021 after the passing of your mother and separation from your then partner, who also had a substance dependency. During this period, you were using 1 to 2 grams of ICE most days, despite being the primary caregiver for your two young children at the time.
Your two daughters, aged 10 and 8, were in your custody prior to your arrest and subsequent remand. Whilst in the community you received a sole parent benefit, as the primary carer for your two daughters. You have a workable and civil relationship with the mother of your children, your ex-partner. Your daughters are now cared for by their mother.
Prior criminal history
Your prior criminal history dates back to 1985. Your offending has been primarily drug related. You have been convicted for possession and trafficking of drugs of dependence including cannabis and methylamphetamine, for which you have completed Community Correction Orders, Parole Orders and Community based orders. In 2017, you were convicted and sentenced with a term of imprisonment for charges which included the cultivation of cannabis; trafficking methamphetamine; possession of firearms and imitation firearms and; negligently dealing with proceeds of crime. You served a total effective sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The current offending is the first time you have had a matter determined at first instance in the County Court.
Prospects of rehabilitation
I accept that your prior convictions are relevant to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, the need for community protection and specific deterrence. However, your criminal history cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offending. It is relevant to show whether the instant offending is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether you have manifested in the commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law.
Having regard to your prior criminal history, you have demonstrated general compliance with community orders. Further, you have achieved a period of abstinence for 6 months in 2019 while completing your parole order. However, you tend to relapse into drug use at the completion of these orders. In the past, you have engaged with Alcohol and Other Drug services both while in custody and during your custodial terms. You are currently in custody at the Metropolitan Remand Centre, where you have maintained abstinence from drug use. You attended AOD counselling at Primary Care Connect on three occasions in 2013, 2019, 2022. You also engaged with an AOD counsellor in Shepparton, and you found such counselling helpful. However, your engagement with AOD services has been predicated on you being mandated to services and there has been no significant voluntary engagement on your part. No doubt you have gained some benefit from the programs and counselling you have undertaken. However, to date you have not been able to sustain abstinence in the long term.
Both the case management assessment report and clinical advisor assessment report describe you as being highly motivated, insightful and ready for change. It is clear that you have been afflicted by a long-standing drug dependency, which you are determined to overcome. You identify that your children are your primary motivation for change, as they are also the primary victims of your drug use and drug-related offending. However, you have also minimised the inherit risk of your children living in an environment where illegal activities occur, indicating a denial about the broader implications of your offending. You need to understand that your decision to sell methamphetamine was a troubling choice which jeopardised your family’s safety. It also jeopardises your future as a parent to your children.
Medical history and mental health
Having regard to your physical and mental health, you currently have severe back pain due to a bulging disc and you are currently in contact with the Neurosurgery Department at St Vincent Hospital. You have been approved for keyhole surgery on your back, however, you have decided to delay this procedure until you are placed on a DATO. You are currently still on the waitlist for surgery and in the meantime you are managing symptoms with pain relief medication like Paracetamol. The rehabilitation period for such a surgery is approximately 4 weeks, with approximately 1 week where you can expect to be bed-ridden. Your recovery from surgery will likely impact your compliance with the DATO. This is a matter I have given some consideration and although it may cause some interference with your treatment I do not consider it is of such significance that you should be precluded from the DATO.
You also live with Type 2 Diabetes, asthma, arthritis, hypertension and sleep apnoea.
With regard to your mental health, you believe you have suffered from anxiety in the past but you have not been formally diagnosed. You do not currently engage with a psychologist or psychiatrist. You have engaged with a psychologist in 2021 at Shepparton Medical Centre. You feel stable and supported for the most part, but your poor physical health leads you to low mood on occasion.
Plea of guilty
You have pleaded guilty to the offending at a very early stage, having intimated this course at the second committal mention on 13 August 2024. I accept this is indicative of remorse and also has a utilitarian benefit. I find that you have facilitated the course of justice. I intend to allow an appropriate discount for your plea of guilty.
Sentencing principles
In general terms the basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. Principles of proportionality, parsimony and totality are also very important considerations. They require me to make sure the total sentence is appropriate to the total criminality, that the punishment imposed fits the crimes committed and that I do no more than is necessary to punish you for your offending.
Current sentencing practices are also relevant to the sentencing exercise. I was referred to several cases by the prosecution. I have considered the cases of Gregory, Mourkakos, Fernando and Polos.[4] Each of these cases involved the imposition of considerable terms of imprisonment.
[4] Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151; Mourkakos v The Queen [2018] VSCA 26; Fernando v The Queen [2017] VSCA 208; Polos v The King [2022] VSCA 258.
The case of Gregory (a pseudonym) involved commercial and other trafficking in methamphetamine, cocaine and steroids. The offending spanned eight years and there was violence and intimidation used to enforce payment. The case of Mourkakos involved trafficking in a commercial quantity of methamphetamine together with trafficking in MDMA, cocaine, cannabis and 3 charges of prohibited person possess firearm.[5] The offender in that case was on bail at the time of the offending and had significant prior convictions. The case of Fernando also involved commercial quantity trafficking of methamphetamine and trafficking in cocaine, ketamine and heroin. The offender in that case was found guilty after trial, was on a CCO at the time of the offending.[6] Lastly, the case of Polos involved commercial quantity trafficking of methamphetamine and trafficking of MDMA and cocaine. In that case the offending occurred during a period of parole.[7]
[5] Mourkakos v The Queen [2018] VSCA 26.
[6] Fernando v The Queen [2017] VSCA 208.
[7] Polos v The King [2022] VSCA 258.
Mr Melasecca referred to the case of Moran as an example of a DATO being imposed for serious drug offending.[8]
[8] DPP V Moran (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1836.
Whilst comparable cases assist the court in terms of the principles they expound, each case must be dealt with on its facts. In your case as I have said you are to be sentenced for a charge of trafficking that occurred on one day and involved your possession for sale of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. You also fall to be sentenced for dealing with proceeds of crime and possession of Viagra.
Matters relevant to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Determination Hearing
I turn now to matters relevant to the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order are to facilitate your rehabilitation, take account of your drug or alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminal activity associated with drug or alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency.[9] Importantly, if I am considering making 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 the other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence.
[9] Sentencing Act1991 (Vic) s18(1).
Having considered the criteria for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act,[10] and having carefully considered the Clinical Advisor Assessment Report, the Case Manager Assessment Report, the written and oral submissions of both your counsel and the prosecution, and the comparable cases to which I was referred, I indicated at your further determination hearing last week that I was satisfied that it was appropriate in all the circumstances to make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case.
[10] Ibid s18Z.

On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that you are dependent on drugs or alcohol, and that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offences now before me.
My decision to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case has been informed by the assessment reports provided from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court clinical adviser, case manager, and Family Violence Social Support Worker. All have assessed you as suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
Case Manager Harrison Suidgeest expressed concerns about your history of family violence, and your tendency to minimise or rationalise occasions of family violence, such as framing it as a response to provocation. Mr Suidgeest opined that in order to effectively engage with the DATO, you must develop a deeper understanding of the implications of your actions and work toward genuine accountability.
You expressed acceptance for your offending and you are regretful about your actions. Although you have successfully completed community-based orders in the past, your relapses into drug use have prevented you from achieving sustained abstinence. Mr Suidgeest stressed that the importance of you meaningfully engaging with the DATO to effect long-term change. To your advantage, you currently have a positive relationship with your two daughters, your brothers and a network of prosocial friends, one of whom has offered you housing accommodation.
Clinical advisor Terrence Sequeira considers you a suitable candidate for a DATO, notwithstanding your physical health issues. Mr Sequeira noted that you are motivated to change and move ahead in your life, curbing your perpetual cycle of substance use. The introspection and motivation you communicated to Mr Sequeira is a promising foundation for successful rehabilitation.
In terms of your physical health, Mr Sequeira noted that your health issues may impact your eligibility for AOD services. The rehabilitation period following the surgery for your bulging disc will affect your ability to attend to your DATO commitments. It is preferable, in Mr Sequeira’s opinion, that the surgery occur before the commencement of the DATO. Otherwise, a recovery period will need to be accommodated by the DATC team.
Sentence to be imposed
In relation to all charges, you are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). The DATO will commence today, upon your release from custody. You will be accompanied to Drug Court House by Victoria Silton.
A 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.
The core conditions, which are that:
(a)   you must not commit whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment during the time the Order is in force;
(b)   you must attend Drug Court when required by the Court to do so;
(c)   you must report to the Melbourne Drug Court house within two clear working days after the Order is imposed;
(d)   you must report to and accept visits from the members of the Drug Court;
(e)   you must undergo treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as specified in the Order or by the Drug Court;
(f)    you must give notice of any change of address, at least two clear working days before the change, to a specified Drug Court officer;
(g)   you are not to leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court; and
(h)   you are to obey all lawful instructions and directions from the Drug Court team.
48The core conditions will operate for 39 months, or until further Order.
49The program conditions, which are that:
(a)   You comply with the Individual Treatment Plan dated 05 February 2025
(b)   you must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed;
(c)   you must submit to detoxification or other treatments specified in the Order as directed;
(d)   you must attend vocational educational and employment programs as directed;
(e)   you must submit to medical psychiatric and psychological treatment as directed;
(f)    you must reside at accommodation as directed by the Drug court Team;
(g)   you are not to use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;
(h)   you are to abstain from alcohol; and
(i)    you are to do or not do anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning your drug and alcohol dependency; and the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.
(j)    Not to apply to be relicenced.
These program conditions will operate for two years or until further Order.
The custodial part of the DATO is the term of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I not placed you on a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, and it is a term of imprisonment of three years and three months. That is made up as follows:
Charge 1 of Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, 3 years; charge 2 of dealing in proceeds of crime, 18 months and; charge 3 of possession of a schedule 4 poison, convicted and discharged. The sentence on charge 1 is the base sentence and I order 3 months of the sentence imposed on charge 2 to be served cumulative. This makes a total effective sentence of 3 years and 3 months.
I declare that you have served 73 days of pre-sentence detention and this amount is to be noted in the records of the court and deducted from your sentence.
Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991, had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.[11]
[11] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.
OFFENDER: Thanks for the opportunity, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: And can I thank everyone for coming. Thanks Victoria particularly, and thanks Jo for coming, and can I thank counsel, Ms Hogg and Mr Karakas, can you also pass on my gratitude to Mr Melasecca for the very thorough submissions that he made on the first occasion, and also to you for your submissions and assistance, both in December and now.
MR KARAKAS: Thank you, Your Honour, I'm indebted to Your Honour, thank you.
HER HONOUR: All right, we'll adjourn court. Good luck, Chas.
OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.

[2025] VCC 64

6 February 2025