Director of Public Prosecutions v Sananikone
[2023] VCC 1717
•26 September 2023
cry
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
Case No. CR-22-02252
Indictment No. N10372882
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MIMI SOUPHALAK SANANIKONE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 25 July 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 September 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Sananikone | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1717 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: One rolled-up charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity; one rolled-up charge of trafficking simpliciter, one rolled-up charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime; one rolled-up charge (Commonwealth) of possessing identification information of others with intent to use that information to commit an indictable offence
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981
Cases Cited:R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; Brown v R (2019) 59 VR 462; Rahmani v R [2021] VSCA 51; Gregory (Pseudonym) v R (2017) 268 A Crim R 1; Quah v R (2021) 290 A Crim R 136; DPP v Kumas [2021] VSCA 215
Sentence: Total effective sentence on State Charges of 17 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and a non-parole period of 10 years and 8 months.
Total effective sentence on Commonwealth Charge of 4 months’ imprisonment.
s6AAA for State Charges: 22 ½ years imprisonment with NPP of 17 years.
s6AAA for Commonwealth Charges: 6 months imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr M Cookson | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr A Jackson | Valos Black & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1Mimi Souphalak Sananikone, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Charge 1, a rolled-up charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence in a large commercial quantity which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or 5,000 penalty units;
Charge 2, a rolled-up charge of trafficking simpliciter in a drug of dependence which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment or 1,800 penalty units;
Charge 3, a rolled-up charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment or 1,800 penalty units;
Charge 4, a rolled-up charge of possessing identification information of others, intending to use that information to commit an indictable offence, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
2Your offending on Charges 1 and 2 was committed over a period of approximately 12 months, between 1 March 2021 and 23 February 2022. In essence, your offending involved you being the exclusive distributor of a variety of drugs of dependence by fulfilling orders for an online drug vendor, AusPride, which operated on the Dark Web. AusPride and yourself communicated by means of ProtonMail, an encrypted email service and a variety of other encrypted platforms. Such means of communication ensures the privacy of users and cannot be monitored by police.
3AusPride would communicate details of orders for various drugs to you. Your role was then to prepare orders for delivery. AusPride would deliver drugs to you using Australia Post Parcel Lockers and would send to you a tracking number, so that you could check the status of the delivery and whether any delay may have been caused by law enforcement activity. On some occasions, you received wholesale drug deliveries from AusPride via dead drops at locations selected by you. These were often vacant houses which you located using real estate websites showing properties available for rent or sale.
4Your role involved weighing drugs, according to the weights required by AusPride’s customers, and packaging them into heat-sealed mylar bags which you would generally label with the quantity and type of drug. You used an automatic multi-function machine to weigh drugs and fill bags because of the high volume of drug orders. You also had a heat-sealing machine. You would conceal the mylar bags within layers of paper, padded envelopes or boxes, and then enclose them within an Express Post package onto which a printed label with the name and address of intended recipients was placed. Your alleged co-accused, your mother, who resided with you, regularly used cash to purchase quantities of Express Post packages.
5Once you had prepared the packages, you and your co-accused would place them within recyclable shopping bags and you would drive to a licensed post office. Your co-accused would enter and hand over the packages to staff, typically just prior to collection by Australia Post in order to limit the opportunity for detection.
6You communicated with AusPride as to your stock levels and would discuss what drugs were required to meet orders by particular dates. The wholesale drugs delivered to you from AusPride were generally between 1 kilogram and 2 kilograms in weight. On occasions, if your stock levels were running low, AusPride would instruct you to add filler to “bulk up” the product.
7You were remunerated by Bitcoin, the digital cryptocurrency, which AusPride would transfer directly into your account. Unlike traditional banking, cryptocurrency does not use a central ledger, but a ledger distributed to users, so that they may track exchanges.
8In relation to Charge 1, the total amounts of illicit drugs possessed by you for the purpose of sale, and in fact sold by you, are as follows:
(a) heroin – 893.95 grams (the large commercial quantity being 750 grams of mixed substance);
(b) methylamphetamine – 4,048.2 grams (the large commercial quantity of mixed substance being 750 grams);
(c) 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA) – 2,856.1 grams (a large commercial quantity of a mixed substance being 4 kilograms);
(d) cocaine – 1,719.6 grams (a large commercial quantity of mixed substance being 1 kilogram);
(e) ketamine – 3,367.3 grams (a large commercial quantity of mixed substance being 1 kilogram).
This is a rolled-up charge which incorporates trafficking in excess of a large commercial quantity for five discrete drugs. The total quantity of all drugs trafficked by you amounts to 11.764 times an aggregate large commercial quantity of drugs of dependence.
9Charge 2 involved you trafficking for the 12-month period in the following drugs:
(a) lysergic acid diethylamide – 56,040 tablets (total weight unknown);
(b) trenbolone – 2,490 grams (almost half the commercial quantity of 5 kilograms);
(c) testosterone – 11,880 grams (in excess of twice the commercial quantity of 5 kilograms);
(d) nandrolone – 1,140 grams (over one-fifth of a commercial quantity, being 5 kilograms).
This is a rolled-up charge of trafficking simpliciter of four discrete drugs, one of which (testosterone) was trafficked in a quantity in excess of twice the commercial quantity.
10Charge 3, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, comprises the following trappings of wealth located at your home or in your car or in bank accounts:
(a) $473,300.65 cash located in your home and vehicle;
(b) 5.4853158 Bitcoin, worth approximately $287,000;
(c) $221,119.16 in your St George Bank Account;
(d) $8,567.03 in your Bankwest Business Account;
(e) an A35 Mercedes motor vehicle;
(f) 14 designer handbags;
(g) a Rolex wristwatch;
(h) $4,000 in United States currency;
(i) two George Jensen rings.
As previously stated, this is a rolled-up charge.
11Charge 4, possessing identification information in the names of others with the intention of using it to commit an indictable offence, namely supplying identification information, comprises you possessing 101 Bankcards in the names of other persons, which were located by police at your home. You falsely used the identity of others to receive delivery of drugs from Auspride via Australia Post parcel lockers. At times you used an AirTasker Courier to collect the drugs in order to distance yourself from the parcel if you suspected that there had been a delay in delivery caused by law enforcement interdiction.
12On 23 February 2022, you and your co-accused were intercepted in your vehicle a short distance from your home and conveyed to your home, where search warrants were executed. You were subsequently interviewed and initially claimed that you had a legitimate business which generates savings. You stated that the business was called Provenance and it involved selling seaweed and tea from Laos. You stated that you had been operating it since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, as you had lost your job on an IT help desk trouble-shooting software issues because you refused to be vaccinated. You stated that your business had a website that was not quite completed and was not functioning at that time and, up until that stage, the tea had been sold to friends and family for cash payments. You subsequently indicated that you felt you had “no way out” as no one was going to hire you because you were unvaccinated. You stated that you were the carer for your mother, who suffers from high blood pressure and cholesterol, and claimed that you had had to sell your late partner’s watch in order to meet rent and bills.
13After having given a significant number of “no comment” answers to police questions, you ultimately admitted “off the record”, in answer to Question 471 and subsequently, that someone else was sourcing drugs on your behalf and that you communicated with that person via ProtonMail. You agreed that you had met the supplier on the Dark Web which you had accessed “out of curiosity” and that the drugs of dependence were delivered to you for distribution. You claimed that the reason “everything happened” was financial pressure to provide for your mother.
14You are presently aged 43 years, having been born in Laos on 8 June 1979. Your parents and yourself migrated to Australia when you were aged three years. Your brother, who is eight years younger than yourself, was born in Australia. Based on a history provided to Dr Rakov, in a forensic psychiatric report dated 13 June 2023,[1] which relied in part on a “draft” report from psychologist, Ms Heidi Lecluse, dated 14 April 2023,[2] you stated that you had experienced racism in Australia and had been bullied at school and been very isolated.
[1]Exhibit “1”
[2]Exhibit “10”
15In addition, you described your father as a violent alcoholic who physically beat up your mother, as well as exposing her to emotional violence. You would step in to assist your mother, and you would end up being “kicked, whipped, beaten up” by your father, which has resulted in scars on your back. When you were about 12 years of age, your parents separated, and your father returned to Laos. You claimed that when you were about 14 years old, you went to live with a paternal aunt, who would denigrate you and cause you to feel very unsure of yourself.
16You told Dr Rakov that, when you were aged five years, you had been molested by three boys aged 7, 10 and 12 years at the home of a family friend, and that this abuse persisted for some months and you began to deliberately self-harm. (I here interpolate that this account differs from the history recorded in the “draft” report of Ms Lecluse in which you claimed that you “experienced a rape” at age five years at the home of family friends, whose son ushered you into the bedroom where you were told to take off your pants and underwear and another boy then climbed on top of you and inserted his penis inside you, but fortunately your mother found you shortly afterwards.[3] It also differs from an account given to West CASA, as recorded in a report dated 6 February 2023,[4] that you were sexually assaulted by young men who were unknown to you when you were six years old.)
[3]Page 2, Exhibit “10”
[4]Exhibit “2”
17You also reported to Dr Rakov that you were “borderline molested” by a maternal uncle at age 12, when he put his hand between your thighs and you managed to push him away. In addition, you stated that you had your first sexual experience at age 24 with a DJ, which you now understand to have been “a coercive experience (you) did not consent to, feeling pressured to ‘please him’.” (I again interpolate that this is different to the history recorded by Ms Lecluse in her draft report, namely, that you had lost your virginity at age 21 with a DJ, having had consensual sex, caught up a few times afterwards, but he grew tired of you and stopped seeing you.)
18You told Dr Rakov that, when you were 23, your then partner tragically fell from cliffs at Bronte and died. (Again, this differs from the history recorded by Ms Lecluse, that this young man had broken up with you out of jealousy because you went off on a European trip with a male friend. When you returned from the trip, you were in a relationship with another man and your former boyfriend disclosed that he had never stopped having feelings for you and wanted a reconciliation, but you claimed that you chose to stay with your current boyfriend and you later found out that your ex-boyfriend had had an accident and slipped and fell off a cliff into the ocean at Bronte.) Subsequently, a relationship with another man ended when he died of a cerebral aneurysm in 2016, and you felt excluded from the funeral and any grief process by not being recognised by his family.
19You told Dr Rakov that you had first tried illicit substances at around 20 years of age whilst at university and developed a dependency on MDMA, which you would use four to five times per week, as well as alcohol in order to avoid “negative feelings”. Later, after the death of your boyfriend from a cerebral aneurysm in 2016, your substance abuse escalated and you used various amounts of cocaine, MDMA, ketamine and alcohol. You told her that, after losing your job during Covid, you experienced significant stress and began “self-medicating with various substances” about the time that you met the principal of the drug trafficking enterprise, who “enticed (you) by asking about your substance use and eventually persuaded you to become involved”. (I again note that this is inconsistent with what you told police in answer to Question 521 in your record of interview, namely, that you had never taken illicit drugs).
20You told Dr Rakov that, after six months, you communicated to the principal of Auspride that you could not do this, but he threatened you, stating “I know where you live”, and he threatened your family. Again, I interpolate that this differs significantly from the history recorded by Ms Lecluse. She stated that you reported:
“it was [your] dream come true in terms of employment. It kept [you] busy and distracted from the significant amount of pain and trauma [you were] harbouring … it never crossed [your] mind that you were engaging in highly risky behaviour which could have [you] incarcerated for several years.”
21You went on, according to Ms Lecluse, to say that you “tried to stop because [you] were sooooo exhausted and risking your life … [but] “he would bully [you] and say things like ‘stop being a girl, harden up’ and mock [you]”. There was no mention that he threatened you or your family, other than saying that if he punished you by withholding funds, you would have no job and be left with nothing.[5] Moreover, the chat messages between the two of you are very amicable. The principal at Auspride appears to be considerate and suggests that you attend to a job the next morning if you are tired. There is friendly banter between you and the exchange of messages with emojis of smiley faces and other faces depicting dollar signs for eyes and a poked-out tongue with a dollar sign on it.[6]
[5]Exhibit “10”, page 5
[6]Appendix 6, as referred to in Footnote 4, Exhibit “A”.
22Dr Rakov took a history from you when she saw you on 5 June 2023 that you had experienced a lot of bullying/mocking, unpleasant encounters, and an assault in the 12 months that you had been in prison. She noted “As a result [you] said [you] keep to yourself”.[7] I note that this appears to conflict with the report from WestCASA which states:
“Since being incarcerated, Ms Sananikone has read several books on trauma, the body and addiction, implemented an exercise regime built healthy boundaries and relationships with other women at DP of C (my emphasis), maintain connection with supportive prosocial people on the outside and began exploring her inner world of counselling”.[8]
[7]Exhibit “1”, page 7, paragraph 11.1
[8]Exhibit “2”
23Dr Rakov concluded that, on the basis of the history you gave her, your parents had not provided normal levels of parental emotional reciprocity and failed to provide a secure emotional base in your formative years, such that the foundations of normal personality function are not likely to have been established. She went on to state:
“12.2Ms Sananikone has tended to avoid, suppress and minimise distress in her lifetime given the unavailability of comforting figures, the presence of oppressive/abusive peers and men and has resorted to escapism through self-harm, initially through physical injury and progressing to substance use. She also has an impaired sense of subjective personal agency, and together with her avoidance of proactively confronting issues, has resulted in a general disorganisation in her personal affairs, including seeking meaningful psychiatric help.
12.3Ms Sananikone has experienced longstanding disturbances of mood and persistent beliefs about her own worthlessness. Together with symptoms of a trauma disorder as described (hypervigilance, disassociation, nightmares, flashbacks), I believe she meets the diagnosis for Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.”[9]
[9]Exhibit “1”, page 7
24Dr Rakov explained that this disorder develops following threatening and most commonly prolonged traumatic events, such as those which you had experienced during your childhood and adolescence, as well as further experiences as an adult outside your control which you had experienced as traumatic. She stated that you experienced flashbacks and nightmares associated with a classical Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder syndrome, but also mood regulation, self-beliefs and interpersonal difficulties that characterise a Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She stated that you also described a clear picture of a substance use disorder, which was currently in remission.
25She rejected suggestions contained in the draft report of Ms Lecluse that you had a Borderline Personality Disorder, and found no evidence of a stand-alone mood or anxiety disorder. However, in response to a question “Does Ms Sananikone’s psychiatric condition make Ms Sananikone disinhibited or affect her ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions, think clearly and calmly, make rational decisions or appropriate judgements, deal with periods of uncertainty and overwhelming stress and/or control her emotions or faculties?” She answered “No”, but added a rider that you had made longstanding personal compromises in interpersonal relationships due to fear of reprisal and wishing to please the other by compliance.
26By partway through the plea hearing a “finalised” report had been obtained from Ms Lecluse, however, your counsel stated that he did not rely upon it and did not tender it.
27The report from WestCASA, to which I have earlier referred, noted that two months after you were arrested, you had contacted them due to declining mental health and suicidal ideation. It noted that you were a victim/survivor of childhood sexual assault, compounded by family violence from your father growing up, and the loss of two ex-partners who tragically passed away. It was further noted that:
“… due to cultural taboos on mental health, sexual assault and family violence, it was not something spoken about openly and you masked your unprocessed trauma by drinking alcohol from your adolescent years”.
28This report also noted marked bullying, isolation and racist attacks while you were at school, which had led to chronic suicidal ideation, low self-esteem, anxiety and depression, and symptoms that align with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It further noted that your highest self score on a questionnaire indicated that you met the criteria for a preliminary Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis.
29At the plea hearing, consistent with comments which I have earlier made in these sentencing remarks about inconsistencies in your history, I expressed my concern that you were an unreliable historian. I have noted a reference from your brother, Mr Anousone (“Tony”) Sisouk, dated 24 July 2023,[10] which confirms that you have held a long-term resentment towards your father and his side of the family because you were ridiculed with negative comments and talked down to. His reference is silent on any violence from your father towards your mother and yourself. However, your counsel submitted, as he is eight years your junior and, thus, would have been only aged approximately four when your father left the family to return to Laos, it is unlikely that he would have a memory of same. He also submitted that you shielded him from exposure to it. I accept both of those matters as plausible explanations. Your brother also mentions the stress you experienced through loss of your late partner in 2016 and the fact that his family cut you out of any involvement in the funeral service in a way that denied your existence.
[10]Exhibit 6
30Although I consider that the histories in the material to the Court are somewhat self-focused, self-pitying and, to some extent, unreliable, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that you did suffer, at least psychological, and possibly physical, trauma at the hands of your father to age 12, and that this eroded your sense of self and that this vulnerability was compounded by the death of a partner or ex-partner in 2004, and the death of another partner in 2016. The nature, extent and consequences of alleged sexual abuse by young boys of you is unclear. Dr Rakov’s report is deficient, in that it does not detail the matters which allegedly cause you to suffer hypervigilance or dissociation, or the content of nightmares and flashbacks, albeit that she does link her diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to trauma and psychological challenges during your childhood and later in adolescence. As the report from WestCASA also supports such a diagnosis, and it appears to have been accepted by prison authorities, in that you are being medicated for it, I take that factor into account in sentencing you, in that it enlivens Principles 5 and 6 of R v Verdins.[11] The prosecution has not taken issue with this, and I accept that having such a disorder, according to the opinion of Dr Rakov, does make you particularly vulnerable in prison, and that your experience is likely to be more burdensome than for a prisoner who does not have this condition. I also accept Dr Rakov’s opinion that, as you had not developed effective coping mechanisms for stress prior to your incarceration, the hostile prison environment may reinforce your difficulty in forming meaningful social connections which are a critical aspect of mental health and rehabilitation.
[11]R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269
31I have accepted this diagnosis with some reservation. One of the crucial criteria for Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, according to Dr Rakov, is severe and persistent difficulties in sustaining relationships with others. I here note that the histories given to Dr Rakov and Ms Lecluse, detail that you had a two-year relationship with Andrés, a seven-year relationship with Oscar and a three-year relationship with John. Dr Rakov does not comment upon how the length of these relationships mean that this criterion of difficulty in sustaining relationships is satisfied. Further, Dr Rakov notes that Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is characterised by severe and persistent symptoms which “cause significant impairment in personal, family, social, education, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” yet, it is plain that you are close to both your mother and brother and have achieved well educationally and vocationally.
32After completing Year 12, you successfully undertook a three-year Bachelor of Business and Information Technology course at RMIT Swinburne which you completed in 2000. You then worked as an advertising/media assistant with Zenith Media for three years until 2003. Following this, you undertook higher education in information technology specifically relating to software and hardware, by way of a private 12-month course with Excom. After completing that course, you were employed by McLarens Young International, a loss-adjusting firm, for a period of two years working on a helpdesk, where you answered phone calls to address and provide advice to clients about software problems. Subsequently, you worked in a similar role at a helpdesk at PWC for six months. This was followed by a period of employment with AMP, again, in a helpdesk role, where you assisted with support and advice for a software program, for a period of seven years. After ceasing work with the AMP, you worked for some four years as the personal assistant to your partner, John, at his accounting firm. This involved organising his travel plans, meetings and managing his five staff. The role continued until John’s death in 2016. You then worked for some five months undertaking contract work for a mortgage firm, Mortgage Choice, in South Melbourne, where you answered phone calls from clients concerning their mortgage loans, but left after five months because you stated that you had been bullied there. This was followed by a contract role with Thermo Fisher, a biotech company in Scoresby, where you were employed as a sales representative, answering phone calls about their products. The details about how long you had been there are somewhat vague, but you told the court that it was in the order of two years and that it must have been around mid-2020, when you ceased that employment due to you not being prepared to be vaccinated during the COVID pandemic. Subsequent to the conclusion of the plea hearing you forwarded an email to the court dated 3 August 2023, setting out your employment history.[12]
[12]Exhibit 15
33Your educational and employment history seems to be of a high-functioning and consistent nature, and I find it difficult to reconcile this with the severe and persistent impairment of these factors which are diagnostic criteria for Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
34In his reference, your brother refers to you “being a decent, hardworking, trustworthy and generous person”.[13] Nowhere in that reference does he refer to you being a user of illicit drugs, much less dependent on them. Nor does the reference from Lyn Duclos, the mother of your ex-partner who died in 2004.
[13]Exhibit 6
35Ms Duclos stated that you had encouraged her to self-publish her first book, and were very persuasive. She described you as “a generous, confident, loyal, very smart young woman with a great sense of humour, who never fails to surprise [her] with her energy and motivation”. She went on to state that you had:
“… worked incredibly hard for every company [you] assisted and represented. [You] gave 101% in a loyal, committed and creative manner, often thinking outside the square seeking ways to improve and promote the organisation. [She knows], because [you] sometimes [use her] as a sounding board for [your] ideas, and [she’s] always impressed by [your] entrepreneurial talent.”
In particular, she stated:
“[She’s] never seen [you] intoxicated, never showing signs of drug use, never being other than a clean-living human being who cares deeply for those less fortunate.”
She stated that you have stayed in touch with her since her son died in 2004, and that you call her at least once a week from prison.[14] She and you are obviously very close and I find it very surprising that she, like your brother, would not have known of you claimed significant drug abuse. Indeed, when asked about your drug use leading up to the offending, you instructed your counsel, Mr Jackson, that, by that stage, you were using 1 gram per day of MDMA, cocaine and ketamine. You instructed that you rarely used ice, but you did use alcohol.
[14]Exhibit 3
36I have previously referred to what you told police being inconsistent with your claim of heavy illicit drug use. The prosecutor, Mr Cookson, reinforced this point in his submissions by reading aloud the following portion of your record of interview during the plea hearing:
“Q 520 Just for - I just want to check something. So have you ever used drugs?
A No.
Q 521 Do you - have you ever tried any illegal drugs?
A No.
Q 522No. Have you ever tried - or do you use or have you ever – have you ever tried any testosterone or - - -
A No.
Q 522… PIEDs? What about prescription medication? Is there any medication that you’re on?
A No.
Q 524Nuh. So - so from the items that were seized today, in regards to, like, the - the illegal drugs and the testosterone and the medication, have you ever used or tried any of those?
A No.
Q 525 O.K., yep.
Q 526O.K. So not a user at all, this has all been purely financial in nature, as a result of your financial hardship. Is that fair to say?---
A Yes.”[15]
[15]Record of interview conducted 23 February 2022
37Generally speaking, drug addiction will not be of significant mitigatory consideration, although it may bear upon the issues of moral culpability and prospects of rehabilitation. However, having regard to the totality of material before the Court, I consider that your assertion that you were dependent upon illicit drugs prior to or leading up to the time of your offending simply does not fit with your high-functioning, excellent work record. Nor could I imagine that the principal of this substantial Dark Web drug-trafficking business would entrust drugs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a person who was significantly dependent upon illicit drugs. I consider it inconsistent with the clarity of your communication with AusPride and the meticulous process which you undertook over the period of one year, accepting wholesale deliveries of drugs and using them to precisely package orders and ensure their delivery to customers via the post. I do not accept that you became involved in this grave offending because you had some form of drug dependency, even though you may, at times, have used illicit drugs. Nor do I accept that you became involved because of financial hardship, or because your mother suffered issues with high-blood pressure and cholesterol.
38There have been no details put before the Court concerning your financial need after ceasing your employment in the middle of 2020. No records of your bank accounts prior to the first date of offending on 1 March 2021 have been tendered. Nor have any details of any commitments by way of mortgage or rental payments or outstanding debts been tendered into evidence. This is not a case where I could be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your apparent profit was substantially diminished because of an illicit drug dependency or that you were trapped in a cycle of debt for the purchase of drugs for yourself which had lead to you becoming entrenched in the trafficking enterprise. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you decided to put your very considerable knowledge of information technology and computer systems to use by participating in this extensive drug trafficking over a period of 12 months for the purpose of financial gain. Your counsel did not take issue with any aspect of the prosecution opening. It is plain that, what is described as the “trappings of wealth” in paragraph 26 of the prosecution opening, were the proceeds of your criminal conduct, including hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash in your home and vehicle, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Bitcoin and hundreds of thousands of dollars in your bank accounts (particularly your St George bank account), your Mercedes vehicle, fourteen designer handbags, a Rolex wrist watch, $4,000 in United States currency and two George Jensen rings.
39I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, although you may have had undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder relating to childhood and adolescent trauma, and the death of your partner in 2016, and an ex-partner in 2004, there is no nexus between any such condition and your offending. Nor has such connection been argued by your counsel, other than in an indirect way by claiming that your drug use was to soothe your distress relating to such condition. As I have made plain, I do not accept the extent of your claimed dependence on illicit drugs.
40The offending to which you have pleaded guilty is very serious offending indeed, particularly Charge 1, which carries the maximum penalty for any criminal offence, namely, life imprisonment. It is a Category 1 offence, which means that, unless a statutory exception is enlivened, this court must impose a sentence of imprisonment (other than one combined with a community correction order). [16] No exception has been argued on your behalf. In addition, its seriousness is indicated by the fact that Parliament has categorised it as a standard sentence offence. A standard sentence is a sentence which, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the seriousness of the offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness. The standard sentence applicable to trafficking in a large commercial quantity is 16 years.[17]
[16]Section 5(2G) of the Sentencing Act 1991
[17]Section 5A(1) of the Sentencing Act and s71(2) of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981
41Charge 2, trafficking simpliciter, is a serious example of such a charge involving, as it does, four different drugs, all of which were trafficked in significant quantities. As is the case with Charge 1, it is more grave because it is a rolled-up charge. It could well have been that you faced four separate trafficking charges. Like Charge 1, the trafficking occurred over a substantial period, namely 12 months.
42Charge 3, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, is also a rolled-up charge involving “the trappings of wealth” to which I have previously referred. Again, you could have faced nine different charges of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime and the fact that it is a rolled-up charge gives its substantially greater seriousness.
43Charge 4, dealing with identification information, 101 bankcards belonging to other people, is also a rolled-up charge. At some stage, all of the owners of those bankcards had taken from them something that almost every member of the community regularly relies upon and the bankcards were in your possession to be put to illegal use. Leaving aside the inconvenience occasioned to each of the owners due to their missing bankcard and of the potential embarrassment and anxiety of it being used in some criminal way, the sheer number of bankcards illegally possessed by you with the intention of committing an indictable offence of supplying identification information makes this a serious example of this charge, which could have been the subject of 101 separate charges.
44Courts, over the years, have often described trafficking in illicit drugs, particularly at the high level to which you have pleaded guilty, as a pernicious enterprise with the potential to bring great profit to those involved in it while doing substantial harm to society. That harm consists of feeding the misery of those who are addicted to illicit drugs, many of whom die because of such addiction, or otherwise suffer seriously impaired mental and physical health, and lead dysfunctional lives, in which they turn to crime to support their habit. Families and friendships are torn apart by the dysfunctional behaviour of drug addicts. Innocent members of the community have crimes perpetrated against them by drug addicts. Sometimes they are terrible, violent and deeply unsettling crimes, which leave in their wake victims suffering mental and physical harm. The burden on our community caused by drug addiction is a weighty one. It consumes significant resources in our hospital, medical and health systems. It creates enormous work for our police and takes up a huge proportion of time in the criminal justice system. Our prisons are very heavily populated by people who have committed crimes associated with drugs. Drug addiction has been referred to by courts, regularly and appropriately, as a “scourge” on our society.
45Your offending formed part of a highly organised and very sophisticated trafficking business which clearly had the capacity to earn yourself and the business owner vast sums of money. Your involvement on Charges 1 and 2 extended over a period of 12 months. It embraced a host of transactions and vast quantities of a variety of different illicit drugs. The style of trafficking for which you are to be sentenced has an added layer of gravity because it was conducted utilising the sinister Dark Web and an encrypted email service and other platforms which cannot be monitored by police. It also involved payment of you in digital cryptocurrency, which makes tracking of transactions considerably more difficult than traditional banking transactions. The utilisation of the Dark Web for drug trafficking means that illicit drugs can be spread rapidly and widely, and more efficiently, than traditional forms of drug trafficking, as well as masking the identity of those involved. The ease with which users can access illicit drugs without having to divulge their own identity and expose themselves to the potential danger of purchasing drugs in a “face to face” transaction makes it an attractive means of purchasing illicit drugs. The detrimental consequences that flow from illicit drug use can more easily become pervasive, and there is no need for “middle men” as transactions are comfortably at arm’s length with anonymity ensured. Thus, the capacity for profit is maximised. The utilisation of the Dark Web adds a layer of sophistication and gravity to this already evil trade and makes it more difficult to detect and eliminate.
46In sentencing you, I have taken into account the standard sentencing provisions, as I am obliged to do. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, although you were not the owner or architect of the drug-trafficking business, you occupied a senior executive position, which was crucial to the business, by ensuring that orders were filled and drugs were distributed into the community. You were no mere conduit. You held a position of significant trust, in that illicit drugs, usually in quantities of 1 or 2 kilograms, were provided to you, which you then meticulously sorted, marked and sealed to fulfil particular orders, and arranged for the orders to be sent by post pack to customers. It involved you handling drugs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and being organised to ensure that your stock of wholesale drugs was sufficient to fulfil orders and that the type and quantity of drugs were correct for each order and addressed to the customer. Your role involved significant foresight and planning and applying your considerable skill and experience in information technology, while all the time being motivated by financial gain. The principal of the business controlled the network and, hence, has the highest moral culpability for this very serious trafficking of massive amounts of drugs via the Dark Web. However, to my mind, that does not mean that your role as packager and distributor is mid-level offending. That is because, without you, orders would not have been filled and the profit motive of the business would not have been realised. Thus, while the principal of the business has the highest moral culpability for this offending, your moral culpability is still very high.
47The objective factors which make this such serious offending are the enormous quantities of drugs trafficked by you, namely, 11.6 times the aggregate large commercial quantity of drugs of dependence; the very obvious motive of financial gain; your precise knowledge of what you were distributing because you, personally, were responsible for fulfilling the orders; the size and sophistication of the operation to which I have earlier referred, with the added gravity of it being on the Dark Web; and the fact that your offending involved a host of transactions over a period of 12 months.
48In accordance with the authority of Brown v R,[18] which has been applied in subsequent cases, while I am obliged by s5B(2)(a) to take the standard sentence into account and by s5(2)(ab) to have regard to the standard sentence, these matters, are essentially “legislative guideposts”. The standard sentence regime provides an imprecise, hypothetical midrange of seriousness based solely on objective factors, not personal to you. The standard sentence is simply one of the relevant sentencing factors to which the Court must have regard. The regime preserves the “instinctive synthesis” method of sentencing and prohibits any two-stage sentencing process.
[18](2019) 59 VR 462
49In Rahmani v R, the Court of Appeal stated, in relation to the objective gravity of the charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity, that “the maximum penalty of life imprisonment sends a message to the community, and to sentencing courts, that this is an offence of the utmost seriousness”.[19] The quantity of 11.6 times the large commercial quantity informs the gravity of this quantity-based offending by you and I have identified the other objective factors which underpin my assessment of your moral culpability as high in preparing and dealing with such vast amounts of drugs of addiction for selfish profit. In Rahmani’s case, the court upheld a submission on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the statements made by the Court of Appeal in Gregory (a pseudonym) v R,[20] to the effect that sentencing for commercial-quantity trafficking would be expected to have a “knock-on effect” for sentencing for large commercial-quantity trafficking. In Gregory, the court had upheld the submission that sentences for commercial-quantity trafficking had been unduly compressed at the top end of the range and that sentencing practice must change to reflect the appropriate relativity between the different categories of seriousness of trafficking which have an ascending order of seriousness, depending on quantity. In Gregory, the court had indicated that sentences “well into double figures” would be well within range for the upper category of commercial-quantity trafficking.
[19]Rahmani v R [2021] VSCA 51 at paragraph [23]
[20](2017) 268 A Crim R 1 at paragraph [4]
50Subsequently in Quah v R,[21] the Court of Appeal again emphasised this factor:
“The quantity-based hierarchy of trafficking offences – and associated maximum penalties – has been deliberately constructed to reflect Parliament’s view of the ascending order of offence seriousness. … .”[22]
The court quoted from the Second Reading Speech of the then Attorney-General, when introducing the legislation which created the offence of large commercial-quantity trafficking back in 2001. Among other things, the Attorney-General had stated that:
“… Because of the changing nature of the drug trade, new offences are required to provide higher penalties for larger quantities of drugs and to close loopholes that exist for those who trade in a range of drugs.
…
The new offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity will attack the Mr Bigs of the drug trade, who operate at the top of the manufacturing and distribution (my emphasis) hierarchy and who make large profits from trafficking in drugs. …
…
The new maximum penalty of life imprisonment reflects the community's abhorrence of large-scale drug trafficking and cultivation and will warn potential offenders of the price they could pay for engaging in this illicit trade.”[23]
[21](2021) 290 A Crim R 136
[22](Ibid) paragraph [54]
[23](Ibid) paragraph [54]
The Court of Appeal went on to state:
“This differential in offence gravity needs to be reflected in sentencing for LCQ trafficking, if Parliament’s clear intention is to be effectuated. As was stated in the second reading speech, the new maximum of life imprisonment was intended to send the clearest message to would-be traffickers — and to sentencing courts — about how sternly large-scale drug trafficking was to be punished.”[24]
[24](Ibid) paragraph [57]
51In sentencing you, the Court must denounce your conduct and emphasise general deterrence. This means sending a plain message to other would-be traffickers, like yourself, that it will not be worth their while, as they will face lengthy periods of imprisonment as appropriate punishment. There is also a need in sentencing to protect the community from this evil trade. Further, since your acts of trafficking took place on multiple occasions over a period of one year, there is a need for some emphasis upon specific deterrence, that is, to deter you, as an individual, from further offending. However, having regard to your lack of prior criminal history, your confronting experience finding yourself in custody for the first time during which you became suicidal, as documented in your Justice Health records,[25] and what would appear to be the development by you since you have been in custody of some appreciation of the very grave nature of your offending, as acknowledged by your letter to the Court,[26] I consider that, at this stage, there is a lesser need for emphasis upon specific deterrence than may have been the case when you were first arrested.
[25]Exhibit 9
[26]Exhibit 5
In sentencing you, I take into account the following matters in your favour:
(a) On the day that you were apprehended by police, you provided them with access to your laptop. You also provided details to enable police to access your cryptocurrency account. This was valuable and early cooperation which facilitated the police investigation at an early stage. Police were able to readily ascertain the value of your remuneration in Bitcoin at that date, which was approximately $287,000 and forms part of the rolled-up Charge 3, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime.
(b) You provided some admissions to police in your record of interview as to how you accessed the Dark Web and became involved with AusPride and the process of parcels being delivered to you.
(c) Following a filing hearing on 24 February 2022, the full voluminous brief of evidence against you was compiled. It comprises 3,200 pages. Once all of the material had been made available to your legal representatives, negotiations ensued and, by the date of the committal hearing on 30 November 2022, you indicated your intention to plead guilty to the matters for which I must sentence you. In the circumstances, I consider this to be the earliest possible plea of guilty.
(d) I regard the utilitarian value of your pleas of guilty to be very high. No witnesses were called at what could have been a lengthy committal hearing and a potentially lengthy and complex trial was avoided. Your facilitation of the course of justice is a significant mitigating factor in that you have saved the expenditure of significant time and resources which would have been spent on a trial. The utilitarian value is enhanced, also, because, at the time you indicated your intention to plead guilty, the criminal trial lists in this Court were still very congested as a result of the restrictions occasioned by the COVID‑19 pandemic. Thus, your pleas of guilty saved having a potentially lengthy trial added to the congested lists and, in accordance with the principles in Worboyes v The Queen,[27] you are entitled to a greater amelioration of sentence than would otherwise be the case.
(e) Although during the plea hearing I expressed some reservation about the extent of your remorse, upon carefully reflecting on all the material before me, I think it is fair to assess your pleas of guilty as being remorseful. This is not solely due to the shame and embarrassment that you had caused your family. Your letter to the Court dated 20 July 2023[28] indicates that your time in custody has given you increasing insight. You express your remorse “especially now having witnessed first-hand the devastating impact drugs can have on the community since my incarceration”. In the circumstances, the high utilitarian value of your pleas of guilty, together with some remorse, entitle you to a substantial and tangible discount on the sentence which otherwise would have been imposed.
(f) I have accepted that you have had a childhood involving trauma from your father and a childhood and adolescence which involved some form of sexual assault. Both of these factors have adversely impacted upon your psychological state. As earlier stated, this year you were diagnosed with a Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for which you have been medicated for the first time whilst you have been remanded in custody. Your counsel conceded that this Disorder did not enliven the application of the Principles 1 to 4 in Verdins’ case. I do take into account, as part of your personal circumstances, that trauma in crucial developmental stages can cause enduring adverse psychological consequences and that you are a vulnerable person. I accept this vulnerability as relevant to your personal circumstances and note that it was increased with the death of your partner in 2016, which must have deeply shocked you and turned your personal and work life upside down. Your distress was exacerbated by lack of acknowledgement of your relationship with him by his family and exclusion from his funeral.
I acknowledge that, you were extremely distressed when first taken into custody and needed to be monitored for suicidal ideation. As someone who has had no contact with the criminal justice system and prisons and comes from a family where there is no suggestion that other family members have had such an association, I have little doubt that custody has been a confronting experience for you. As I have earlier recognised, having a psychological or psychiatric problem like yours makes prison more burdensome for you than for someone who does not have such a problem and there is a risk that your mental health may deteriorate. Having said that, it appears from your own letter to the Court,[29] the report from WestCASA,[30] and the reference from Lyn Duclos,[31] that you have settled down somewhat in custody and have been applying yourself to rehabilitative courses and working.
The report from WestCASA notes the emotional growth and understanding you have achieved through counselling and that you are highly capable and present as “high functioning”, albeit that you suffer grief and pain. Ms Duclos stated that she had sensed a shift in your thinking from the panic and terror of incarceration and depression and frustration as you deal with mental health issues. She noted that, with ongoing counselling within the prison system, you have gained a sense of purpose and resolve. A subsequent letter from another counsellor at WestCASA dated 17 July 2023 (which was forwarded to the Court following the conclusion of the plea hearing) noted that you had reengaged with counselling in May 2023. It note that you find the prison environment very challenging, but are an intelligent resilient and insightful woman.[32] In addition, a letter from Anh Nguyen, Buddhist chaplain, noted that you had been attending pastoral care sessions fortnightly with her since March 2022. Those sessions aim to equip you with tools and strategies to help with past trauma and improve mental health and wellbeing, and to assist with self-reflection about the past in order to create a more productive and positive life, as well as helping with repentance for past actions and guided meditation.[33] In your own letter, you state you have spent the past 16 months working on yourself, your mental health, lifestyle, behaviour, habits and relationships. You mention that you have learned skills from counsellors which help you when you are overwhelmed and that you have family and friends who have helped you progress a business initiative built around a non-alcoholic gin, Pouvoir, which you had commenced in order to focus your energy. Nevertheless, your sentence will be a very significant one and I have little doubt that you will continue to need psychological support.
(g) It is to your credit that, whilst in custody on remand, you have engaged in a number of rehabilitative courses conducted by Atlas and for which certificates were tendered as Exhibit “8”. In addition to this, you mentioned in your letter to the Court that you had been recommended for participation in the “prison work placement program” and, as a consequence, had taken up a leadership role in the food preparation/laundry team. Subsequent to the conclusion of the plea hearing, an undated letter from the Women’s Employment Service at Corrections Victoria was forwarded to the court. This confirmed that you are engaged with it and “working towards being gainfully employed in the community.”[34] A number of further certificates of completion by you of programs from March to August 2023 relating to drug education and managing depression and anxiety were also forwarded to the court.[35] You are to be commended for moving from a position of serious despair to trying to use your time productively and this bodes well for your ultimate rehabilitation.
(h) You have no prior criminal history and Dr Rakov assesses you as not holding anti-social or entitled attitudes which would serve as a drive to further offending. She notes that there are no psychiatric obstructions to expressing remorse, which she stated you do freely, especially with respect to your mother’s involvement in the offending.[36] These factors, along with the pro-social support which you have, particularly from Ms Duclos and your brother, together with your expressed determination to turn your life around and your excellent work history, lead me to believe that you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
[27][2021] VSCA 169 at 39
[28]Exhibit “5”
[29]Exhibit “5”
[30]Exhibit “2”
[31]Exhibit “3”
[32]Exhibit “H”
[33]Exhibit “4”
[34]Exhibit “12”
[35]Exhibit “13”
[36]Exhibit “1”, page 10, paragraph 18.2
52In sentencing you, I have had regard to the relevant sentencing guidelines contained in s5 of the Sentencing Act, which include current sentencing practices. Neither the prosecutor, nor defence counsel, assisted the court with any sentencing authorities. Nor did they address the court on the vexed question of cumulation, until I sought assistance on this issue following the conclusion of the plea hearing.[37]
[37]Prosecution Further Submissions at Plea dated 2 August 2023 (MFI-B) and Defence Submissions on Consolidation dated 2 August 2023 (MFI-2)
53Section 16 of the Sentencing Act embodies a presumption that sentences should be concurrent unless the court otherwise directs. The issue of cumulation is clearly of significance in the circumstances where I must sentence you on four charges, each of which is a rolled-up charge. Where a number of offences have been combined into one rolled-up charge, rather than an offender facing multiple different charges for the same offences, there is already a considerable advantage to an offender. For example, you face one charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, rather than five such charges, and a similar benefit has accrued to you in relation to Charges 2, 3 and 4 as well. However, as the sentencing judge, I am obliged to take into account all of the circumstances of a particular rolled-up charge and assign a sentence commensurate with its overall gravity, taking into account the period over which such offending occurred and the totality of harm occasioned by it. A rolled-up charge, by its very nature, comprising, as it does, multiple acts of offending, is a charge which is inherently more grave than a non-rolled-up charge.
54In canvassing current sentencing practices, I have not become aware of any recent authorities where offenders have been sentenced for a rolled-up charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of illicit drugs. It is clear that, since Gregory’s case, the sentences for large commercial-quantity trafficking have been increased substantially in order to maintain appropriate relativity between it, as the most grave trafficking offence in the hierarchy, from the next offence down in the hierarchy, trafficking in a commercial quantity, and the lesser offence of trafficking simpliciter. In the same year that the case of Gregory was decided, the Victorian legislature, in 2017, introduced the standard sentencing regime to which I have earlier referred, which established a standard sentence for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of 16 years. Since that time, there have been sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment for a single charge of large commercial-quantity trafficking imposed on appeal, where the quantity was 1.9 times the large commercial quantity;[38] 15 years’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal, for trafficking in 3.8 times the large commercial quantity threshold;[39] and, a sentence of nine years following a trial, involving 1.5 times a large commercial quantity was not disturbed upon appeal, but described by the Court of Appeal as “very moderate”, with the comment that considerable weight must have been given to the mitigating factors upon which the applicant had relied.[40] In another case, a 32-year-old appellant who had no criminal history, was involved in a sophisticated and substantial trafficking operation involving some twenty-one times the large commercial-quantity threshold. Upon appeal, a sentence of 9½ years was reduced to 7½ years.[41] However, in that case there were mitigating factors relating to family hardship and the threat of deportation in circumstances where the offender had a young child who was an Australian citizen. There was also an in issue of parity, in relation to which the Court of Appeal considered that a co-accused of the appellant had been given a manifestly inadequate sentence. All of these factors indicate that no two cases are identical and current sentencing practices are a guidepost only.
[38]DPP v Kumas [2021] VSCA 215
[39]Quah v R (supra)
[40]Rahmani v R (supra), page 2, paragraph [5]
[41]Lam v The Queen [2021] VSCA 241
55You have no prior criminal history. It should be noted that, since your father returned to Laos when you were 12 years old, you have led a stable existence, insofar as you completed Year 12 at school, completed a tertiary qualification of three years and a further post-graduate course of 12 months at a private institution. You are an intelligent and capable individual who has held responsible jobs with large companies because you had significant training, experience and aptitude in information technology and software. It was this expertise which led you to go exploring on the Dark Web out of curiosity. You used your education, experience and intelligence to seize an opportunity of making very large amounts of money at the expense of causing harm to others. There is really no basis for moderating your moral culpability in relation to the offending itself, albeit that I have identified a number of mitigatory factors in your favour that should be taken into account in the sentencing process. The magnitude of the quantity of drugs involved on Charge 1 make a very considerable sentence inevitable. It would have been greater without the mitigatory factors in your favour. I make it plain that I have not arrived at the sentence on that charge by simply applying the standard sentence applicable to the offence. That is not an appropriate way to approach the sentencing task.
56As I have stated, the issue of cumulation is a difficult one because I must sentence you on four rolled-up charges.
57Totality is a relevant consideration in order to arrive at a sentence which is an appropriate reflection of the seriousness of your overall offending but also the need to avoid a crushing sentence. It is appropriate to recognise that, while each of the charges are quite discrete, both Charges 1 and 2 arise in relation to the same Dark Web trafficking over the same period. Your associated enrichment from the trafficking, through possessing proceeds of crime (Charge 3), along with your possession of a large number of bankcards belonging to other people (Charge 4), are offences pleaded to have been committed on a single date, namely, the date upon which police executed a search warrant. Clearly, each of Charges 3 and 4 are related to your offending on Charges 1 and 2. Having said that, the drugs comprising Charge 2 were of a totally different nature to those comprising Charge 1 and the number of different drugs and their quantity make it a serious example of trafficking simpliciter. The extent of enrichment indicated by the proceeds of crime comprising Charge 3 is very considerable. I have already referred to the inconvenience and anxiety which may be inferred to have been suffered by the owners of the 101 bankcards which are the subject of Charge 4. I thus consider that some cumulation is warranted on Charges 2, 3 and 4 albeit that the Court must apply the principle of totality to ensure an overall just sentence.
58Application of the principles of general deterrence and protection of the community mean that the overall sentence imposed must be a weighty one. This is not a situation where emphasis upon your prospects of rehabilitation should overwhelm those other sentencing principles. You were a mature, well educated person who chose to make a handsome profit from repeatedly committing crimes to the detriment of society over a 12 month period. I have assessed your prospects of rehabilitation as being good and consider it appropriate to reflect that factor particularly in the non-parole period which I set. Obviously, whether you are granted parole is not a matter for me, but for the Adult Parole Board.
59On the state offences you are to be sentenced as follows:
60On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 16 years’ imprisonment.
61On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 5 years’ imprisonment.
62On Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 4 years’ imprisonment
63The sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence. I direct that 10 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and 10 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and upon each other.
64The total effective sentence on the State Charges is thus 17 years and 8 months imprisonment. I direct that you serve a period of 10 years and 8 months imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
65On Charge 4 (Commonwealth), you are convicted and sentenced to serve a period of 4 months imprisonment. I direct that this sentence commence upon the expiry of the non-parole period on the State Sentence.
66I declare a period of pre-sentence detention of 580 days to be the time reckoned as already served under the sentence imposed this day.
67Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act, I state, that had it not been for your pleas of guilty, the total effective sentence on the State Sentences would have been 22 ½ years with a non-parole period of 17 years, and the total effective sentence imposed on the Commonwealth charge would have been 6 months imprisonment.
68Pursuant to section 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997, I order the forfeiture to the State of the property referred to in the schedule of the disposal order and I further direct that it be placed in the custody of the Chief Commissioner of Police and be held by him until 28 days from this date or the conclusion of any appeal proceedings where it may be tested and/or analysed and then destroyed. The schedule refers to various identified illicit drugs, unidentified powders and liquids, equipment used in your offending, bankcards, SIM cards and satchels and parcels from Australia Post.
69Pursuant to section 33(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997, I order that the property referred to in the Schedule be forfeited to the Minister. The schedule refers to: 2 mobile phones, 15 handbags, $478,880.65 in cash, various items of clothing, 1 Rolex watch, 2 George Jensen rings, an array of receipts, satchels and parcels from Australia Post, a number of SIM cards, 202 bankcards, 2 Ledger recovery sheets and a number of notebooks.
6
0