Director of Public Prosecutions v Stankovski
[2014] VCC 1062
•17 June 2014
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-13-000845
CR-13-00846
CR-13-00847
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BRANE STANKOVSKI |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Grant | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 & 13 June 2014 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 June 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | ||
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VCC 1062 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D. Ellwood | OPP |
| For the Accused | Mr D. Gray | S. Andrianakis & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Brane Stankovski, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of Trafficking a drug of dependence and one charge of Possession of a drug of dependence. You have also pleaded guilty to a number of related summary charges, namely, two charges of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, one charge of entering an intersection against a red light and one charge of driving a vehicle whilst using a mobile phone.
2 The maximum penalties for these offences are as follows:
· Trafficking in a drug of dependence - 15 years' imprisonment;
· Possession of a drug of dependence - 400 penalty units or 5 years' imprisonment, or both. However, where the Court is satisfied that the possession was not related to trafficking, the penalty is 5 penalty units;
· Dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime - 2 years' imprisonment;
· Entering an intersection on a red light - 10 penalty units; and
· Using a mobile phone while driving a motor car - 10 penalty units.
3 You have admitted a prior criminal history, which includes appearances in the Magistrates’ Court in 2011 for drug offences.
4 Mr Ellwood for the prosecution presented a summary of your offending and it is not my intention to repeat all of that summary. It will be attached to these remarks as Exhibit “A”.
5 In relation to Charge 1 on the indictment, you admit that you were involved in trafficking 138.73 grams of methylamphetamine during the period 15 February 2012 – 27 July 2012. The amount of the drug has been established by evidence from three sources.
6 First, telephone intercepts for the period between 22 June 2012 and 26 July 2012 reveal that you sold, or offered to sell, 126.23 grams of methylamphetamine to various people. Most of the sales or offers to sell are at a low level involving points of methylamphetamine. However, in one conversation, you offered to sell 56.7 grams of methylamphetamine to one of your customers. Four of the recorded dealings involve purchases of methylamphetamine in 3.5 gram lots from a supplier named Markovski.
7 Secondly, two separate police seizures of methylamphetamine on 15 February 2012 (1.5 grams) and 27 July 2012 (3.5 grams). On the first date, you had been observed by police to sell 0.4 grams of methylamphetamine from your parked car. You were searched and found to be in possession of $300 in cash. The police located 9 deal bags, an ice pipe and 1.1 grams of methylampetamine in your car. You were charged by police and bailed to appear at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court. When the police arrested you on 27 July 2012, they found 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine in your possession.
8 Finally, you sold a total of 7.5 grams of methylamphetamine to a police covert operative on 7 separate occasions between 25 May 2012 and 27 July 2012. As far as these sales are concerned, I note the high purity of drug involved in each transaction. It appears that you obtained drugs from your supplier that you “on sold” to the undercover operative without “cutting” it.
9 The evidence confirms that you were involved in street level trafficking over the period in question and that you were particularly busy from late May 2012 to the end of July 2012. By mid-July you had set up a “safe house" at a flat in Tarakan Street, Heidelberg where you would meet with your purchasers. You engaged in this offending whist on bail for the offences committed on 15 February 2012. This is an aggravating feature of your offending.
10 The second charge on the indictment involves the provision, by you, of 1.36 kilograms of cannabis to a man called Ahmad. This is not a small amount of cannabis.
11 The third charge on the indictment relates to 5.2 grams of cannabis found by police during a search of your premises on 27 July 2012. Given the small quantity of the drug, I am satisfied that you did not possess the cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.
12 The summary charges are self-explanatory and need no further elaboration.
13 Mr Stankovski, denunciation and general deterrence are paramount sentencing considerations in drug trafficking cases. Drug trafficking is pernicious behaviour that causes great harm to our community. Those who choose to engage in such illegal activity must understand that the courts will impose orders that reflect the seriousness of the offending. Given your prior court appearances, specific deterrence is also a relevant sentencing consideration.
14 Your counsel raised a number of matters in the plea that are relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion. I will address those matters now.
15 You have pleaded guilty to the offences. It was not an early plea of guilty, however, I am satisfied that from the time of the committal there have been ongoing discussions between the prosecution and defence about an appropriate resolution of this matter. The matter initially came before me as a plea on 12 December 2013 with co-offenders Markovski and Gaffy. There was still some dispute about the agreed facts and the matter was adjourned to see if those matters could be resolved. They were resolved and you have now entered a plea of guilty. I am satisfied that you should be given appropriate credit for your plea of guilty. The plea also indicates your remorse and has utilitarian benefit.
16 After your apprehension for these offences, you were remanded in custody for 64 days. This was your first experience of custody. On 21 September 2012, you were released on bail to participate in the CISP program. You completed that program. You were on bail until I revoked it on 13 June. [1] There has been no further offending whilst you have been on bail. It is said that you are no longer abusing drugs. You have been compliant with strict bail conditions and you have been seeing a psychologist on a monthly basis. The delay in the resolution of this matter has given you an opportunity to prove that you can live a law abiding lifestyle. The delay and your response on bail are relevant matters for me to consider when determining sentence.
[1] The Magistrate who heard your committal determined that there should be a surety for bail and, because the matter was resolved late in the day, you spent one night in custody before being able to again enter bail.
17 You are a 48 year old married man. You have been residing with your wife and 8 year old daughter in a home owned by your parents and sister in Reservoir. Your wife works as a cleaner.
18 Your parents came to Australia from Macedonia when you were 7 years old. You completed Year 10 at school and then completed a certificate in technical electronics. You were employed with Telstra until 1989 when you accepted a redundancy package. You worked for a time for your father in his taxi business. This ceased when you lost your license for driving offences. You then worked in the security industry.
19 In 2000 or 2001 you were assaulted. In a report dated 8 March 2011, Dr Robert Bourke, a Clinical Neuropsychologist, states – “Since the assault, Mr Stankovski has been treated for depression and anxiety. He has not worked since that time and has received a disability support pension over the past ten years.”
20 I heard evidence that you were also assaulted by your brother-in-law on 25 May 2010. According to the report provided by Ms Lechner, a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, you date the onset of your problems with methylamphetamine to that time. Ms Lechner says that when she saw you in September 2012 (and again in December 2013), you were displaying symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She expressed the view that your drug use had been a form of self-medication.
21 When you saw Dr Bourke in March 2011 you disclosed a history of occasional use of cannabis, alcohol and amphetamine use. You were also on prescribed medication. You saw Dr Bourke as part of a referral from the CREDIT bail program. A report provided by Ms Fleming, a clinician in the CREDIT bail program, indicates that you were referred into the program on 31 January 2011 after being charged with offences of drug possession. The charges were determined at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 13 April 2011. You were placed on a bond without conviction with a condition that you continue to attend counselling at Moreland Hall.
22 There was a subsequent appearance at Heidelberg Court on 11 October 2011 for possess amphetamine and traffic cannabis. You were convicted and fined a total of $450. This offending breached your bond.
23 It appears that your use of drugs (and particularly your use of methylamphetamine) escalated throughout 2011.
24 When you were apprehended by police on 15 February 2012, an ice pipe, among other things, was found in your car. When the police searched the flat in Tarakan Street, Heidelberg on 27 July, an ice pipe (among other items) was found at that address.
25 I am satisfied that you were an ice user at the time you committed these offences. I accept your counsel’s submission that the offending was driven by your desire to feed your drug use and not by a desire to profit. There is no evidence of you or your family being enriched by your drug dealings.
26 I am also satisfied, given your positive progress after your release on bail, that you have good prospects for rehabilitation. This is a strong matter in your favour.
27 Mr Stankovski, in determining an appropriate sentence I am required to balance a number of competing considerations. In this case your plea of guilty, your progress on bail over the past 21 months and your good prospects for rehabilitation must be balanced against the seriousness of your offending. You determined to fund your drug usage by engaging in trafficking activities. Your previous court appearances in 2011 would have made you aware of the services available to address your drug use. You chose to continue your involvement with drugs and fund your usage by trafficking drugs.
28 Over a period of at least two months, you were actively and regularly engaged in the trafficking of amphetamine to various people who could accurately be described as your customers. You had at least one regular supplier and by mid-July you had established a “safe house” for your dealings. In addition, on one occasion you trafficked 1.36 kilograms of cannabis. Even in cases where people are selling to support their own drug use, general deterrence and denunciation remain central sentencing considerations.
29 Mr Stankovski, the appropriate order in this case is an immediate imprisonment order but one that does recognise – by the imposition of a lengthy non‑parole period – your good prospects for rehabilitation.
30 You will be sentenced as follows. On charge 1, convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. On charge 2, convicted and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment. On charge 3, convicted and fined $300. I order that two months of the sentence on charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 1.
31 I make the following orders on the summary charges. On the charge of dealing with $300 suspected of being the proceeds of crime on 15 February 2012, convicted and sentenced to one months' imprisonment. For the same offence involving $1700 committed on 20 July 2012, convicted and sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment. These imprisonment terms to be served concurrently with each other and with the imprisonment orders made for the charges on indictment. For using a mobile phone whilst driving on 15 February, convicted and fined $300 and for entering an intersection against a red light on 20 July 2012, convicted and fined $300.
32 The total effective sentence is 20 months. I order that you serve 8 months before being eligible for release on parole. I make a declaration that you have served 70 days by way of pre‑sentence detention.
33 Had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty after trial, I would have sentenced you to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 months.
34 I make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought by the prosecution.
35 Mr Stankovski, I also order that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from your mouth. I must advise you that if you fail to co‑operate in the taking of the sample, the authorities may use reasonable force to obtain it. This order is made pursuant to sections 464ZF(2) and 464ZF(2)(A) of the Crimes Act 1958. I make the order for the following reasons; the seriousness of the offending and the order is in the public interest.
36 I will formally sign off on these orders. Yes, thank you, the prisoner can be removed, thank you.
- - -
Exhibit A:
Court Reference:
CR-13-00845; CR-13-00846; CR-13-00847
Indictment No: C1208600
IN THE COUNTY COURT
IN THE STATE OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
-v –
Brane STANKOVSKI
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING [REVISED]
Operation GNOMICAL commenced on 15 February 2012 targeting Brane STANKOVSKI then believed to be trafficking methylamphetamine in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Over the course of the investigation telephone communications to and from STANKOVSKI were the subject of Interception Warrants. In the course of that interception the activities of several other persons came to light. They included Velimir MARKOVSKI, Chris JOVANOVSKI, John HARRIS and Leah GAFFY.
SHORT SUMMARY
Charge 1 against STANKOVSKI is a rolled-up charge.
The case against STANKOVSKI is that he was very busy trafficking drugs of dependence during the period of the investigation, selling, or offering to sell, methylamphetamine and cannabis to various customers.
The case against him on Charge 1 is in two parts. First, a total of seven sales were made to a covert operative between 25 May 2012 and 27 July 2012.
Second, intercept transcripts and observation revealed STANKOVSKI arranging sales and deliveries of drugs to other customers.
It is alleged that Mr STANKOVSKI trafficked in the amount of 138.73 grams of methylamphetamine during the period of 15th February 2012 – 27th July 2012 as evidenced by telephone intercepts (126.23 grams); two police seizures of methylamphetamine (1.5 grams and 3.5 grams); and methylamphetamine sold to the Police Covert Operative (7.5 grams).
Manufacturing of methylamphetamine was carried out by John HARRIS and Leah GAFFY. [HARRIS died of natural causes in mid-July 2013 following the committal.]
The Prosecution case is that the supplier of high purity methylamphetamine to STANKOVSKI on the dates charged as against MARKOVSKI, namely 19 July and 27 July 2012, was Velimir MARKOVSKI.
MARKOVSKI [Indictment C.12111975 - Charges 1 and 2]
Velimir MARKOVSKI (Born 23 May 1951) resided at an apartment at 2506/265 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, a building close to the corner of Little Lonsdale Street. In the course of the investigation STANKOVSKI was observed meeting with MARKOVSKI at a number of City locations following telephone communications. Those telephone communications reveal MARKOVSKI speaking in Macedonian and in coded form to STANKOVSKI regarding their illegal drug activities. It is alleged that intercept material demonstrates the hierarchy as between MARKOVSKI and STANKOVSKI, namely that MARKOVSKI was a supplier to STANKOVSKI.
Charge 2
10.When arrested on 27 July 2012 MARKOVSKI was found to be in possession of twelve $100 notes, notes which had been paid by the Covert Operative to STANKOVSKI as part of a total price of $2,000 for what became the final purchase of 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine on that day [MARKOVSKI Charge 2]
11.The prosecution allege that the final day’s surveillance and intercepts reflect the modus operandi as between MARKOVSKI and STANKOVSKI.
12.On 27 July Covert Operative Kaz (‘Kaz’) phoned STANKOVSKI and told him she wanted to purchase “the bigger one” they had previously talked about and offered to pay him $2,000 ‘up front’.
13.At 11:41 Kaz met STANKOVSKI at a flat he used in Tarakan Street, Heidelberg West and gave him $2,000.
14.At 12:14 p.m. STANKOVSKI phoned MARKOVSKI. De-coded, STANKOVSKI told MARKOVSKI that he had $2,000 plus a further $1,000 in relation to a different sale to another person. They agreed to meet when MARKOVSKI called.
15.Subsequently MARKOVSKI told STANKOVSKI to go to the smoking area at the Golden Nugget Hotel in Lonsdale Street, a place they often met.
16.It is alleged that after meeting MARKOVSKI, STANKOVSKI drove to Carlton intending to meet Kaz and complete the sale. He was arrested before he could do so.
17.He had in his possession 7 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of approximately 70%. He had none of the notes paid to him earlier by Kaz.
18.As stated earlier, when MARKOVSKI was arrested – in the Golden Nugget at 3:55 p.m. on that day – he was found to be in possession of some $5,370 cash, $1,200 of which was identifiable as part of the Kaz payment earlier that afternoon. [Summary Charge - Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime]
Charge 1
19.On the earlier occasion, on 19 July 2012, [MARKOVSKI Charge 1] Kaz had also paid STANKOVSKI the money - $1,000 – in advance. STANKOVSKI met MARKOVSKI in a hotel car park in Northcote from where STANKOVSKI drove to a car park in Heidelberg and delivered the drugs to the undercover policewoman, Kaz.
20.The prosecution case against the accused MARKOVSKI is that he agreed to supply STANKOVKSI with 1.7 grams of methylamphetamine for on-sale; notwithstanding that the weight he actually supplied proved on analysis to be ‘short’ [1.5 grams at 80%] [MARKOVSKI Charge 1] and that on the second occasion he supplied STANKOVSKI with 7.0 grams at 70%, from which STANKOVSKI was to supply Kaz with 3.5 grams [MARKOVSKI Charge 2].
Arrest and Interview (Markovski)
21.A field interview [Deps. pp.1067 – 1104) was conducted with MARKOVSKI after which he attended with police while they executed a Drugs Act search warrant at his Exhibition Street apartment. No drugs were located. Deal bags and scales were located. Five empty cigarette packets bound together with rubber bands were located in a cupboard over the refrigerator.
22.The presence of the empty cigarette packets was significant. On the occasion STANKOVKSI effected delivery of what he had agreed to supply, namely 1.7 grams of methylamphetamine to Kaz on 19 July 2012 [Charge 1] he had handed her a cigarette packet containing a plastic bag inside which was the purchased methylamphetamine; on later analysis this found to actually be 1.5 grams with a purity of approximately 80%. Empty cigarette packets containing empty plastic bags were also found by police at STANKOVSKI’s premises in Vale Street, Reservoir. The Prosecution alleges the cigarette packet was a simply disguised delivery method from MARKOVSKI to STANKOVSKI.
23.During the recorded field interviews at the Golden Nugget and at his apartment following his arrest MARKOVSKI claimed that the money in his possession came from legitimate sources.
24.When interviewed at Mill Park Police Station later that night. He admitted possession of the cash found on his person at the time of his arrest. He told police that “most” of the money found on his person he withdrew from Suncorp by way of a loan. He denied knowing anyone named “Braneh” or “Barney”. He otherwise exercised his right to silence.
GAFFY [Indictment C.1204920 - 1 Charge]
Charge 1
25.This is a ‘Giretti’ charge.
26.John HARRIS (then aged 46) and Leah GAFFY (then aged 37) lived at Unit 4, 13-19 Oak Street, Preston. Their two children aged 11 and 16 years, respectively, lived in the same house in which the manufacturing took place.
27.On 4 September 2012 police executed a Drugs Act search warrant at the home of HARRIS and GAFFY. During the search police identified various items of equipment and chemicals used in the manufacture of amphetamines in both the laundry and a cupboard within the master bedroom. There was evidence that the “cooking” of amphetamines had been carried out in the laundry immediately adjacent to the kitchen and dining room of the unit.
Arrest and Interview (Gaffy)
28.The prosecution case against GAFFY [Charge 1] was that she was aiding and abetting or acting in concert with HARRIS in the trafficking by manufacture of methylamphetamine during the date period charged.
STANKOVSKI [Indictment C.1208600 – 3 Charges]
Charge 1
29.STANKOVSKI was observed by police driving in the Reservoir area on 15 February 2012. He stopped his car in the middle of Lucas Street and a woman named Angela COSTA approached. He passed a cigarette packet to her. Both persons were intercepted by police. The cigarette packet contained 0.4 gm of methylamphetamine in a snap-seal plastic bag.
30.STANKOVSKI was asked to pull his car over to the side of the road and step out to the footpath. When searched he had $300 in cash in his pocket. Another cigarette packet was found on a brick pillar in Lucas Street near to where STANKOVSKI had parked. This contained methylamphetamine. Under the steering column of STANKOVSKI’s car were located nine deal bags and another quantity of methylamphetamine as well as an ‘ice’ pipe; a total of 1.1 gms methylamphetamine. COSTA was dealt with in the Magistrates Court on a possession charge.
31.STANKOVSKI made a ‘no comment’ interview. He was then charged and bailed to appear at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court. Those charges were still unresolved at the time of the further offending behaviour set out below.
32.Between 25 May 2012 and 27 July 2012 STANKOVSKI sold methylamphetamine to Kaz on seven occasions (a total amount of 7.5 grams). Each of these transactions followed a common path. Kaz contacted STANKOVSKI by telephone and indicated a desire to purchase methylamphetamine. Arrangements would be made by telephone to meet, STANKOVSKI suggesting the meeting place. At the meet Kaz would exchange a sum of money for methylamphetamine. The details of the individual transactions – two of which are outlined in more detail in paras. 9 – 19, above – occurred as follows:
a.25 May 2012 – 0.2 gm (90% purity) for $200
b.1 June 2012 – 0.5 gm (90% purity) for $400
c.19 June 2012 – 0.5 gm (80% purity) for $400
d.28 June 2012 – 0.9 gm (90% purity) for $800
e.12 July 2012 – 0.2 gm (80% purity) free as substitute for the 1.7 gms agreed to be supplied but which was then unavailable
f.19 July 2012 – 1.7 gms (80% purity) for $1,000
g.27 July 2012 – 3.5 gms (70% purity) for $2,000.
33.On one occasion – on the 12 July - STANKOVSKI arranged to meet Kaz at a flat he used in Tarakan Street, Heidelberg. A number of other purchasers were observed to attend the Tarakan Street apartment during the surveillance period. It is alleged that STANKOVSKI used the Tarakan Street apartment as a ‘safe house’ for his drug activity.
34.As is earlier set out [paras 9 – 17, above] STANKOVSKI was arrested on 27 July 2012 on his way to complete the last transaction with Kaz. He was in possession of 7 gms of methylamphetamine, half of which was intended for delivery to Kaz.
35.The telephone interceptions contain many hundreds of drug-related conversations between STANKOVSKI and his customers. Most of these persons were regular, if not daily, users of methylamphetamine and the amounts sold or agreed to be sold by STANKOVSKI reflected purchases by users although it should be noted that the amounts supplied to Kaz were of a high purity.
36.It is estimated that the amount of methylamphetamine sold or agreed to be sold by STANKOVSKI in the charge period to customers other than Kaz, was 126.23 grams, as evidenced by telephone intercepts, as summarised in the attached Drug Quantification Chart prepared by the investigating police after reviewing the transcripts of telephone conversations and SMS messages.
37.The prosecution case is that STANKOVSKI clearly had a significant and regular customer base throughout the charge period to whom he supplied methylamphetamine in amounts of between 1 to 3 points, although gram and multiple gram amounts are also the subject of discussion from time to time. He was, in short, a busy street-level trafficker.
38.This customer base included a girl and her mother, both of whom were users. Police established that the girl was 14 years old at the time of the four purchases she made from STANKOVSKI during the charge period. It cannot be established that STANKOVSKI was aware of her age.
Charge 2
39.On 11 July 2012 a telephone call was intercepted between STANKOVSKI and a person identified as ‘Youssef AHMAD’. AHMAD needed “3 or 4 jobs done”. STANKOVSKI told him there were “10 to 15 jobs there”. STANKOVSKI then phoned a person identified as ‘GASPARIS’ and left as message asking for “five of those jobs that you have got”. Later GASPARIS rang and told STANKOVSKI he only had four left. GASPARIS provided STANKOVSKI with directions to his house.
40.On 12 July 2012 police observed a male arrive at STANKOVSKI’s premises in Vale Street, Reservoir. He was carrying a blue cooler bag. He entered the address. A few minutes later STANKOVSKI left the address carrying the blue cooler bag and drove off. He went to High Street, Thomastown, where he met AHMAD and handed over three pounds, 1.36 kg of cannabis. AHMAD was intercepted by police thereafter and the cannabis seized. STANKOVSKI was not arrested at this time.
Charge 3
41.A search of STANKOVSKI’s premises at Vale Street, Reservoir following his arrest on 27 July 2012 revealed 5.2 gms of cannabis in a cigarette box.
Arrest and Interview
42.Following the arrest of STANKOVSKI police executed search warrants at the Tarakan Street, Heidelberg premises and his home at Vale Street, Reservoir. At the first premises – the ‘safe house’ address - police seized a large number of deal bags, a set of scales, an ‘ice’ pipe, Iodine and glassware. At the Vale Street premises police seized blister packs of Demazin. STANKOVSKI made a ‘no comment’ interview.
JOVANOVSKI
43.The prosecution case against JOVANOVSKI was that:
-He pooled money with STANKOVSKI on occasions to facilitate purchases of methylamphetamine;
-He trafficked in his own right, sourcing his own clients, and
-He trafficked a total of 4.0 gms of methylamphetamine over the period 22 June 2012 to 27 July 2012. This amount was secured by him over nine individual purchases from STANKOVSKI.
44.JOVANOVSKI pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court on 3 May 2013 to a charge of Trafficking a drug of dependence and several weapons offences. He was sentenced on 6 June 2013 to a Community Corrections Order with conviction for 12 months with 120 hours of unpaid work with conditions for assessment and treatment for mental health issues.
HISTORY
45.The charges against JOVANOVSKI originally formed a separate brief but were eventually joined to the larger committal of STANKOVSKI, MARKOVSKI, HARRIS and GAFFY.
46.MARKOVSKI and HARRIS resolved the charges against them at the committal hearing on 2 May 2013. GAFFY took a straight hand-up brief on 3 May 2013. All accused were adjourned to a date for plea.
47.GAFFY resolved at a time after the Initial Directions Hearing and she formally entered a plea of guilty to her Indictment on 31 May 2013. Her plea was adjourned to join the already listed plea of MARKOVSKI and HARRIS.
48.STANKOVSKI resolved on or about 21st August 2013 after discussions. He was arraigned on that date on his Indictment and his plea adjourned to join MARKOVSKI and GAFFY; HARRIS having died.
PENALTY
49.The maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking in a drug of dependence is 15 years imprisonment [s.71AC Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981].
50.The maximum penalty for the offence of possession of a drug of dependence, (cannabis < 50 gms) where the Court is satisfied that possession was for a purpose not related to trafficking: 5 penalty units. In any other case the maximum penalty is 400 penalty units or 5 years, or both. [s.73 Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substance Act 1981]
51.The summary offence of Dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime carries a maximum of 2 years imprisonment. [s.195 Crimes Act 1958]
52.The summary offence of entering an intersection on a red light carries a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units.
53.The summary offence of using a mobile phone while driving a motor car carried a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units.
54.The summary offence of driving on the incorrect side of the road carries a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units.
PRE-SENTENCE DETENTION
55.PSD for the prisoner STANKOVSKI is 66 days.
ORDERS SOUGHT
FORFEITURE
56.A Forfeiture Order is sought in respect of the $2,070 found in the possession of STANKOVSKI on arrest.
DISPOSAL
57.A Disposal Order is sought in relation to the drugs - cannabis and methylamphetamine – and the paraphernalia located at the premises occupied by STANKOVSKI in Tarakan Street, Heidelberg West.
S.464ZF Forensic Sample
58.A Forensic Sample Order is sought in respect of STANKOVSKI. 71AC of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 is a Schedule 8 offence.
Damian Ellwood 27th May 2014
Prosecutor
0
0
0