Director of Public Prosecutions v Pollard
[2014] VCC 1786
•31 October 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 14-01369
CR 13-01376
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| RICHARD POLLARD |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 2 October 2014 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 October 2014 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Pollard |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 1786 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: commercial trafficking Silk Road
Sentence: 11years imprisonment with 7 years 4 months non parole---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr J. Saunders | |
| For the Accused (Plea) (Sentence) | Mr D. Grace QC Mr A. Lewin |
HIS HONOUR:
1Richard Pollard, you have pleaded guilty to eleven indictable offences charged in two indictments and nine summary charges related to the indictable charges. Through your counsel Mr Grace QC you consented to the summary charges being dealt with in this court.
2Indictment D10029924 (the first indictment) contains seven (7) charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence (charges 1 to 7) and, one charge of possession of a drug of dependence (charge 8).
3Dealing with the first indictment, in charge 1 the drug is popularly known as MDMA and the quantity you trafficked was not less than a commercial quantity. In charge 2 the drug was Methamphetamine. Again the quantity you trafficked was not less than a commercial quantity. Charges 1 and 2 carry a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. The length of the maximum sentence of imprisonment shows how seriously the parliament regards a conviction for offending of this kind.
4The period of offending in each of charges 1 and 2 was between 9 August 2012 and 28 December 2012, a period of about four and a half months.
5There are other legislative provisions relevant to the exercise of my sentencing discretion in relation to charge 2. Each of charges 1 and 2 is a “serious drug offence” within clause 4 of schedule 1 of the Sentencing Act 1991 ("the Act”). Because I will sentence you to a term of imprisonment for on charge 1 then, for the purposes of sentencing you on charge 2, you are a “serious drug offender” within s 6E of the Act. That means that in determining the length of any prison sentence imposed on charge 2, protection of the community from you must be the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed on that charge. In order to achieve that purpose, I may impose a sentence longer than that which is proportional to the gravity of the offence considered in the light of the objective circumstances surrounding its commission.
6Relevantly, that means that any sentence of imprisonment imposed by me on charge 2 must be served cumulatively on the sentence of imprisonment imposed by me on charge 1, unless in the exercise of my discretion I otherwise order. In sentencing on charge 2 on the first indictment I must have regard to parliament’s intention that protection of the community is the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed on charge 2.
7However, this does not mean that in arriving at an appropriate sentence the principles of proportionality and totality of sentencing are to be disregarded unless, in the exercise of my discretion, I consider that the circumstances before me make it appropriate to do so for good reason.
8I do not consider that a disproportionate sentence is called for here. In my view, the overall effective sentence I will impose upon you will properly and adequately provide for protection for the community.
9After some discussion Mr Saunders, who appeared to prosecute, did not ask me to impose a disproportionate sentence on charge 2. I consider that a concession properly made. However, my overall sentence will provide for some cumulation and concurrency as between charges 1 and 2 as I feel appropriate.
10I am also required to cause to have entered into the records of the court that I have sentenced you on charge 2 on the first indictment as a serious offender and upon passing my sentence on you for that charge I direct that be done.
11Charges 3 to 7 on the first indictment are of trafficking in a drug of dependence. Each of those charges has a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. In charge 3 the drug trafficked was Fentanyl. In charge 4 the drug trafficked was Cocaine. In charge 5 the drug trafficked was Cannabis L. In charge 6 the drug trafficked was Ketamine. In charge 7 the drug trafficked was Diethyltrymtamine.
12Charge 8 is a charge of possession of a drug of dependence Methorphan. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment. If you satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that you did not possess the named drug for any purpose related to trafficking then the maximum penalty is only one year. You did not lead any evidence to attempt to satisfy me.
13Summary charges 46 to 49 inclusive are each a charge of possession of a poison named and listed in schedule 4 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. Summary charge 67 is also a charge of possession of a poison but in this instance it is a poison listed in schedule 9 of the same Act. The maximum penalty for each of these summary offences is a fine of 10 penalty units.
14Summary charge 53 is a charge of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. The maximum penalty for this offence here is 2 years imprisonment.
15Summary charge 66 is a charge of use a false document for which the maximum penalty is also 2 years imprisonment.
16You were charged and bailed in relation to the charges in the first indictment on 28 December 2012.
17The charges in indictments D13755909 (“the second indictment”) all occurred nearly one year later on 11 December 2013, whilst you were on bail for the charges in the first indictment and the related summary matters.
18I turn to the charges in the second indictment and the summary offences related to it. Charges 1 and 2 are again charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence for which the maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment. Charge 3 is a charge of possession of a drug of dependence, Lysergic Acid. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment. If you satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that you did not possess the named drug for any purpose related to trafficking then the maximum penalty is only one year. You did not lead any evidence to attempt to satisfy me.
19Of the summary matters related to the second indictment charge 4 is a charge of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime and charge 6 is a charge of using false information to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence. For each of these charges the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment.
20The circumstances of your offending are described in a prosecution summary of some 23 pages in length. It was read to the court in a summary way by Mr Saunders. Mr Grace accepted the summary was accurate and formed a proper basis upon which I can proceed to pass sentence upon you. The summary was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea together with a number of photographs contained in the depositions and listed in a schedule, Exhibit B. It is not necessary that I now set out in detail all of your offending except in a summary way.
21In November of 2012 you were a person of interest to police in relation to possible drug offences. On 28 December 2012 police executed a search warrant at two properties linked to you and a large number of different drugs of dependence were located. You assisted police in identifying the various drugs. Police also located computer equipment and print outs from a website known as “Silk Road” and these showed names, addresses and orders for different drugs. Express Post serial labels and 2 express post parcels with a DVD case were also located. The prosecution summary sets out all of the items located by police.
22You were operating a relatively large and sophisticated drug trafficking business. All of the evidence points to a planned and well thought out drug trafficking operation in respect of which you kept detailed records. You used the website Silk Road to acquire and on sell a variety of drugs which you delivered mainly by using Express Post. You also sold some drugs on a person to person basis. You also cultivated cannabis for trafficking and the amount you possessed forms the basis of Charge 5. Police located 61 cannabis plants growing under 3 hydroponic systems. An examination of the computer you used located 3 electronic wallets containing 24,518.477721 bit coins. I was told by Mr Saunders these bit coins had a value in excess of $700,000. When arrested you had in your possession more than $58,000 in cash. You operated numerous post office boxes under an alias to provide anonymity and to divert attention away from the volume of mail you were sending and receiving.
23The prosecution summary of charges makes it clear your offending was on a relatively large scale and was well planned. The system of drug trafficking you engaged in meant you operated an effective one stop shop where a variety of drugs could be purchased on-line. Whilst I accept you have been a long term drug user, and your offending occurred in the context of drug use which may have obscured normal clear thinking on your part, I have no doubt your principal purpose in trafficking drugs was to make money. This is not a case where you trafficked to satisfy your habit with some money or drugs left over. Here it would appear that when first arrested you had in your possession a quantity of drugs in stock as well as a considerable amount of money both in cash and in bit coin format.
24The amount of MDMA trafficked by you in charge 1 on the first indictment was 2.79 kg. Whilst that amount exceeds the large commercial threshold the prosecution accepts that it cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had an intention to traffick a large commercial quantity of the drug MDMA at the start of the charge period.
25The amount of methamphetamine or ice trafficked by you in charge 2 on the first indictment was 876 grams.
26In charge 3 on the first indictment the amount of fentanyl trafficked by you was 450 mg representing 6 orders between 15 August and 12 September, 2012.
27In charge 4 you trafficked or had in your possession for trafficking a total of 44 grams of cocaine between 19 September 2012 and 28 December 2012.
28In charge 5 on the first indictment you trafficked or had in your possession for trafficking a total of 27.65 kg of cannabis between 28 September 2012 and 28 December 2012. Whilst 27.65 kg is over the threshold for a commercial quantity the prosecution accepts that it cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had an intention to traffic a commercial quantity of cannabis at the start of the charge period.
29In charge 6 on the first indictment you trafficked or had in your possession for trafficking a total of 30.2 grams of Ketamine between 26 September 2012 and 28 December 2012.
30In charge 7 on the first indictment you had in your possession for trafficking 165.9 grams of a mixed substance containing N, N Diethyltryptamine (113 grams pure where .5 of a gram is a traffickable quantity).
31In charge 8 on the first indictment you had .9 of a gram of methorphan in your possession.
32Of the summary charges related to the first indictment, you possessed the poisons Sildenafil (charge 46), Dapoxetine (charge 47), Quietapine (charge 48), Desvenlaxafine (charge 49) and 2, 5-Dimethoxy-4iodophenethylamine in tablet and powder form (charge 67).
33Summary charge 53 relates to the bit coins and the $58,390 cash found in your possession suspected of being the proceeds of crime. These items are presently the subject of a restraining order under the Confiscations Act 1997 and upon conviction will be automatically forfeited.
34Summary charge 66 relates to using a false name to open a post office box.
35You were arrested and interviewed on 28 December 2012 and later that day you were released on bail with reporting conditions. Whilst you generally cooperated with the police at first you did not make full admissions as is your right.
36The charges on the second indictment and, the related summary charges, concern your offending on 11 December 2013 whilst you were on bail. The maximum penalty for each of charges 1 and 2 on the second indictment is 15 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offending in charge 3 is 5 years imprisonment. Again if you satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that you did not possess the named drug for any purpose related to trafficking then the maximum penalty is only one year. You did not lead any evidence to attempt to satisfy me.
37As to the related summary charges, charges 4 and 6 each has a maximum penalty of two (2) years imprisonment.
38I briefly summarise your offending in the second indictment and the summary charges related to it. On 11 December 2013 you were intercepted whilst driving a vehicle for a random licence check and breath test. Drugs, cash and other paraphernalia related to drugs was located in your possession. A later systematic search of the vehicle revealed you had total cash in your possession of $8,215 which included $4,000 hidden in your sock, two bank deposit slips each for $9,950 and computer equipment. A later search of your house revealed bank deposit slips and other records that showed that at the time of your arrest on 11 December 2013 you were again trafficking in drugs much as you had been when you were first arrested almost a year earlier.
39In charge 1 on the second indictment you trafficked by having in your possession for the purposes of sale 444.5 grams of MDMA.
40In charge 2 on the second indictment you trafficked by having in your possession for the purposes of sale 5.2 grams of methamphetamine.
41In charge 3 on the second indictment you had in your possession 2.64 grams of LSD.
42Summary charge 4 relates to $8,215 found in your possession when your vehicle was intercepted. Summary charge 6 relates to the finding of a Victorian driver's licence in another person’s name at your home.
43You have been in custody since your arrest on 11 December 2013. On 20 January 2014 your bail on the charges on the first indictment was revoked.
44There followed a series of committal mentions but the charges were under constant negotiation almost from the time of your arrest. On 4 August 2014 you pleaded guilty to the charges relevant to both indictments in the Magistrates’ Court and the matter was listed for a plea which I heard on 2 October 2014.
45By your pleas of guilty to all of the charges you have saved the time and costs of at least two (2), and possibly further trials and, you have saved the need to have the summary matters heard. I treat you as having pleaded guilty to all of the charges at the first available opportunity. I must and do take your pleas of guilty into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence. Because of your pleas at an early time you are entitled to a reduction in sentence and this will be reflected in the sentences that I will shortly pass.
46Section 16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (“the Act”) operates to affect the sentencing on the charges in the second indictment and the summary matters relating to it. Because those offences occurred whilst you were on bail then, unless I otherwise order, the sentences imposed by me for those offences must be served cumulatively upon the sentences imposed for the offences in the first indictment and the related summary matters.
47However, this does not mean that the principles of proportionality and, totality of sentencing, are to be disregarded in sentencing an offender who offends whilst on bail. In exercising my discretion I must have regard to both principles when arriving at an appropriate sentence. In arriving at an appropriate overall sentence I will provide for some cumulation of the sentences imposed on charges in the second indictment with the sentences imposed on the first indictment and some concurrency as I feel appropriate.
48Mr Grace provided a helpful outline of submissions prior to the plea hearing in which he outlined a number of sentencing principles which he submitted applied here and he also outlined a number of matters of mitigation which he asked me to take into account. He addressed these matters at length on the plea and produced evidence in support of the submissions that he made. In passing sentence I have had regard to all of these principles and matters of mitigation raised. I turn to explain some of these.
49I admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 on the plea a psychological report from Carla Lechner dated 24 September 2014. Mr Grace relied upon a summary of your personal history as set out in her report. You were born on 11 May, 1982. You have one sibling. Your parents separated when you were aged 7 or 8 years old but they remained living under the same roof for a further 8 or 9 years which caused stress within the family. You have had no contact with your father for some years and your relationship with your mother was described by Ms Lechner as “ambivalent”. You have limited contact with your 30 year old sister who lives in Perth.
50You are engaged to your partner Hailey Anderson and you have two children with her, a boy aged 2 born in 2011 and a daughter aged 5. You have been in a relationship with Hailey Anderson for 11 years. In a letter to me (Exhibit 12) she describes you as a dedicated partner and father who always puts his family first. She also described you as “one of the most intelligent, generous and thoughtful people I know”. I accept you are a caring person and intelligent. The latter comes through very much in your offending where you appear to have set up and run a drug trafficking enterprise online and acted alone in so doing.
51You grew up around Warrandyte and attended the local primary school. You told Ms Lechner you had learning difficulties and you described a range of behaviours which she said would now attract a diagnosis of ADHD.
52You attended Eltham College from year 7 until part way through year 9 when you were asked to leave for financial and behavioural reasons. You then attended Warrandyte High School where you completed year 9 and part of year 10. You were suspended numerous times. You left home aged 15 and left school aged 16. When you left home you lived in a bungalow at the rear of a friend’s house.
53Whilst at school you had part time jobs. At age 17 you began working part time for a computer company where you worked for 18 months in sales and a further 18 months in the IT department. Thereafter you had various jobs in the computer industry including 12 to 24 months working for a company Wireless IP, a company which failed owing you some $70,000. After this you set up your own computer business. Customers owed you money causing you financial stress. I received into evidence as Exhibit 6 copies of various business cards related to your work in IT.
54Despite your unhappy family life and a disjointed education you are obviously a person with considerable talent and ability with computers. This was applied by you in the drug trafficking crimes which you have committed. But there is no reason why when released and, providing you remain drug free, you cannot apply the IT ability that you have to good effect.
55Ms Lechner is of the opinion you suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related to your reported child sexual abuse. You told Ms Lechner that between the ages of about 8 to 14 you were sexually abused by a friend of your father. Ms Lechner’s report details the abuse which I accept you suffered from and there is no need for me to repeat what is there set out. You have never been treated for PTSD but Ms Lechner could find no evidence of disorder in your thinking.
5656. Ms Lechner thought you to be of average/high intelligence and that you are a person with high emotional dependency needs having grown up in an absence of nurturing parents. You struggle with relationships, you have few friends and are largely dependent on your partner to feel good about yourself.
57You love your children but had difficulty relating to your infant son when he was born. His birth triggered what Ms Lechner described as “a recrudescence of post trauma symptoms, relationship problems and a significant escalation of his drug use.” There is further support for what happened after your son was born in the letter from your partner Ms Anderson, Exhibit 5 and in a letter from you, Exhibit 7. Ms Lechner opines that it was in this context that your offending occurred. I accept what you told Ms Lechner and I accept her opinion.
58There is now an explanation for your offending but unfortunately for you it does not excuse your offending. When you commenced heavy use of the drug ice your relationship broke up and you left your wife forming a brief relationship with another woman. That was in about May 2012 before your offending. You were arrested for the first indictment offending in December 2012 and you terminated your new relationship and returned to your wife in about January 2013. You are lucky indeed that she and your children have remained fully supportive of you. The offences on the second indictment occurred after you had returned to your wife and children. Whilst on bail you had some work advising in relation to use of software and you also worked in a tree lopping business with a friend. But whilst on bail you continued to take drugs and this was the situation when you again offended in December 2013 whilst on bail.
59You commenced using cannabis aged 14 and by the age of 16 to 17 you were smoking amphetamines. Some years later you began using ice and developed a large habit of about 1 gram a day. You also used ecstacy and cocaine and LSD “occasionally”.
60Importantly you expressed regret to Ms Lechner for what you have done and you also expressed regret to me in your letter (Exhibit 7). I accept what you have written and that you are now remorseful for your actions in committing these serious crimes.
61Since your arrest and incarceration on remand I was told and accept you have reflected on your offending conduct and the impact it has had for yourself, your family and the community. I accept you have determined to try to rehabilitate yourself. In the environment of the prison you have remained drug free and you are regarded as a model prisoner. Exhibit 11 is a number of certificates of urine analysis whilst in prison with negative results. You have assisted with counselling and educating new prisoners to the remand centre as a peer supporter (Exhibit 10) and you have been part of a schools program to educate school children about prison and the perils of it to be avoided (Exhibit 9). All that is to your credit. This offending apart you have no prior convictions but this offending has occurred in the setting of drug abuse. As I say, you are intelligent and have obvious ability and you have the support of family and friends. I think you have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation but whether or not that will be achieved ultimately will depend upon you remaining drug free when you are outside of a controlled prison setting.
62Ms Lechner said that you currently display symptoms of Major Depression. You were initially treated for your depression when first remanded but anti depressant medication then prescribed has ceased. Mr Grace did not submit that depression was a factor that had to be taken into account in deciding the kind of sentence that should be imposed.
63You had 6 counselling sessions with psychologist Dr Mathew Barth commencing in July 2013 and continuing until November 2013, after your first arrest and whilst you were on bail. I received into evidence his report dated 19 December 2013 (Exhibit 2) just after the offending in the second indictment. Mr Barth describes you at that time in the following terms:
“Mr Pollard presented for treatment with a subdued and downcast emotional demeanour and reported an extensive history of mood disturbances. His mental status was characterised by feelings of depression, anxiety, psychomotor agitation, irritability and he was generally unhappy and dissatisfied with his life. He also disclosed a substantial history of substance abuse which he used as a means of self medicating his emotional distress. In general, Mr Pollard presented as a depressed and emotionally vulnerable man with poor coping skills.”
64Mr Barth referred you to your general practitioner Dr Rimington for prescription of anti depressant medication. I received into evidence her report dated 11 September 2014 (Exhibit 4).
65I also received into evidence a psychological report of Patrick Newton dated 11 January 2014 (Exhibit 3). That report differs somewhat from the other reports received into evidence. He describes your mental status as being normal in all respects with no active depressive symptoms. I accept and act upon the report of Ms Lechner. The other reports tend to assist in confirming the factual background history given to her by you and much of that background history is also confirmed by other evidence I received.
66I received into evidence a lengthy letter from your mother, Dianne Young (Exhibit 5). She visits you on remand. She has outlined much of your background as a child and the troubles that you have had and the way you have lived your life. What comes through is that you care very much for your family and that your arrest and incarceration may in fact have been a turning point in your life for the better. These themes also come out when one reads your letter and a number of other testimonials from other family members and friends which also form part of Exhibit 5. In passing sentence I have had full regard to all of this evidence tendered on your behalf. In particular I have read the letter in evidence from Mark Creasy a Salvation Army Chaplain dated 19 September 2014. You have completed 10 topics of the Salvation Army’s Positive Lifestyle Program whilst in prison and you work as a prisoner peer support worker. He said and I accept you show genuine concern for others in carrying out that work. You have also completed various other programs whilst on remand and you appear to be using your time on remand well. Exhibit 8 is various certificates of the programs you have completed.
67Mr Grace accepted that the only disposition available to me here was to send you to prison. He accepted you made a conscious choice to take drugs and he accepted that was no excuse for your offending. He stressed a number of factors in mitigation of sentence, including:
·Your age and troubled upbringing and child sexual abuse leading to your drug use;
·Your pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity and the good that you have achieved whilst jailed on remand;
·The fact that you have no prior convictions and this is your first experience of prison custody;
·Your good work record;
·The fact that you need some treatment for drug use and PTSD not fully and properly available to you whilst in prison;
·The fact you are remorseful and took steps at after your first arrest to try to arrest your problems;
·The fact you have good support from your fiancé and other family and friends that can assist with your rehabilitation;
·The fact you have remained drug free in the controlled prison environment.
68Mr Grace submitted that having regard to all of the evidence I ought impose a longer than normal period on parole. I will impose what I regard as an appropriate non parole period in all of the circumstances.
69Mr Saunders submitted this was very serious offending and that the sentences imposed on the second indictment should cumulate on the sentences imposed on the first indictment. He pointed to the fact that the volume of drugs in charge 1 and 2 on the first indictment involve significant volumes of the drugs and after having been arrested and bailed for the first set of offending you reoffended having been given the benefit of bail. Again he submitted the volumes involved in the charges on the second indictment were significant as were the amounts of money detected. He pointed to the sophistication of your method of operation and that the dissemination of your drugs appeared to be widespread. He submitted in the circumstances there was a call for proper application of the principles of general and specific deterrence.
70As I said earlier I accept you are remorseful and I accept you are making some effort in prison to rehabilitate yourself. I think you have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation although much will depend upon how you react when released. In offending of this kind I must and do have regard to proper application of the principles of general deterrence. Others who would seek to offend as you have need to be sent a strong message that offending of this kind is regarded by the court and parliament as very serious and will be met with appropriate punishment when detected. In your case you did not learn from your first arrest and the overall sentence I impose must reflect deterrence specific to you so that you do not in fact reoffend. Your offending in the second indictment was confined to one day but re-offending it was and whilst on bail. I have already said I will impose some cumulation and some concurrency regarding the sentences imposed on the second indictment as I deem appropriate. Above all the sentences I impose and the effective overall sentence must be fair and must reflect proper totality and denunciation of your offending. The sentences I will now impose I think reflect proper application of these sentencing principles.
71Would you please stand, Mr Pollard.
72On charge 1 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
73On charge 2 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
74On charge 3 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
75On charge 4 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
76On charge 5 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.
77On charge 6 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
78On charge 7 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year.
79On charge 8 of the first indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.
80On summary charge 46 you are convicted and fined $200.00.
81On summary charge 47 you are convicted and fined $200.00.
82On summary charge 48 you are convicted and fined $200.00.
83On summary charge 49 you are convicted and fined $200.00.
84On summary charge 67 you are convicted and fined $200.00.
85On summary charge 53 you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment.
86On summary charge 66 you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
87On charge 1 of the second indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.
88On charge 2 of the second indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.
89On charge 3 of the second indictment you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year.
90On related summary charge 4 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year.
91On related summary charge 6 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months.
92I direct that 2 years of the sentence imposed on charge 2 of the first indictment and 1 year of the sentence imposed on charge 5 of the first indictment and one and a half years of each of the sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 of the second indictment cumulate upon the sentence I have imposed on charge 1 of the first indictment making a total effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment.
93I direct that you serve a minimum of seven years and four months imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
94I direct it be entered into the records of this court that I have sentenced you on charge 2 on the first indictment as a serious drug offender.
95I direct that 325 days pre-sentence detention be reckoned as having been already served under the sentences passed this day and be entered into the records of the court and deducted administratively. I will check this with counsel in a moment.
96For the purposes of S 6AAA of the Act I declare that had it not been for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment and I would have fixed a minimum term of 10 years before you would be eligible for release on parole.
97The prosecution sought orders for the forfeiture and disposal of various items including computer equipment. There was an issue that a number of family photos stored on computer equipment seized should be returned to the prisoner. Subject to that being done I will sign an order for forfeiture and disposal of those items and orders for forfeiture of money and bit coins presently the subject of restraining order.
98The prosecution also seeks a forensic sample order under s 464ZF of the Crimes Act for the taking of a sample from you. That order was not opposed and having regard to the seriousness of your crimes I think it is in the public interest and the administration of justice that such order be made and I will sign it. That means that having signed the order a member of the police force may use reasonable force to take the sample from you which in this instance is a taking of a swab from the inside of your mouth.
99Now firstly, are there any questions arising out of that sentence?
100MR LEWIN: No, Your Honour.
101HIS HONOUR: Have I calculated the pre-sentence detention accurately?
102MR LEWIN: Yes.
103HIS HONOUR: Very well. Now what about the orders for disposal and forfeiture? Have the photographs been returned?
104MR SAUNDERS: They haven't yet, Your Honour, as I understand it the informant has attempts to contact Mr Pollard's partner to effect such a return She has not been able to be contacted. I understand he's in a position to return those photos once contact with her can be made.
105HIS HONOUR: Well I will keep the order and I will sign the order when I've been told that the family photographs, the personal photographs have been downloaded somehow or rather and provided to Ms Anderson.
106MR SAUNDERS: Certainly, Your Honour, would Your Honour be - - -
107HIS HONOUR: I'm reluctant to sign an order until that's done because I think they should be returned to the family.
108MR SAUNDERS: That can be attended to. Would Your Honour be content if emails were sent from my instructor to the defence and to your Associate confirming that at the same time? Contemporaneous of course.
109HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Lewin, are you content with that?
110MR LEWIN: Yes, and I note everyone is present in court so hopefully we can make arrangements today, Your Honour
111HIS HONOUR: Very well.
112MR LEWIN: Can I just clarify one point on that sentence construction. Was it Your Honour's comment that one and a half years on the second indictment for each of charges 1 and 2 were to be served cumulatively or one and a half years on the second indictment was to be served cumulatively?
113HIS HONOUR: One and a half years on the each of them.
114MR LEWIN: If Your Honour please.
115HIS HONOUR: Would you remove Mr Pollard please.
- - -
0
0
0