Director of Public Prosecutions v Ngo
[2020] VCC 710
•26 May 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 19-00588
CR 19-00652
CR 19-00653
CR 19-00651
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION |
| v |
| HIU LAM MINH NGO YEE CHUNG VESELIN ORLIC |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE STUART |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 4-6 May 2020, 11-12 May 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 May 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ngo |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 710 |
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal law
Catchwords: Trafficking in a drug of dependence – large commercial quantity, knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, non-prohibited person possessing a registered general category handgun.
Legislation Cited: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s. 71, Crimes Act 1958, s. 194(2), Firearms Act 1996, s. 7(1).
Cases Cited:R v Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112, R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
Sentence:10 years and six months imprisonment, seven year non-parole period; eight years and 11 months imprisonment, five years and 11 months non-parole period; seven years and four months imprisonment, three years and nine months non-parole period; five years and two months imprisonment, 3 year non-parole period.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Crowns | Mr J. Saunders | Ms J. Dunham |
| For Accused Lam | Mr R. Richter QC Jonathan Manning | Mr R. Melasecca |
| For Accused Ngo | Mr A. Brand | Mr A. Brand |
| For Accused Chung | Mr L. Barker | Mr M. Brennan |
| For Accused Orlic | Mr P. Morrissey SC | Ms J Fahmy |
HIS HONOUR:
THE CHARGES AND THOSE CHARGED
1First, I wish to briefly deal with each of the four of you in terms of the Charges you each face and your general background, which I will come to in more detail later in my sentencing reasons.
2You, Hiu Mei Lam, were born in China on 21 April 1989. You were 28 years of age at the time of the offending and are currently 31 years of age. You arrived in Australia on 14 April 2006 on a student visa and are currently on a bridging visa. At the time of your arrest, you were in a relationship with your co-accused, Veselin Orlic. The two you resided in a townhouse at 3/111 Chadstone Road, Malvern East. You had sole custody of your then three-year-old son from a previous relationship.
3You were charged with two charges on indictment. You pleaded guilty to Charge 2 of trafficking in a large commercial quantity in the drug methylamphetamine, better known as ice, between 18 October 2017 until your arrest on 3 February 2018. The maximum penalty prescribed by the Victorian Parliament for that offence is life imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to Charge 3 of dealing in proceeds of crime between that same time period. Charge 3 carries with it a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. Your offending spanned no less than three and a half months.
4In relation to you, Mr Orlic, you also have pleaded guilty to the same two charges but through your counsel raised as a disputed fact the period of time during which you were actually involved by way of participating in Ms Lam's business of trafficking in that drug. It was contended by your counsel,
Mr Morrissey SC, that you only became involved in the relevant way from
11 January 2018 until your arrest on 3 February 2018. A period of some three weeks. I will come to deal with that disputed fact shortly.
5By way of your background, you were born in Montenegro on 24 March 1993. You were 24 years old at the time of the offending and you are now 27 years of age. You are an Australian citizen. In addition to the common charges with Ms Lam that I have already referred to, you have also pleaded guilty to two charges of being a non-prohibited person possessing two registered general category handguns, being Charges 4 and 5, which carried with them a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment.
6Turning to you, Minh Gia Ngo, you were born in China on 10 February 1956. Subsequently you moved to Vietnam when you were very young. At the time of the offending you were 61 years of age and are currently 64 years of age. You came to Australia on 23 February 1988 and are also an Australian citizen. At the time of your arrest you resided at 34/235 Nelson Place, Williamstown. However, as the evidence reveals, you also utilised another address during the course of the offending of 9 Service Street, Sunshine, which was used for drug trafficking purposes.
7You too have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, being Charge 1. As well as a related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, which carries with it a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment.
8You, Yee Mun Chung, were born in Malaysia on 10 August 1983. You were 34 years of age at the time of the offending and currently 36 years of age. You arrived in Australia on 2 November 2007 on a de facto Visa. You are currently on a Residential (Partner) Visa. You lived in shared accommodation at
2B Piccadilly Street, Oakleigh South.
9You also have been charged with one charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine on a separate indictment, being Charge 1, and Charge 2, a charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, limited to the payments you received from Ms Lam for your services to her business.
10The final individual who has been dealt with in the Magistrates' Court was Justin McFarland. He was an associate of yours, Mr Orlic, and as a result of the operation, called Operation Webber, he was charged with dealing in proceeds of crime and he was dealt with for those offences as well as unrelated matters at the Moorabbin Magistrates' Court on 6 June 2019 and sentenced to five months' imprisonment. Parity in sentencing in relation to Mr McFarland has no place in relation to any of the four of you.
THE OFFENDING
11Operation Webber came about as a result of you, Ms Lam, between July and August 2017, coming to the attention of police who were engaged in another investigation. At that time surveillance was conducted on the premises where you and Mr Orlic lived. During the operation a number of investigative techniques were used including interception of telecommunications services, physical surveillance, the installation of video and listening devices at your town house, installation of tracking devices placed on motor vehicles and the execution of a covert search warrant.
12In order to properly understand the nature of the offending to which each of you have pleaded guilty, I have extensively revised and considered the Amended Prosecution Plea Opening and have distilled from it the information which forms the foundation for my sentencing of each of you.
13The Crown case was that you, Ms Lam, ran a business of trafficking in methylamphetamine. This was described as a Giretti[1] type trafficking. It was alleged that during the course of running that business, Mr Orlic became involved as a participant in your business from the first day, 18 October 2017 throughout until his arrest, and your arrest on 3 February 2018 the following year.
[1]R v Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112.
14Before I deal with the disputed fact of the duration of the period of time that you, Mr Orlic, were said to be involved in her business, it is useful to turn to some other matters.
15During the course of my sentencing reasons I will be frequently referring to paragraph numbers derived from the paragraphs in the Amended Crown Plea Opening, which became Exhibit 1 on the plea.
16Turning first, Ms Lam, to your customers. Mr Ngo was plainly your main customer and your dealings with him are set out in Exhibit 1.[2] Your second customer was Andy Tsai.[3] The third customer was a person called Tiger.[4] The fourth customer was Mr Xing.[5] The fifth customer was Mr Chen.[6] And finally, your sixth customer was Mr Nguyen.[7]
[2] Exhibit 1, Amended Prosecution Plea Opening, dated 26 April 2020, para 26, 31, 33, 35, 38, 58, 59, 61, 63, 74, 92, 113, 115, 116, 168, 185, 186, 190, 194, 195, 200, 211, 212, 224, 239 and 244.
[3] Ibid, para 66, 106 and 118.
[4] Ibid, para 25 and 32.
[5] Ibid, para 141, 150, 175 and 180.
[6] Ibid, para 110 and 138.
[7] Ibid, para 190 and 225.
17In addition, some of those customers also from time to time supplied you with methylamphetamine for the purpose of running your business. They included first, you Mr Ngo,[8] secondly, Mr Andy Tsai,[9] thirdly, Mr Xing,[10] and two “unknown males” (perhaps they are one and the same) one of whom is referred to in paragraph 27 and the other in paragraph 41.
[8] Ibid, para 29, 90, 92 and 94.
[9] Ibid, para 21-24, 56 and 105.
[10] Ibid, para 149-151, 153, 163 and 165.
18In addition, Ms Lam, you obtained supplies of methylamphetamine as a result of trips to and from Sydney made by Ms Chung at your behest, which occurred on 9 January 2018,[11] 10 January 2018[12] and a third trip over the period of 1 and 2 February 2018.[13] These trips are later detailed in my sentencing reasons particularly in relation to Ms Chung.
[11] Ibid, para 208.
[12] Ibid, para 210.
[13] Ibid, para 266-270.
QUANTITIES OF METHALAMPHETAMINE
19A large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is 1 kilogram mixed.
20The Crown has not sought to identify the quantities of methylamphetamine trafficked by you, Ms Lam, over that three and a half month period, save that it points to the quantities actually seized on 3 February 2018, amounting to 15.75 kilograms. That is the only quantifiable weight which the Crown relies upon, it being over 15 times the large commercial quantity threshold, relevant to both you, Ms Lam, and you, Mr Orlic.
21This matter is pithily put in the written submissions prepared by Mr Richter QC and Mr Manning on your behalf, Ms Lam, which became
Exhibit HL1. In paragraph 2 of those written submissions, the following is written:
'The sentencing regime for trafficking being essentially ‘quantity based’, the gravity of the offending is informed by the quantity of drugs trafficked. No particular quantity over the entire period is (or can be) alleged. Rather, it is accepted that the telephone conversations and warrant seizures are relevant, and that the seized total of 15 kg jointly attributable to Ms Lam and Mr Orlic form a quantified weight.'
22That is how the Crown put it in relation to you, Ms Lam, and you, Mr Orlic, and that is how I approach my task.
23What follows is not to be thought of me as diverging from that strict approach. But it is useful to understand the range of quantities of methylamphetamine that you, Ms Lam, were involved in selling as part of your business. One kilogram quantities are referred to on various occasions: 22 October 2017,[14] 3 November 2017,[15] 14 December 2017,[16] 18 December 2017[17] and 12 January 2018.[18]
[14] Ibid, para 27.
[15] Ibid, para 63.
[16] Ibid, para 150.
[17] Ibid, para 168.
[18] Ibid, para 218.
24In addition, there are a couple of references to the sale of what appears to be half kilogram quantities on 15 December 2017[19] and 18 January 2018.[20] As well as reference to sale of quarter ounce quantities, on
29 October 2017[21] and 6 November 2017.[22]
[19] Ibid, para 155.
[20] Ibid, para 224.
[21] Ibid, para 41.
[22] Ibid, para 67.
THE 3 FEBRUARY 2018 ARRESTS AND SEARCHES
25It is useful at this moment in my sentencing reasons to turn to the events of 3 February 2018 where three of you, other than Mr Ngo, were arrested and searches made.
26At 1.26 pm on 3 February 2018, police forced entry into your townhouse,
Ms Lam. Present at the time were you, Ms Chung, Ying Chen and your then three-year-old son, Damon. In the garage of that townhouse were located seven “Green Chinese Tea” bags. Each of those so-called “tea bags” were opened and found to contain vacuum sealed packages approximately 1 kilogram in weight, each containing methylamphetamine. In addition, a large snap lock bag contained methylamphetamine and $18,000 in a Ziploc bag. In a Deliveroo bag also located in the garage was $46,700 cash bundled with rubber bands and a money counting machine. In the townhouse itself a number of mobile phones were found together with $7,400 in cash.
27In total police recovered at the townhouse and associated garage 7.984 kilograms of methylamphetamine with a purity of 82 to 83 per cent and a total of $73,052.15 in cash. At your premises, Ms Chung, at 2B Piccadilly Street, Oakleigh South, police located $9,000 in cash, which you maintained was your own money derived legitimately and saved by you.
28Shortly after at 3.39 pm, you Mr Orlic, were seen in the company of two other males in Dandenong. You and one of them entered a blue Toyota RAV4 motor vehicle and drove off. Shortly after the car was seen parked unattended. You and the other male left the shop in Victoria Street, Richmond and walked towards it. At this time you were arrested. Found in that RAV4 motor vehicle, the police discovered a hidden hydraulic compartment in the boot. This contained no less than $348,960 in cash in bundles in Ziploc bags. Various shopping bags containing $19,000 in cash, a Ziploc bag containing 796.5 grams of methylamphetamine, a Smith & Wesson revolver, a Retay semiautomatic pistol, two boxes of ammunition and other various loose ammunition.
29In total, from the RAV4, police seized the 796.5 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80 per cent and the $367,960 in cash. A further $609 in cash was located on your person.
30That evening at 9.10 pm police attended at 91 Outlook Drive, Dandenong North, which is an address associated with you, Mr Orlic. There they located a Toyota Hi Ace van parked opposite the address. They searched it and located inside another hidden hydraulic compartment in the boot a quantity of empty green refined Chinese tea bags, seven green refined Chinese tea bags containing methylamphetamine, $105,900 in cash in bundles, a glass pipe containing drug residue and a Ziploc bag containing methylamphetamine. In total from the Toyota police seized 6972 grams of methylamphetamine, which had a purity of 82 per cent and $105,900 in cash.
31On 5 February 2018 police executed warrants on premises associated with you,
Mr Ngo. At premises on Nelson Place in Williamstown, police located a Ziploc bag containing 1.4 grams of methylamphetamine. At the Service Street, Sunshine address, police located a clear bag containing methylamphetamine which weighed 37.9 grams.
32During Operation Webber, police seized a total of 15.75 kilograms of methylamphetamine and cash totalling $576,921.15.
THE DISPUTED FACT OF ORLIC’S PERIOD OF PARTICIPATION
33With those broad facts in place it is necessary for me to determine whether the Crown has proven the duration of your participation, Mr Orlic, in Ms Lam's business of trafficking in methylamphetamine.
34At the time of your plea, it was made plain to me that the plea was made on the basis of a contested fact, namely, the duration of your participation in Ms Lam's, business. She, like you, has been charged on the basis of the case of R v Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112. The Crown case, as I have already said, involves an allegation that you were party to her business enterprise over that whole period from 18 October 2017 to 3 February 2018.
35It is the Crown case that your criminal liability arises from your participation in her business as a result of your engagement with her in a joint criminal enterprise. As I have said, Mr Morrissey SC, on your behalf contented that your criminal involvement did not commence until 11 January 2018 and that thereon your participation is conceded, there being, to use Mr Morrissey SC's words, “an abundance” of evidence of your participation from that time until your arrest on 3 February 2018'.
36Thus, your participation in her business is said by Mr Morrissey SC to have commenced 12 weeks into the 15 week period of trafficking by Ms Lam.
37Care must be taken in assessing the Crown case because both you and Ms Lam were living in a de facto relationship and living together at the Chadstone Road address. There is a temptation to approach this issue on the basis that you must have been aware of her business throughout this period of time. Awareness of, is not participation in a Giretti[23]-type trafficking business.
[23]R v Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112.
38Whilst it is true that there are a number of conversations recorded between
Ms Lam and Mr Ngo suggesting that you were participating in her business, being on 25 October 2017,[24] 27 October 2017,[25] 1 November 2017,[26] 19 November 2017,[27] 28 December 2017,[28] and 29 December 2017.[29] However, there are also clear statements made by both Ms Lam and Mr Ngo that Mr Ngo is separately sourcing methylamphetamine from you, Mr Orlic. The inference being that you, Mr Orlic, were running your own trafficking in methylamphetamine business parallel to but distinct from Ms Lam’s.
[24] Exhibit 1, Amended Prosecution Plea Opening, dated 26 April 2020, para 34.
[25] Ibid, para 39-40.
[26] Ibid, para 58.
[27] Ibid, para 120.
[28] Ibid, para 195.
[29] Ibid, para 197, 200 and 202.
39Thus, as seen in Exhibit 2, which are extracted relevant telephone intercepts and texts intercepts, the following conversation on 1 November 2017 between Ms Lam and Mr Ngo is identified:
‘Lam: I see. Okay okay.
Ngo: Do I need to give the money to your boyfriend later?
Lam: What?
Ngo: Give the money to your boyfriend, your money.
Lam: Actually, mine is separate from his.
Ngo: Separate, but should I give you the money or your boyfriend?
Lam: The one that you want later?
Ngo: Yes.
Lam: Yes, give him.
Ngo: I see. Okay. Mmm.
Lam: Yes, yes, yes. But don't mention to him about the previous matter between you and me.
Ngo: (unclear) how much, how much he brings him/her and then you will know.
Lam: Yes, but don't talk to him about the previous matter, the previous matter between you and me.
Ngo: Okay, I know. I understand.
Lam: Okay okay, yes, okay.
Ngo: Mmm.’[30]
[30] Exhibit 1, Amended Prosecution Plea Opening, dated 26 April 2020, para 58 and Exhibit 2, Selected phone and text intercepts as they relate to the participation of Veselin Oric in Hiu Lam’s drug trafficking business.
40Two days later on 3 November 2017 there was a text message from Ms Lam to Mr Ngo:
'Brother SAU, you need to tell me each time if the paper is mine or my boyfriend's. I am concerned that it may get mixed up. For the previous one quarter between you and me, you already paid ten dollars and still oweeighteen and a
halfdollars. And also the one quarter today.
Between you and my boyfriend, above is twenty-one and a half (minuseight dollars and a half)
Below is eighteen dollars.’[31]
[31] Exhibit 1, Amended Prosecution Plea Opening, dated 26 April 2020, para 61 and Exhibit 2, Selected phone and text intercepts as they relate to the participation of Veselin Oric in Hiu Lam’s drug trafficking business.
41For the uninitiated, the reference to paper is to money and the reference to eighteen and a half is a reference to $18,500.
42Five days later on 8 November 2017 there is a further question between you Ms Lam and you, Mr Ngo. Relevantly, the exchange of that call is as follows:
‘Lam: No, no, that is ours, but for ours, you still owe me three, three, thirty dollars and five cents.
Ngo: (Overtalks) I know, but I have told him/her, I have told you, I don’t dare to give all to your boyfriend and the stuff is still here. How can I release (it)? How can I get money? It gets stuck here.
Lam: (Overtalks) It’s not my boyfriend’s, it’s mine.
Ngo: I am talking about the Middle East stocks.
Lam: No, at the beginning, no, at the beginning, I gave you, that is, the sum I (unclear) you the other day.
Ngo: No, but I, you have paid back everything to the Caucasian guy, there is Middle East stock, and then you work outthe sum.
Lam: No, not that, Caucasian guy is another issue. It’s separate from ours. I have told you.
Ngo: I know, it is separate, but those that I gave the other say is yours but you gave him/her.’[32]
[32] Exhibit 1, Amended Prosecution Plea Opening, dated 26 April 2020, para 81 and Exhibit 2, Selected phone and text intercepts as they relate to the participation of Veselin Oric in Hiu Lam’s drug trafficking business.
43Finally, on 18 November 2017 there is a further conversation between Ms Lam and Mr Ngo, which relevantly reads:
‘Ngo: (Overtalks) He/she wants the original kind. Maybe Caucasian guy’s is also okay.
Lam: Er, er, er, …
Ngo: He/she doesn’t want this kind. This kind takes a long time. It’s slow.
Lam: No, no, or you can you can you can return (it) to me because someone wants it. Someone wants to get this.
Ngo: That’s why I say, I asked the driver to take it away last night.
Lam: Have you got any more?
Ngo: No, not much. No need. Won’t bother to return (it) to him/her. Just slowly. Now people need to come to get either yours or the Caucasian guy’s.
Lam: I see.
Ngo: I can’t recall how the Caucasian guy’s looks like. Has yours got any left?
Lam: All gone.
Ngo: What about the Caucasian guy’s?
Lam: I don’t know. I can ask him. Because my side has been chasing me hard.’[33]
[33] Exhibit 1, Amended Prosecution Plea Opening, dated 26 April 2020, para 116 and Exhibit 2.
44The “caucasian guy” is a reference, as I understand, to Mr Orlic.
45These conversations between Ms Lam and Mr Ngo, evidence that there were two separate businesses being run and kept separate in terms of sales, payments, stock kept and accounting for moneys owed. In none of the conversations that are set out does either Ms Lam or Mr Ngo suggest that Mr Orlic was involved in her business, indeed, if anything, the reverse is true. (Perhaps an explanation for these two separate businesses is that Ms Lam's customers speak with her in an Asian language, whereas Mr Orlic can only speak English).
46In order for an aggravating fact to be proven against a particular accused, that fact must be established beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359.
47Leaving aside questions of admissibility, the evidence that I have set out above clearly establishes that if Mr Orlic was participating prior to 10 January 2018 it is, as Mr Morrissey SC put it, “scant”. It has been conceded that prior to 11 January 2018, the Crown cannot point to any independent evidence of Mr Orlic's participation. Thereafter there is, to again use the words of Mr Morrissey SC, “abundant evidence”, and indeed independent evidence of his participation in Ms Lam's business.
48Am I therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Orlic's participation predates 10 January 2018? The short answer is “No”.
49I just then specifically referred to 10 January 2018 rather than 11 January 2018 because on 10 January 2018 Ms Lam makes it known that she is leaving for Queensland the following day, 11 January 2018. Mr Orlic is heavily involved in the activities of 11 January 2018 and could not have but known that that last transaction before her departure had its origins on 10 January 2018. Thus, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and in the end Mr Morrissey SC conceded as much, that his participation in Ms Lam's business did in fact commence on 10 January 2018.
MR RICHTER’S SUBMISSION AS TO THE DURATION OF MS LAM’S OFFENDING
50Mr Richter QC sought to avail himself of this shortened time frame for Mr Orlic on behalf of his client, Ms Lam. He contended that her criminality is confined to the actual period of the joint criminal enterprise with Mr Orlic. Thus, if that submission is right, reducing the duration of her drug trafficking business from three and a half months to but three weeks. This was a submission that Mr Richter QC developed having heard the submissions of Mr Morrissey SC. No such confined period was contested for prior to Mr Morrissey SC commencing his argument on behalf of Mr Orlic.
51The plea that Ms Lam made to both the charges of trafficking and dealing in proceeds of crime commencing on 18 October 2017 and no such confined period was suggested.
52Leaving aside whether there has been in the submission of Mr Richter QC's, a traversing of her plea, Mr Richter QC's submission fails on a more substantive basis.
53Ms Lam's criminal liability is not derived from her participation in a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Orlic. Rather that is how Mr Orlic's criminality is established by his participation in her business. Ms Lam's criminality arises from her being the principal in her own business, not on her being a party to a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Orlic.
54Indeed, the Crown opening at p.5 commences under the heading, 'The offending' with the first date being 19 October 2017. The defence written submissions on behalf of Ms Lam which are dated 1 May 2020 acknowledged the duration of the offending[34] and referred to dates before 29 November 2017[35] and 18 December 2017[36].
[34] Exhibit HL1, Defence submissions on behalf of Ms Lam dated 1 May 2020, para 1.
[35] Ibid, para 6.
[36] Ibid, para 8.
55There is, in my view, no merit whatsoever to Mr Richter QC's submission that Ms Lam's criminality can in any way be so confined, leaving aside, as I have already said, issues of whether or not this submission amounts to a traversing of part, and an important part, of her pleas of guilty.
THE RESPECTIVE OBJECTIVE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENDING
56And so, I turn to my assessment of the objective gravity of each of your offending. In doing so I emphasise that some of the matters I detail in relation to one individual also impacts on others. In particular, the described activities of both Ms Chung and Mr Orlic, are also obviously related to the gravity of the offending by Ms Lam.
57In relation to you, Ms Lam, this was your business. You were the directing mind throughout. You dealt at a wholesale level in Melbourne, buying and selling this methylamphetamine as part of your business. Your offending lasted for no less than three and a half months during which you were constantly engaged in various aspects of running your business, contacting customers, contacting suppliers. You sourced methylamphetamine from Sydney, selling that product, as I am informed, on a commission basis of $10,000 per kilogram upon a sale of $100,000.
58The total quantity of 15.75 kilograms seized amounts to more than 15 times the threshold of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. In addition, the total cash holdings of $576,921.15 also speaks, without more, to the extent and gravity of your offending. You employed Ms Chung to store cash and drugs at her home, to act as a courier and travel to and from Sydney on three occasions in order to resupply your stock.
59Whilst there is no evidence of wealth that can be identified other than perhaps the vast sums of money that were found, you were clearly motivated by greed, selling, as I have said, on a commission of $10,000 per kilogram of methylamphetamine sold.
60When one reflects on the 15.75 kilograms of methylamphetamine seized, and does a simple multiplication, that amounts to a profit expectation in the vicinity of $157,000. Whether that sum would actually have been realised or not, is not to the point, it is the potential that is revealed. Where in fact your money went is unknown.
61Your business only stopped because of your arrest. Your moral culpability is complete in this very serious example of trafficking which carries with it the highest maximum penalty set my Parliament of life imprisonment.
62Turning to you, Mr Ngo, as already stated you were Ms Lam's main customer, buying from her in large and lesser amounts and occasionally selling to her as needs be. You did so for the lesser period of 18 October 2017 to 15 January 2018, a period just shy of three months. Whilst the quantities of methylamphetamine cannot be quantified, I proceed upon the agreed fact that you trafficked during that period in a quantity “at least” over the large commercial quantity threshold. You ran your methylamphetamine trafficking business for profit. The fact that you made losses and became indebted to Ms Lam in an amount over $90,000 is not to the point, as you were endeavouring with Ms Lam's assistance to trade out of your losses.[37] You were of course in a subsidiary position, vis-à-vis Ms Lam, but nonetheless this is very serious offending over a period of almost three months.
[37] Ibid, paras 145, 224, 225, 240, 249, 253 and 260, and Exhibit MN3.
63You, Ms Chung, acted as Ms Lam's trusted courier. It appears that she had no license. On numerous occasions you were tasked with collecting and receiving drugs and money. You were frequently referred to as, 'the driver'. You were also expected to count the moneys you received.[38] You also stored some of Ms Lam's money at your home. Ms Lam would ask you from time to time to bring her money or drugs as required. This of course was an attempt by Ms Lam to distance herself from her own business stock and cash.[39]
[38] Ibid, paras 45, 48, 55, 57, 59, 60, 64, 69, 84, 86, 95, 97, 98, 101, 103, 109, 121, 123, 170 and 205.
[39] Ibid, paras 67, 78, 82, 91, 98, 135 and 213.
64By way of illustration, on 22 January 2018 you, Ms Chung, tell Ms Lam there is $100,000 there.[40]
[40] Ibid, para 238.
65In addition, you drove to Sydney and back to Melbourne over about a 19-hour period on 9 January 2018[41] and a second such trip on the following day, 10 January 2018, in a hire car, taking about 18 hours for the round trip.[42] On 25 January 2018, Ms Lam calls you and asks you to go to Sydney again for her because she is running low. And so, on 31 January 2018 you, Ms Lam and Mr Orlic are having a conversation about you travelling to Sydney and to get her car modified, which is code for getting a secret compartment installed. In that conversation you tell Ms Lam that it costs a lot of money but Ms Lam says she will pay.[43]
[41] Ibid, para 208.
[42] Ibid, para 210.
[43] Ibid, para 259.
66On 1 February 2018, you travel to Sydney and back in a rented vehicle.[44] From 29 October 2017 to 3 February 2018 you play a critical role in facilitating Ms Lam's ongoing methylamphetamine trafficking business. You do so as a trusted courier and storer of drugs and money. You were involved in re-supplying her stock, as I have said, by traveling to and from Sydney. You trafficked in a large commercial quantity which, again, can only be quantified as being at least a large commercial quantity. The benefit that you received for your involvement in Ms Lam's business was described by Mr Barker as ‘wages’. Plainly, as he submitted in his written submissions, you were not to share in the profits of her business.
[44] Ibid, para 266-270.
67So finally, I turn to you, Mr Orlic. Whilst the duration of your offending is confined to the three weeks between 10 January 2018 and 3 February 2018, you were involved at a high level in Ms Lam's business, including counting and moving large sums of money.[45] You were involved in moving various bags containing methylamphetamine and money.[46] You were also involved in collecting money for Ms Lam,[47] handling the methylamphetamine[48] and dealing in methylamphetamine.[49]
[45] Ibid, paras 226, 227, 228, 230, 258, 272 and 274
[46] Ibid, paras 215, 243, 246, 250, 254 and 278.
[47] Ibid, para 257.
[48] Ibid, paras 213 and 272.
[49] Ibid, para 214.
68You were in joint possession of the 2.2 kilograms of methylamphetamine found under the sink and approximately $25,000 cash found during the course of a covert search of yours and Ms Lam's home on 12 January 2018. Further, you were in possession of the 7.98 kilograms of methylamphetamine and $75,052 cash found at your home on 3 February 2018, the 796 grams and $367,960 in cash in your RAV4 and a further 6972 grams and $105,900 cash found in the white Toyota van.
69You too therefore trafficked in at least a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. I am satisfied further, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did so for profit. In addition, you had in your possession two handguns which were clearly related to the setting of your participation in Ms Lam's methylamphetamine trafficking business. This is clearly offending of a serious kind.
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY, PLEAS OF GUILTY AND DELAY
70And, so, I turn to your personal backgrounds.
71You are four very different people, not only in terms of your criminality but also in terms of your personal circumstances, your prospects for rehabilitation and the need for specific deterrence, deterring you from further offending. In addition, your already substantial period of imprisonment has had for at least two of you, a very dramatic effect.
72You, Ms Lam, Mr Ngo and Ms Chung, have no criminal history whatsoever. You, Mr Orlic, were imprisoned in youth detention in 2010 to 2011 in relation to violence related offences. So far as I am concerned, they are of no relevance whatsoever in this sentencing exercise. You were a juvenile at the time. The offending is completely different and I put that matter entirely aside.
73Each of you have pleaded guilty at different times. In relation to you, Ms Lam, at the filing hearing you indicated you would plead guilty to appropriate charges. In relation to you, Mr Ngo, it was an early plea on 19 February 2019, upon the Office of Public Prosecution being advised that you would plead guilty. In relation to you, Mr Orlic, your plea was again an early one on 4 March 2019. In relation to you, Ms Chung, your pleas of guilty were entered after committal, though not at the earliest opportunity, but it was, as put, at an early stage.
74When dealing with this question of whether or not a plea of guilty was an early plea, or the earliest time possible, one cannot simply look to a date and say, 'Oh, that was early, or that was late', or the like. It is a matter I must take into account but in all the circumstances of the particular case at hand. Here each of you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine carrying with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The materials that I have looked at are but a small portion of the depositions as they became.
75The complexity of the case must be taken into account. The opportunity for counsel and instructing solicitors to review the material and to give informed advice, must be taken into account. Thus, in this case, in relation to all of you, I am satisfied that the pleas of guilty were made or indicated at the earliest reasonable opportunity and that each of you are entitled to the full benefit of those early pleas of guilty. Further, those pleas of guilty have a utility of avoiding what could have been at least a two to three month trial, with associated heavy demand on resources, particularly in these times of pandemic.
76In addition, each of you has facilitated the course of justice. This is, again, particularly so during these times, when trials in this state have stopped and will be unlikely to resume until next year.
77For reasons which I will come to, there is also a need for me to take into account whether you have achieved insight and remorse in relation to your offending. In relation to you, Ms Lam, for reasons that I will come to and you, Mr Ngo, I am satisfied that there is some evidence of insight and in relation to both of you, perhaps even remorse. In relation to you, Ms Chung and you, Mr Orlic, again, for the reasons which I will come to, I am satisfied that your insight and remorse is, for both of you, complete, a statement that I infrequently make, but in your cases, well warranted.
78In addition, there has been considerable delay of no less than well in excess of two years. During that period of time none of you have known your fate. Two of you, Ms Chung and Mr Orlic, have quite astoundingly rehabilitated yourselves, or at the very least gone a long way towards it whilst in custody.
MS LAM’S PERSONAL BACKGROUND
79So, I turn to each of your backgrounds, commencing first with you, Ms Lam. Yours has been a troubled life, marked by drug use from the age of 13 to drug addiction a couple of years later. It has haunted your life. It has controlled your life. As I have already indicated, having been born in China, you are now a 31-year-old woman.
80You arrived in Australia in 2006, then aged 16. Your father was a violent and abusive alcoholic who left when you were five years of age and you have no contact with him. Your mother is a coal trader living in Beijing. You have a son, Damon, who is now five years of age. He has been sent to China to be cared for by your mother whilst you are in custody. He remains in China on a visa which is due to expire in November 2020. I shall return to that matter later in dealing with your background.
81For your education you went to Beijing High School until year seven where you discontinued due to drug use, then Ireland High School up to year nine and then back to Beijing High School for one year. In Melbourne, at age 16, you completed your VCE, but with poor marks and whilst doing business studies you fell pregnant in 2015. Your drug use was described in the written submissions as constant, using various drugs including ketamine, ecstasy, cocaine, heroin and, especially, methylamphetamine. Your relationships were with fellow drug users, one of whom died of an overdose. You also had a gambling problem between the ages of 18 and 25. It is noteworthy that until your time in custody you have never had any drug treatment.
82Two psychological reports by Luke Armstrong were tendered on your behalf, which became Exhibits HL2 and HL5. In the first psychological report, dated 26 October 2018,[50] Mr Armstrong set out in very considerable detail your background and your substance use. He opines at p.5 the following:
‘In consideration of all of her index scores it is likely that her IQ, especially in areas of verbal and non-verbal reasoning sits somewhere in the range of borderline to low average. Her performance in non-verbal information processing sat much higher and in the average range.'
[50] Exhibit HL2, Psychological assessment report of Luke Armstrong dated 26 October 2018.
83Later he continues:
'Your client presents with borderline to low average cognitive capacity in her capacity to comprehend and problem solve using language. Her literacy scores as described by the WRAT-5 would suggest extremely low to low average functioning across reading, spelling and arithmetic. It would suggested that whilst language is indeed a barrier for her in literacy and verbal comprehension, her overall funcitoning in academic and intellectual domains, particularly in verbal domains would be described as borderline to low average.’
84Later at p.6 Mr Armstrong writes:
‘Your client presents with considerable personality disturbance and acknowledges that her need to be spoiled by her mother and later by her partners reflects major problems in her own psychological make up. Your client acknowledged that her underlying core problems of loneliness and insecurity feed, paradoxically her need to be regarded as special, the absence of which is compensated by stimulant abuse and gambling. Your client admits that historically she has not taken criticism well, that she is competitive and arrogant. Her presentation is certainly consistent with features of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.'
85Later he observes:
'From the age of 21 years your client presents with a history of Stimulant Use Disorder (ICE, Severe, now in Early Remission).’
86And later:
‘The level of mental disorder associated with a substance abuse disorder is severe for many individuals, including your client.’.
87In the second report dated 29 April 2020,[51] Mr Armstrong writes as part of general observations, the following:
‘It is the author’s understanding that if her son cannot have his Visa renewed in China, he may be returned and adopted in the Australian community. Ms Lam has added complexities, which include the prospect of deportation at the conclusion of her sentence. Her presentation is one of primary concern for the welfare of her mother and son, if she is deported to China to face further, potential incarceration. Specifically, your client remains committed to looking after her elderly mother and infant son on release, yet complexities around her son’s visa, her mother’s welfare and her own status cause her significant stress. Of note is that your client has shifted from the self-centred framework of a drug addict/Offender to an individual with a sense of other trying to right the conduct of her past.
From a functional point of view, when I first met Ms Lam she had struggled to remain clean in jail, there were also incidences of conflict with her peers and prison staff. Specifically, this woman had very little capacity to regulate her mental health problems. Over time I have observed your client participate in prison programs when available. She has also gained privileges and the respect of prison staff who have noted to her, that her behaviour has much improved over time. Ms Lam acknowledges that she recognises the flaws of associating with a corrupt peer group. She is also now attempting to utilise the MASC strategies provided to her to remain conflict free within her prison billet. It is my understanding that Ms Lam now also maintains employment within the prison.’
[51] Exhibit HL5, Psychological report of Luke Armstrong dated 29 April 2020.
88Mr Armstrong continues:
'At the conclusion of the third round of MASC modules, your client demonstrated the following:
Ms Lam was able to articulate that prior to arrest her life was out of control. That jail has stabilised her mental state (“I am calm now”) and reformed her behaviour, i.e. no incidents of violence or drug use since May/June 2019. Ms Lam now also consistently identifies with the importance of separating herself from negative peer groups. She is now preoccupied with repairing and maintaining her attachment with her child and her mother. Ms Lam can now link the use of evidenced based interventions with her improved mental state and conduct. Ms Lam now depends on these interventions vs. peer associations and drug use to maintain her mental health in prison.
At the conclusion of the third round of MASC your client can now clearly articulate her need for vocational reformation. Ms Lam demonstrates a greater level of insight into her vocational needs. In June 2019 her vocational goals were vague and unrealistic. Currently, your client intends to seek training in hospitality in order to obtain employment in hotel management on release.
Of importance in commenting on your client’s rehabilitative prospects, is that whilst Ms Lam most certainly desires a future without drugs, more importantly she can make the link that without a complete absence of deviant, peer relationships, this future will not be possible.’
89Under the ‘Summary Conclusions’ Mr Armstrong continues under the heading, 'Diagnosis and Summary':
' The more malignant aspects of your client’s personality disturbances are now in remission as evidenced by the fact that Ms Lam presents with the capacity for empathy, remorse and/or a sense of other. These emergent features would suggest Ms Lam has responded well to treatment. There is no doubt in my mind that severe drug abuse impairs judgement and magnifies the kind of cognitive distortions (i.e. suppression/denial) that offenders like Ms Lam depend on to rationalise their offending behaviour. The fact that personality disturbance is improved, and her addiction disorders remain in remission suggest her prognosis for recovery is promising.’
90And under the ‘Risk Assessment’ section in the concluding dot point paragraphs, Mr Armstrong writes:
' • Ms Lam now has the foundation and capacity to utilise prosocial strategies to self regulate. She can recognise when she is not regulating herself and can engage in strategies that no longer require her to deny her mental health problems or associate with a corrupted peer group.
• With her participation in the MASC program, combined with a lengthy remand period Ms Lam now fully accepts the wrongful nature of her offending. There is also genuine regret and recognition that her behaviour has harmed the community.
• Ms Lam now recognises that her previous peer relationships were corrupt, Ms Lam recognises that it is critical that she remains committed to positive relationships if she is going to remain a low risk of re-offending.’
91You have also participated in a number of programs and certificates demonstrate this.[52]
[52] Exhibit HL7, Three certificates of completion of programs.
92Mr Richter QC has made an earnest submission that the undoubted discretion of mercy is enlivened because of a combination of matters. Principally he relied upon the potential situation where your now five-year-old son, being an Australian citizen by birth, is in China being cared for by your elderly mother with, as I have said, his visa expiring in November of this year. Whether or not that visa will be extended is uncertain. Thus, he faces an uncertain future. It is relevant that he has no other relatives who can be called upon to look after him should he be returned to Australia. In addition, you face almost certain deportation, potentially leaving him in Australia and you in China. That situation, if it were to come about would indeed be a tragic one. In addition to these worries that any mother would have, you are also isolated in prison. You have no family support or other support in Australia and with prison restrictions in place arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, this is further evidence of the onerousness of your imprisonment.
93Much of this is conjecture, but even if one leaves aside this question of conjecture, these are not matters which are, in my view, exceptional. Certainly, they are not matters which enliven the discretion of mercy. Nothing in the circumstances of your offending suggests a merciful disposition, nor was it said to be so.
94These matters, however, are matters which I take into account because your imprisonment and your worries that I have referred to render your imprisonment more burdensome than other prisoners. Thus, I do intend to moderate the sentence that I would otherwise impose.
95Finally, Mr Richter QC, on a number of occasions, adverted to your short stature, being 4 foot 8. The significance of this still eludes me.
96There is nothing in what I have read of how you conducted your business over this period of three and a half months that suggests that you were compromised in your business dealings with your suppliers and your customers by dent of your intellectual functioning, and quite the reverse. You dealt efficiently with all of whom you came in contact.
97You have no prior history and there is a summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The bail in question was in relation to a driving offence and is of no relevance to me. Thus, such sentence as is going to be imposed in that regard, will be wholly concurrent.
98As to your prospects of rehabilitation, certainly whilst in custody, there have been areas of improvement in your approach to your long-term addiction to drugs and your lifestyle associated with it. However my view of your prospects of rehabilitation are guarded, falling away to nil in the event that you resume your drug use once you are released from prison.
MR NGO’S PERSONAL BACKGROUND
99Turning to you, Mr Ngo, and your personal background. You too were born in China on 10 February 1956 and you are 63 years of age. Your family moved to South Vietnam where you spent most of your life before coming to Australia in 1988. Both parents are deceased and you have one brother who is unwell and living in Vietnam. You left school at the age of 18 and went into the South Vietnam Army for two years and eventually left as a refugee by boat.
100At age 22 you came to Australia and then you found work, initially as a machine operator and then you were employed by Dunlop in Broadmeadows for some 10 years until the factory closed. You subsequently worked in various restaurants, last working in the city at a Melbourne restaurant for two years. You suffered a severe back injury in 2006 and you still suffer the pain and incapacitation as a result. You married in 1985 and you have had no contact with your wife since your arrest.
101Your wife is in ill health with neck cancer. Your relationship with your wife deteriorated and she is now caring for one of your three children. Your eldest son, Tacky, has kidney failure and is waiting for a kidney transplant.
102You were considerably in debt in 2017 which coincided with your commencement of using ice in that same year. It appears that your drug trafficking business in methylamphetamine was unsuccessful and you became significantly indebted as a result to Ms Lam, as I have said.
103You are at the Fulham prison and you work in the prison printing factory, packing. You are very isolated from your family and indeed have not had any visits at all. You speak Vietnamese and Mandarin and your English is poor, further limiting your contact with others. This has been exacerbated as a result of the lockdown and as a result of the pandemic. You worry about your son who is in the high-risk category in the community.
104You are said to have good prospects for rehabilitation and given your previous lack of any offending, with nothing pending, and your long history of work, having a strong work ethic, I am satisfied that, as submitted by your counsel, Mr Brand, you do have good prospects for rehabilitation. You have not used any drugs since June 2017 and as a result of a combination of factors that I have referred to, your imprisonment, particularly in the circumstances of the lockdown, and your already isolated condition, makes imprisonment more burdensome for you than for the rest of the gaol population.
105On 11 April 2018, you were sentenced to five months' imprisonment for trafficking in 1 ounce of heroin, for which you were charged on 15 June 2017. Totality in sentencing requires me to make some adjustments to the sentence and had I been dealing with that matter I would have adjusted that sentence downwards by two months. This two month differential is reflected in the sentence that I will impose on you on Charge 1. However, this also means that you committed the indictable offence charged whilst on bail in relation to trafficking heroin. This, in my view, requires additional punishment on that summary charge which carries with it a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment.
MS CHUNG’S PERSONAL BACKGROUND
106I now turn to you, Ms Chung. I have had the benefit of the written submissions prepared by Mr Barker, which carefully cover all your background and does so in a way which, I might say, is quite elegantly written. Your financial motive, it is submitted, was only ever to receive wages. I accept that. Nonetheless, you did involve yourself in Ms Lam's business for money.
107You are a Malaysian national living in Australia on the de facto spouse's visa. You identify sexually as a lesbian and as a consequence of the sentence I am going to pass on you, you will be deported to Malaysia where there is significant discrimination at government level against persons who identify themselves as lesbian, gays, bisexual or transgender. This is a matter which I will return to shortly.
108You are the only child of a brief relationship between your parents and your mother still continues to work and live in Kuala Lumpur. Your parents separated when you were about one year old and you have no recollection of your father.
109You were raised by your mother and her mother, with whom you then lived. You lived comfortably in Kuala Lumpur. You were a good student and successfully completed the equivalent of VCE in 2000. You then attended the Informatics College in Kuala Lumpur where you studied for an electronic commerce diploma, which you completed in about 2002. The ensuing couple of years you stayed at home and were supported by your grandfather and in 2004, with the assistance of your grandfather, you opened a shop with a friend selling telecommunication products. You were a hard worker and an innovative spirit in that business which continued until 2007.
110You came to Australia on a tourist visa in September 2007. You enjoyed being in Australia. You returned to Malaysia briefly and obtained a student visa to come here. You returned to Melbourne in January 2008 and commenced a diploma in commercial cookery at Hale's College in February 2008, which you completed at the end of 2009. It was there that you first met Ms Lam. You commenced your employment and worked in a restaurant, firstly in Flemington, and you have an exceptionally strong employment history.
111After completing your diploma, you also worked as a chef and increased your hours to approximately 32 to 35 hours per week. You commenced a relationship with your then partner in 2010 and began living together in 2011, which lasted until shortly after you were remanded in custody. You sustained injuries to your wrist as a result of repetitive cutting at the restaurant between 2012 and 2013 and you found finances tight. You relied on financial assistance from your family in Malaysia to pay bills and expenses.
112You applied in 2013 for a de facto visa and you have remained in Australia since. You have also bought into a pizza shop in Bay Street, Port Melbourne in 2014, but there were problems and, in the end, that business was sold. You then obtained employment with TGI Fridays and you worked there until early 2017 and you were then employed in the Lobster Cave in Beaumaris. It was in that year that Ms Lam approached you to assist with the babysitting of her then three-year-old son.
113You continued that occupation of babysitting throughout the time of this offending, often four days a week, and then were recruited by Ms Lam to do other aspects related to her business, including the three trips to Sydney that I have referred to. In Mr Barker's written submissions, he wrote:
'While Ms Chung’s role in the syndicate was primarily that of a courier, it is not submitted that she was a ‘mere courier’ (as understood by the authorities). There are certainly aspects of counselling that lift her into a more trusted role.’[53]
[53] Exhibit YC1, Outline of plea submissions in relation to Ms Chung, para 26.
114That statement is certainly correct. Indeed, you were a trusted employee of
Ms Lam.
115Your period of imprisonment has been a remarkable one. You have applied yourself diligently to improving yourself and keeping not only out of trouble but being industrious. It is infrequent, to say the least, for a sentencing judge to receive the letter, that became Exhibit YC2, from Andrew Constable, who was a supervisor in the industry assembly area of the Dame Phyllis Frost centre.
116In it he writes, among other things, as follows:
'The Assembly workers refurbish Qantas headsets for Domestic, First and Business class passengers and Ms. Chung is more than competent with regard to our overall process from raw material to finished product and has a proactive approach observing daily production outputs ensuring we are in a position to fulfil bi-weekly orders.
Ms. Chungs' primary function is working in our warehouse operation that consists of four (4) handpicked women who hold trusted positions and Ms. Chung has been trained up to replace the current warehouse team leader and demonstrates the experience, knowledge and confidence to run the team on her own, which she has done on several occasions.
Ms. Chung takes on responsibility for the following:-
• Managing the women and work flow.
• Acceptable quality control of end product.
• Our bi-weekly orders are completed in a timely manner ready for shipping.
• Collates and completes all weekly paperwork with regard to dispatch and materials received.
• Stock control audits.
• Training women in production processes and use of various types of equipment.
Also, Ms. Chung holds a current forklift licence and demonstrates very good driving skills, is well experienced in operating the unit and always adopts OH & S policy and procedures.
In summary, Ms. Chung demonstrates an excellent work ethic, is always polite, well behaved, gets along with the other women, takes direction from Officers without issue is incident free and has been a positive influence in our warehouse.’
117That is a glowing reference. You are entitled to be proud of what you achieved there, but there is more. You have also written your own letter addressed to me, which became Exhibit YC3. I will extract a few passages from that letter. You commence writing:
'Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing this letter in the hope that I find some solace to alleviate my guilty feelings. I am very remorseful for my actions and part in this unfortunate crime'.
118Later you continue:
'I started in helping her out in October and did not think this through. For me, having worked hard all my life, and not earning a lot, this looked like easy money. So, foolishly enough, I got involved, although I did not do a lot of money runs for her, just enough to make a little money. I know this is not an excuse for participating in a crime and I am very ashamed of my actions. I was very naïve and I thought by making money easily, I would be able to help out my mum for once rather than her sending me money all the time'.
119A little later you continue:
'During my school years, I started working at Laksa King in Flemington as a part-time kitchen hand and, after my graduation, I became full time and worked really hard to achieve my goals of learning everything I could about cooking and running a kitchen. I was an asset to my chef and I learnt a lot under him'.
120Later you continue:
'Since leaving TAFE, my life was spent working hard and even when I got incarcerated, my work ethics have not changed. I currently work as a warehouse billet where I load and unload trucks, prepare orders and deliveries, do stocktakes and my position is very highly regarded by the prison staff in Industries. While being in here, I have also participated in various education programs which I am still currently undertaking such as Cert I, II and III in IT and Cert II in Business. I have also acquired my forklift license which is useful in my current employment at OPFC. I have also done a few programs while on remand in order to rehabilitate myself and find some way to feel less guilty'.
121You conclude with these last three sentences:
'I have learnt my lesson as a first time offender and I know for a fact that I will never commit a crime again in my life.
I apologise to anyone who has ever been affected by my part in this criminal offence and I do take full responsibility for my actions. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and I hope to find some peace within myself after this whole court case is over.
Kind regards,'
122I have received, as Exhibit YC7, no less than 16 statement of results and certificates in relation to various courses that you have undertaken whilst in custody. It is an impressive set of documents and compliments the statements that Mr Constable and you yourself have written in your letter to me.
123In addition, there have been two testimonials that have been provided to me, one by Tan E-Lin. She writes that she has known you for some 21 years and as follows:
'I know Yee Chung has to attend the court about drug related charges. I cannot believe she can commits any crime. As much as I know her, Yee Chung is reliable, trustworthy and decent person. I am concern about my dear friend’s future and I hope she is will not be accused wrongly. She is a very good person and has a clean heart. I just hope that you can make your fair judgement and I hope she can has a brighter future moving forward.’[54]
[54] Exhibit YC4, Letter of Tan E-Lin dated 8 March 2020.
124There is a second testimonial by Thuy Thanh La who writes of you that she has known you for some 10 years when you worked in a restaurant called the Laksa King Malaysian restaurant. In the final two paragraphs she writes:
'When Chung called me and told me she got arrested for drug matter, I was very worried and shocked as it took me along time to see her as she was in custody and then into prison when I first saw in prison it was very upsetting to see her looking fragile. As I went to visit her once every 2 weeks Chung has accepted the fact that she’s in prison and has become calmer and does not waste everyday she does study, working and goes to the gym.
Chung has deeply regretted and remorseful in her decision for her drug trafficking offence. I believe Chung is not a harmless person and she has served her 2 years in prison already and deserve a second chance so she can go back to Kuala Lumpur to visit her mum and ill grandpa. I hope the Court will be able to consider her circumstances and allow her some leniency.’[55]
[55] Exhibit YC5, Letter of Thuy Thanh La dated 16 March 2020.
125In addition, it has been submitted by Mr Barker that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused your custody to be extremely onerous, with there being no visits permitted and no programs offered to you. I accept that, as I do indeed with all the other co-accused, that this requires some moderation in the sentence that I would otherwise impose, in addition to having regard to your concerns about being deported after 13 years in Australia thus far and concerns about your life as a lesbian in Malaysia.
126It is not often that I am able to come to a conclusion that a particular accused is genuinely remorseful and insightful. But this is the conclusion I have come to in your case.
127Your work ethic has served you well. You are to be congratulated. You come to court with no prior criminal history. Your prospects of rehabilitation are, in my view, excellent. The chances of you returning to court on other offending are, in my view, non-existent. This leads me also to be able to conclude that in relation to you, deterring you from further offending or specific deterrence as it is called, is irrelevant as a sentencing consideration.
MR ORLIC’S PERSONAL BACKGROUND
128And, so, finally I turn to you Mr Orlic. Your family background is set out in very considerable detail in the first psychological report of Jake Baldacchino dated 20 December 2019, which became Exhibit VO1. I do not intend to go through that history which deals not only with your family history, significant relationships, education and vocational history, alcohol, drugs and gambling. Suffice it to say that it is plain, as I will come to in other materials, that you have had a very difficult life, but have also, much like Ms Chung, done everything possible whilst in prison to rehabilitate yourself and prepare yourself for your release into the community.
129I am not going to do that sourced from those psychological reports for a very good reason, and that is I was able to get a closer insight into you through the affidavit of your elder brother, Vladimir Orlic's affidavit, dated 3 May 2020 which became Exhibit VO4. He states that you are the middle child of three and that he has been self-employed as a painter since 2009. He writes:
‘For the majority of our lives, we have lived with our parents however, due to numerous domestic violence incidents at the hands of my father, we have been living with our mother only for about 8 years.’[56]
[56] Exhibit VO4, Affidavit of Vladimir Orlic, brother of the Accused, dated 3 May 2020 para 4.
130At this point, I interpolate that you are one of four children, including a sister, and you immigrated from Montenegro to Australia with your mother, father and siblings when you were four years old in order to escape the war with Bosnia. Having been exposed to some degree to that war and the violence associated with it, you were then exposed, as will become apparent, to the violence of your father.
131Further, your brother writes:
'Our family has struggled just as much, both emotionally and my mother has also struggled financially because it was me and Veselin’s role to support our mother financially since our father was sent away.
We have always grown up in a close-knit family environment and these offences have had a terrible and lasting effect on our family. We were extremely angry and disappointed in Veselin, but as a family, we have still always continued to provide our support and love to him to keep him hopeful about his future.’[57]
[57] Ibid, para 6 and 7.
132Prior to the restrictions, as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, your family had been visiting you on a weekly basis. Your brother continues:
'During the visitations with Veselin, he has directly expressed his anger, shame, and regret for what he has done. He would to me on every single occasion how much he regrets the decisions he made, he speaks of the embarrassment and shame it brought on himself and our family, and how sad he is about it. He tells me of the things he sees in prison including the rampant drug use among inmates. He tells me how much it’s made him realise.
I believe that Veselin is truly sorry for his offending and he has implemented positive changes in his life to ensure he does not relapse into the same type of offending.’[58]
[58] Ibid, para 9 and 10.
133Later he continues:
'My brother has not had an easy life or upbringing. We were born in Montenegro and fled the war-torn Yugoslavia in 1997, when Veselin was 5 years old, having faced many traumatic ordeals and being victims of violence from an early age.’[59]
[59] Ibid, para 13.
134Eventually the family migrated to Australia and lived in Tasmania for some three years, during which you were apparently targeted and isolated a lot for being European migrants. Your brother then sets out his experience of your life with drugs. It is a revealing letter in that regard. He trying to support you but not being able to and not being able to confront you, lest than causes a further rift between the two of you during that period of time. In this regard he writes:
'Sometimes I wouldn’t hear from him for days and I would have to go to his house to check on him. He would be dazed and groggy. His behaviour would always tell me he was using heavy drugs but I didn’t want to confront him and he didn’t want to open up to me.’[60]
[60] Ibid, para 32.
135Later he writes:
'As a family, we have only known Veselin to be a loving, caring and compassionate son, brother and friend to everyone.
The situation he has found himself in has deeply saddened us as it is well out of his character.
In saying that, Veselin has told us he accepts his mistakes and takes full responsibility for the poor decisions he has made and he has promised us that he is dedicated to becoming a better man and proving himself.
We will continue to support him collectively as a family so that when he is released, he will have a stable home environment, employment and loving support. We all want him to continue his life as he is still young and has so much potential, and he is still able to be a contributing member to society. All he wants is to prove himself worthy of another chance.’[61]
[61] Ibid, paras 37-40.
136And so, I come to a document, the like of which I have not seen before. It is a Local Plan File Notes from Ravenhall, which became Exhibit VO7. It sets out contact between counsellors and others and you. It is a remarkable document and it is worthy of taking excerpts of passages from that document. Bearing in mind that you were arrested on 3 February 2018, there is a file note dated
26 May 2018, almost four months later. It reads:
'Today I spoke to Veselin about his case management and we established goals for him. He has private legal representation and will maintain regular contact with his lawyer. I have assisted him with legal form request. His next court date is on November 15. Veselin has a very good family support with his mother and two brothers visiting every week. His family also deposits $190 every month with $50 going on the phone, making it easier for Veselin to maintain a healthy phone budget. Veselin is currently working in the kitchen, but is interested in a billet job. I have stressed how important it is to maintain kitchen job and attendance before he is considered for a billet job. He agrees and promises to go to work on time and be an example to other prisoner. I observe Veselin to be very positive, polite and respectful. I discussed his behaviour with other officers and they agreed that his behaviour in the unit is good. I have referred Veselin to community clinicians and stressed the importance of programs and how they can aid him in his rehabilitation. We also discussed and how they can be a trigger for him to re-offend'.
137Three months later on 28 August, the following file note is made:
'During our official case management meeting, I spoke to Veselin about his progress on his goals and how he's doing in the unit. He is currently employed five days as a food billet issuing food every mealtime and he is doing well. He is staying incident free and is following instructions well. Veselin is residing in Lodge 3 and he understands that in order to stay in the Lodge he needs to stay incident free. I spoke to unit supervisor and other officers and they all state that he is a very polite young man, very respectful. We discussed his family support and he still has very strong support and receives visits twice a week. His two brothers and mother comes to visit him as well as his friends'.
138More recently, in a file note made on 21 February 2020, some three months ago, there is this excerpt from a file note of that date:
'Today I had a formalised case management meeting with Veselin Orlic for the month of February ... Veselin was polite and happy to have a chat about his goals. GOAL 1. Attend to legal matters: I asked Veselin when his next court date was and he advised me that it is on 04 May 2020. I confirmed this court date via Gateway. Veselin said he has been keeping in contact with his lawyer via phone. He explained that he feels like he will be in prison for a while and said he has a good lawyer to talk to so he isn't worried about anything. Additionally, he attends all legal matters as required. I praised him for his positive attitude and consistency with all legal matters. GOAL 2. Maintain family contacts: Veselin receives consistent visits from his friends, family and in particular his mother and two brothers. He said it’s a bitter sweet feeling seeing his loved ones as they miss him and he said he can tell that its hard for them. He also said he misses them very much and the regular visits help him pass the time. We talked about the importance of family and having positive support systems, particularly whilst in prison. GOAL 3: Maintain employment: Veselin is a proactive worker, he works hard as the kitchen billet and is often seen cleaning up around the unit. He attends work at all required times and works well in a team environment. Veselin said he enjoys the job with the boys he is working with as it gives him something to do. I praised his work ethic and reminded him of the importance of consistency and maintaining work ethic and employment. Veselin agreed. Veselin presented well and was happy to discuss his progression'.
139I also have the benefit of a handwritten letter by you addressed to me, which became Exhibit VO3. You commence your letter writing:
'To your Honour,
I am writing this letter to express my sincere apology and remorse for the irresponsible and dangerous conduct committed on my behalf. I want to start by explaining myself and why things took place. I know there's no excuse or satisfactory explanation for what I've done, but after 27 months of being in prison and reflecting upon myself in a sober state of mind, it's clear to see how my extreme drug use played a major factor to my irratic and selfish behaviour. My difficult upbringing has also reflected on my behaviour and further fuelled my addition to drugs. In saying this, I do still understand that I am fully responsible for what and my actions leading to my arrest.
My time in here, away from my loved ones has allowed me to see what I have put everyone through and want to sincerely apologise for that.'
140You continue:
'Finally, I want to apologise for the potential harm and damage I have and could’ve done to the community. Through my time in prison, I have seen first hand the effects drugs can have on people and how destructive it can be on individuals life. as well as their families. I have also come to understand the war on drugs and how much damage I could’ve done in relation to the violence on the streets and crimes that could’ve taken place. I’m sorry for not realising these things sooner and being blinded by the drugs itself. Theres only so much I could say, however I hope you can see the change in me through my actions.
My time in prison has been extremely hard being away from my loved ones, However I have tried to better myself and those around me and every day'.
141A little later you continue and write:
'Through my time in prison I have progressed my way into a Head Billet position which requires me to work 7 days a week, taking on responsibility of making sure all prisoners are fed and their dietary needs are met (Halal, Kosher, Vego etc). I plan on having a positive impact on others around me and also hope to pursue a higher education and studies in prison over time.
In saying all of this, I still understand that I must take responsibility for my actions. I am young and I know I have potential to do better'.
142Yes, Mr Orlic you are young, you do have potential, matters which I will come back to very shortly.
143Your mother has been unwell for some time, diagnosed with, among other things, post-traumatic stress disorder and she has a number of physical conditions, as well as medical complications as set out in the letter of Dr Jagoda Vasic dated 14 February 2018 which I will, together with the medical notes, make Exhibit VO9.
144What will become Exhibit VO10, are two letters. The first of which is a letter from Tim Stanley dated 20 April 2020, in which Mr Stanley writes:
'I have known Vesselin Orlic on a personal level for the past 8 years and regard him to be a very loyal family orientated person, however I know he has suffered a tough upbringing fleeing a worn torn country and migrating to Australia.
During this time he witnessed a lot of domestic violence within his family household, which I believe has had a significant impact on him.
I am aware of the legal issues that he is facing and have visited him and discussed this matter, however I can assure you he is deeply remorseful of the trouble he has found himself in being caught up with the wrong people and wants to change his life for the better and be with his close friends and family.
I would have no hesitation in giving Vesselin an employment opportunity if he was released as I believe he has a bright future ahead of him.’
145The second letter is from the Very Rev Archimandrite, Fr. Lazar Caran in which he writes, among other things:
'Knowing he comes from a troubled family, Veselin has struggled with many aspects of family life; surviving a war-torn country and immigrating to Australia in hope of a better living. He has found life in Australia very difficult due to the post-traumatic stress disorders suffered by his parents which resulted in his daily observances of domestic violence, this in turn has had a negative impact on all the Orlic children.’
146He concludes writing:
'I honestly believe this young man has much potential towards his future life progress, to become a contributing member to our community grasping an upstanding responsibility to society. I humbly implore the honourable Judge to consider his mitigating circumstances in hope Veselin may receive clemency.’
147The sentence that I read saying, 'I honestly believe this young man has much potential towards his future life progress, to become a contributing member to our community grasping an upstanding responsibility to society' truly does summarise the evidence that I have endeavoured to put forward as to your prospects of rehabilitation, which I assess as being excellent, you having demonstrated a complete insight into your offending and the consequences of it. You are genuinely remorseful for what you have done. As with Ms Chung, in those circumstances, deterring you from further offending, or specific deterrence, is of no consequence in sentencing you.
148In addition, you are indeed a relatively youthful man, then at the age of 24 now 27, which is a matter I particularly take into account given your in-custody rehabilitation.
149That completes my review of each of your personal backgrounds. I now move on to other matters.
OTHER SENTENCING MATTERS
150General deterrence, that is deterring others from such offending, is the principal sentencing factor I must take into account. It must be made clear to those who wish to engage in this type of criminal conduct that each of you must receive stern punishment, so as to deter others from engaging in this evil trade. There is a need for denunciation of each of you for engaging in this deplorable trade, which corrupts our society and causes great grief, hardship and loss. There is also a need for there to be just punishment for engaging in this type of activity.
151Specific deterrence, that is deterring you, is relevant still in relation to you, Ms Lam, and you, Mr Ngo. But as I have already indicated, not in relation to you, Ms Chung, or you, Mr Orlic. You, Ms Lam, must know that the sentence I impose does include, as a relevant matter to take into account, the need for you to be discouraged from further offending. Likewise, in relation to you, Mr Ngo, you must be discouraged from further offending.
THE SENTENCES
152In the past couple of weeks, I have repeatedly revised the individual and total sentences that I intend to pass upon each of you. I have done so, taking into account all relevant sentencing considerations including the need to achieve, in total, the appropriate sentence for each of you. I therefore sentence you as follows. I will ask Ms Jackson to email the four charts in relation to the sentences to be imposed on each of you.
153Firstly, in relation to you, Ms Lam, on Charge 2, the charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of nine years and six months, which is the base sentence. On Charge 3, of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of three years. I direct that one year of that sentence be served cumulatively upon the base sentence. On the summary charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of seven days. That seven days is to be served wholly concurrently with the sentence that I have imposed, which produces a total effective sentence of 10 years’ and six months’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum non-parole period of seven years. I declare pre-sentence detention to be 842 days. I state that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 13 years' and six months’ imprisonment and set a non-parole period of nine years’ and six months’. I declare pursuant to s.89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you are a serious drug offender.
154Turning to you, Mr Ngo. On Charge 1, of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of eight years and 10 months. That is the base sentence. On the summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of one month and I direct that that one month be served wholly cumulatively upon the base sentence, producing a total effective sentence of eight years’ and 11 months’ imprisonment. I set a minimum non-parole period of five years’ and 11 months’. I declare pre-sentence detention to be 659 days. I state that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 11 years’ and 11 months’ imprisonment and set a minimum non-parole period of six years’ and 11 months’. I declare pursuant to s.89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you are a serious drug offender.
155In relation to you, Ms Chung, on Charge 1, of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of five years, which is the base sentence. On Charge 2, of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of six months. I direct that two months of that six months be served cumulatively on the base sentence, producing a total effective sentence of five years’ and two months’ imprisonment. I set a minimum non-parole period of three years. I declare pre-sentence detention to be 842 days. I state that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to nine years' imprisonment and set a non-parole period of six years' imprisonment. I declare pursuant to s.89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you are a serious drug offender.
156In relation to you, Mr Orlic, on Charge 2, the charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of six years. This is the base sentence. On Charge 3, of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of two years. I direct that eight months of that two years be served cumulatively on the base sentence on Charge 2. On Charges 4 and 5, of being a non-prohibited person possession a registered general category handgun, I sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of one year on each of those charges. I direct that four months on each of those two charges be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the other sentences imposed. This produces a total effective sentence of seven years’ and four months’ imprisonment. I set a minimum non-parole period of three years’ and nine months’. I declare pre-sentence detention to be 842 days. I state that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to nine years’ and six months’ imprisonment and set a non-parole period of five years’ and six months’. I declare pursuant to s.89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you are a serious drug offender.
157I have made the disposal and forfeiture orders.
‑ ‑ ‑
HIU MEI LAM Indictment No: C1811687 | |||||||
| Charge | Detail | Incident | Maximum Penalty | Sentence | Cumulation/ Concurrency | Additional | |
| 2 | Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Large Commercial Quantity s.71 | At Chadstone and divers places in Victoria between the 18th day of October 2017 and the 3rd day of February 2018 trafficked in a drug of dependence namely methylamphetamine in a quantity that was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence. | Life imprisonment | 9 years 6 months imprisonment | - | 9 years 6 months imprisonment BASE SENTENCE | |
| 3 | Knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime s.194(2) | At Chadstone and divers places in Victoria between the18th day of October 2017 and the 3rd day of February 2018 dealt with proceeds of crime namely Australian currency, knowing that it was proceeds of crime. | 15 years imprisonment | 3 years imprisonment | 1 year imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the base sentence imposed upon charge 2 | 1 year imprisonment | |
| SUMM OFF | Committing an Indictable Offence Whilst on Bail | At Chadstone between 16 December 2017 to 3 February 2018 did commit an indictable offence traffick a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine whilst on bail. | 3 months imprisonment (or 30 penalty units) | 7 days imprisonment | 7 days imprisonment to be served concurrently with the base sentence imposed upon charge 2 | - | |
| 6AAA: Total effective sentence: 13 years 6 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 9 years 6 months imprisonment | Total effective sentence: 10 years 6 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 7 years imprisonment PSD 842 days | ||||||
| Orders for forfeiture and disposal made. | Declare pursuant to section 89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the offender is a serious offender. | ||||||
MINH GIA NGO Indictment No: C1811687 | |||||||
| Charge | Detail | Incident | Maximum Penalty | Sentence | Cumulation/ Concurrency | Additional | |
| 1 | Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Large Commercial Quantity s.71 | At Sunshine and divers places in Victoria between 18 October 2017 and 15 January 2018 trafficked in a drug of dependence namely methylamphetamine in a quantity that was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence | Life imprisonment | 8 years 10 months imprisonment | - | 8 years 10 months imprisonment BASE SENTENCE | |
| SUMM OFF | Committing an Indictable Offence Whilst on Bail | At Sunshine and Williamstown between 18 October 2017 to 3 February 2018 did commit an indictable offence of traffick a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine whilst on bail. | 3 months imprisonment (or 30 penalty units) | 1 month imprisonment | 1 month imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the base sentence imposed upon charge 1 | 1 months imprisonment | |
| 6AAA: Total effective sentence: 11 years 11 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 6 years 11 months imprisonment | Total effective sentence: 8 years 11 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 5 years 11 months imprisonment PSD 659 days | ||||||
| Orders for forfeiture and disposal made. | Declare pursuant to section 89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the offender is a serious offender. | ||||||
VESELIN ORLIC Indictment No: C1811687 | |||||||
| Charge | Detail | Incident | Maximum Penalty | Sentence | Cumulation/ Concurrency | Additional | |
| 2 | Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Large Commercial Quantity s.71 | At Chadstone and divers places in Victoria between the 18th day of October 2017 and the 3rd day of February 2018 trafficked in a drug of dependence namely methylamphetamine in a quantity that was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence. | Life imprisonment | 6 years imprisonment | - | 6 years imprisonment BASE SENTENCE | |
| 3 | Knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime s.194(2) | At Chadstone and divers places in Victoria between the 18th day of October 2017 and the 3rd day of February 2018 dealt with proceeds of crime namely Australian currency, knowing that it was proceeds of crime. | 15 years imprisonment | 2 years imprisonment | 8 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the base sentence imposed upon charge 2 | 8 months imprisonment | |
| 4 | A non-prohibited person possessing a registered general category handgun s.7(1) | At Richmond in Victoria on the 3rd day of February 2018 possessed an unregistered general category handgun. | 4 years imprisonment (or 240 penalty units) | 1 year imprisonment | 4 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the base sentence imposed upon charge 2 | 4 months imprisonment | |
| 5 | A non-prohibited person possessing a registered general category handgun s.7(1) | At Richmond in Victoria on the 3rd day of February 2018 possessed an unregistered general category handgun. | 4 years imprisonment (or 240 penalty units) | 1 year imprisonment | 4 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the base sentence imposed upon charge 2 | 4 months imprisonment | |
| 6AAA: Total effective sentence: 9 years 6 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 5 years 6 months imprisonment | Total effective sentence: 7 years 4 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 3 years 9 months imprisonment PSD 842 days | ||||||
| Orders for forfeiture and disposal made. | Declare pursuant to section 89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the offender is a serious offender. | ||||||
YEE MUN CHUNG Indictment No: J10328367 | |||||||
| Charge | Detail | Incident | Maximum Penalty | Sentence | Cumulation/ Concurrency | Additional | |
| 1 | Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Large Commercial Quantity s.71 | At Oakleigh South and divers places in Victoria between 18 October 207 and 3 February 2018 trafficked in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine in a quantity that was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence. | Life imprisonment | 5 years imprisonment | - | 5 years imprisonment BASE SENTENCE | |
| 2 | Knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime s.194(2) | At Oakleigh South and divers places in Victoria between 18 October 2017 and 3 February 2018 dealt with proceeds of crime namely Australian currency, knowing that it was proceeds of crime. | 15 years imprisonment | 6 months imprisonment | 2 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the base sentence imposed upon charge 2 | 2 months imprisonment | |
| 6AAA: Total effective sentence: 9 years imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 6 years imprisonment | Total effective sentence: 5 years 2 months imprisonment Minimum non-parole period: 3 years imprisonment PSD 842 days | ||||||
| Orders for forfeiture and disposal made. | Declare pursuant to section 89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the offender is a serious offender. | ||||||
0
0
0