Director of Public Prosecutions v Van
[2022] VCC 149
•16 February 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case no. CR-21-00233
Indictment no. K11023455.1
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PHI CONG VAN |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 4 February 2022 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 February 2022 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Van |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 149 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE
Catchwords: Guilty pleas – Eleven co-offenders – organised crime syndicate trafficking in mostly methylamphetamine – large commercial quantities – standard sentencing regime – Covid-19
Legislation Cited: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991; Confiscation Act 1997
Cases Cited:Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Gregory (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151; Kumas v The Queen [2021] VSCA 215; Rahmani v The Queen [2021] VSCA 51
Sentence:11 years and 10 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | B Sonnet | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | C Mandy SC (Plea) D Georgiou (Sentence) | Melasecca Kelly & Zayler Barristers and Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
1Phi Van, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and heroin, and one charge of trafficking in cocaine. You have also pleaded guilty to negligently dealing in proceeds of crime.
2Trafficking in a large commercial quantity carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and is subject to a standard sentence of 16 years' imprisonment. It is also a Category 1 offence and therefore section 5(2G) of the Sentencing Act applies which means that a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed in the absence of the stipulated statutory criteria being established. In this case it was common ground between the parties that a sentence of imprisonment was the only option.
3The maximum penalty for trafficking cocaine is 15 years' imprisonment and for negligently dealing with proceeds of crime it is 5 years' imprisonment.
Circumstances of the offending
4Operation Polaroid commenced in September 2018. It was an operation by Victoria Police Drug Task Force which uncovered an organised crime syndicate operating a drug trafficking business. From late November until 22 April 2019, the syndicate’s customer buy phones were intercepted via multiple telephone interception warrants. Listening devices were also lawfully installed inside a syndicate vehicle and safehouses.
5The syndicate was a highly organised, prolific, systematic, and large-scale distributor of illegal drugs, mainly methylamphetamine. The syndicate dealt in different quantities of drugs ranging from 0.5 grams to 1 kilogram. During the investigation, over 200 customers were identified, most of whom were drug traffickers on-selling the drugs to their own customers. The quantifiable amount of drugs sold by the syndicate during the investigation was approximately 46 kilograms.
6The syndicate's operations are described in the Prosecution Opening, which was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea. I do not propose to repeat in detail the system operated by the syndicate which is set out in the Prosecution Opening and in my earlier sentencing remarks. It was undisputed.
7Syndicate members had different tasks in the distribution of the syndicate’s drug supply. Some took orders over the syndicate’s buy phones and others were delivery drivers. Delivery drivers were paid at a rate of $66 per hour. Phone holders were paid at some higher rate not disclosed in the evidence. Phone holders occupied a position above delivery drivers in the hierarchy of the syndicate.
8The syndicate worked daily from 12.00pm to 2.00am. Occasionally, these business hours varied. Occasionally, the syndicate would be closed for business. When that happened, the customer base was advised.
9Mr Van, you were born in June 1992 and you were therefore aged 26 years at the time of the offending. You lived at Brandon Crescent in Bundoora before your arrest. You are now aged 29 years.
Details of your offending
10The specific circumstances of the drug trafficking activities alleged against you were also outlined in the prosecution opening tendered on the plea.
11You worked some 25 shifts before a search warrant was executed on vehicle TBG631 on 25 January 2019.
12Charge 1 of trafficking in a large commercial quantity can be broken down as follows:
· 7,955.6 grams of methylamphetamine captured on the telecommunications intercept;
· 988.8 grams of methylamphetamine located in vehicle TBG631 on 25 January 2019; and
· 2,102.5 grams of heroin also located in vehicle TBG631 on 25 January 2019.
13Charge 2 of trafficking in cocaine between 29 November and 25 January 2019 relates to 1.5 grams of transactions covered in the telecommunication intercept and another 28 grams located in the vehicle TBG631 on 25 January 2019.
14Charge 3 of negligently dealing in the proceeds of crime on 22 April 2019 relates to $8,020 of cash located during a search on 22 April 2019.
15You, Mr Van, were a phone holder within the syndicate, facilitating customer transactions over the customer buy phone. Police were able to identify when it was you on the phone because they recognised your voice.
16You also participated in numerous phone handovers captured on CCTV footage. As I said earlier, you had a high level of responsibility in the syndicate.
17The Prosecution Opening emphasised your connection to vehicle TBG631, which was detected by police on 25 January 2019.
18This vehicle was used by the syndicate to store drugs and firearms separate from the safehouses. This vehicle was under constant surveillance from 30 November 2018 until searched and seized on 25 January 2019. The vehicle, on that day, contained the amounts of drugs that I've already referred to; namely, approximately 2.1 kilograms of heroin, 1 kilogram of methylamphetamine and other drugs, as well as firearms and other weapons. You are only charged in relation to the heroin, the methylamphetamine and, as I understand it, the cocaine, Charge 2, located in the vehicle.
19Of course, that was a syndicate vehicle operating as, as I understand it, a store for the syndicate to distribute. In your case, the prosecution charged you with those amounts given your close connection to the vehicle.
20You accessed the vehicle on three separate occasions captured on CCTV footage. When you attended the vehicle on a fourth occasion on 26 January 2019, you discovered it had been towed away.
21You were first detected being involved in the syndicate back on 29 November 2018. On that day, you were in charge of the customer buy phone, which you handed over to Mr William Wu, another offender who I have previously sentenced.
22I do not propose to detail in depth all the individual dates, other than to list them.
· On 29 November 2018 you were said to have organised 11 transactions, totalling 170.6 grams.
· On 1 December, 16 transactions totalling 243.5 grams and a cocaine transaction of 3.5 grams.
· 2 December, 19 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 629.9 grams.
· 3 December, 7 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 69.95 grams.
· 6 December, 15 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 84.15 grams.
· 7 December, 22 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 647.55 grams.
· 8 December, 9 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 326.45 grams.
· 11 December, 23 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 355.65 grams.
· 12 December, you organised 7 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 10.85 grams and you organised with William Wu a 1-kilogram sale for $95,000.
· On 13 December, 13 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 177.4 grams.
· 14 December, 5 transactions totalling 80.5 grams.
· 17 December, 21 transactions totalling 324.35 grams.
· 18 December, 3 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 85 grams.
· 20 December, 18 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 258.4 grams and a transaction in cocaine for 1 gram.
· 21 December, 27 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 565.4 grams.
· 22 December, 4 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 46 grams.
· 28 December, you were captured by the Surveillance Unit attending a safehouse in Sunshine. There you were observed entering various syndicate vehicles. You went to a car park at 1 Foundry Road, Sunshine, where you were observed with another male, named Johnson Huynh, exiting the vehicle carrying a backpack and you approached vehicle TBG631, which was parked at that car park. You opened the driver’s door, released the boot hatch and placed the backpack inside the boot of the vehicle. Then you drove away with Mr Huynh and went back to a syndicate safehouse in Maribyrnong. You also had the customer buy phone on that day and you organised 13 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 313.9 grams.
· 29 December, 28 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 388 grams.
· 30 December, 5 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 506.45 grams.
· 31 December 2018, again, you were captured attending at the safehouse in Sunshine. And, thereafter, you and Quang Vo left and drove to 1 Foundry Road, Sunshine, again. You were seen to approach vehicle TBG631. Again, you accessed the boot in the car park. You then drove away with Mr Vo, but returned a short time later and again accessed the boot of vehicle TBG631. It can be shown on the footage one of you was carrying a backpack. They say it is another instance of your connection to the vehicle.
· 2 January 2019, you had the customer buy phone received from Mr David Vu. You were seen at the safehouse in Maribyrnong and you organised 11 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 289 grams.
· 3 January, again you were captured arriving at the safehouse. On this day, you assisted Huy Truong with the daily business reconciliation, and liaised with Minh Nguyen on the phone, going through the handwritten ledgers, ensuring the amount of drugs sold and the cash obtained matched correctly. You also, on that day, met Thanh Tu Dang in Newport. This interaction was observed by the Surveillance Unit, who assert that you were dropping cash off to Mr Dang as payment for his delivery shifts.
· 6 January, you organised 11 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 144.1 grams.
· 7 January, again, you had the customer buy phone and the handwritten business ledger. You handed the buy phone to Minh Nguyen. On that day, you organised a transaction of methylamphetamine totalling 14 grams. Again, you went to the car park at 1 Foundry Road to access the vehicle. On this day, you were with Huy Truong. You approached the driver’s door of the vehicle TBG631 and released the boot latch. You removed a backpack from the boot and put it in the vehicle that you were driving. Both you and Mr Truong left. Shortly after, your vehicle was captured arriving at the safehouse in Sunshine. The vehicle driven by Mr Truong also soon arrived at the premises.
· 10 January, you organised 17 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 199.6 grams.
· 11 January, you organised a transaction in methylamphetamine for 14 grams. You were seen at the safehouse with Huy Truong as well.
· 14 January, 13 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 206.85 grams.
· 15 January, 5 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 33.4 grams.
· 18 January, you were captured driving vehicle 1GT2LQ to the syndicate safehouse in St Albans. You then were observed to personally conduct a 3.5 gram transaction in methylamphetamine, because on that day, the driver, Thanh Dang, had suffered a seizure and was unfit to continue, so you took over. You also had the customer buy phone and the handwritten business ledger on that day. Additionally, you organised 19 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 558.8 grams.
· On 19 January, 1 transaction totalling 1.7 grams in methylamphetamine.
· 22 January, 15 transactions in methylamphetamine totalling 203.2 grams.
· 23 January, 1 transaction in methylamphetamine totalling 3.5 grams.
· On 25 January, as I said earlier, the police seized vehicle TBG631 that they had had under surveillance, and the various items including drugs, firearms, weapons, mechanical pill presses and digital scales that were located in the vehicle. That vehicle was towed away, and police took the drugs for analysis. You were charged, as I indicated earlier, in relation to that as well.
· On that day, at 11.11pm, you and Raymond Tran were captured arriving at the syndicate safehouse on the same day.
· On 26 January, you and Raymond Tran were again captured at syndicate safehouses. On that same day, you and Mr Raymond Tran attended 1 Foundry Road in Sunshine. You approached the car park where the vehicle TBG631 had been located. You found that it was not there. You and Raymond Tran left the car park.
23Thereafter, you were involved with Raymond Tran and another unidentified male, transferring bags from one vehicle into another or from the safehouse into a vehicle, and then leaving the premises. The prosecution case is that the syndicate was moving drugs and firearms from the safehouse in Sunshine to the safehouse in Maribyrnong because of the seizure of the vehicle at 1 Foundry Road.
24So that is, in essence, a summary of your involvement.
25In March, police installed a listening device inside vehicle 1GT2LQ, where you were captured talking to your girlfriend Lily Nguyen about the quantity and texture of drugs in your possession.
26In late March, 31 March, a further conversation was captured where you were talking about cash in an envelope in a drawer, that being some $7,000 - $8,000.
27There was another recorded conversation on 20 April 2019 where you were discussing with Huy Truong drugs of dependence.
28On 22 April 2019, police executed the search warrant at your residence at 8 Brandon Crescent, Bundoora, and they seized $8,020 cash, which is the subject of Charge 3. Also, there were other items seemingly related to drug trafficking, such as a zip lock bag and an exercise book containing names and drug amounts, as well as some knuckledusters.
29You were arrested at Lygon Street on that day ar the home of your girlfriend, where police located multiple SIM cards in your vehicle. You gave police a ‘no comment’ interview. That is a summary of the circumstances of your offending. Essentially, you ran the customer buy phones and had involvement with the syndicate handwritten business ledger and a close association with the vehicle seized on 25 January 2019.
Guilty plea
30You pleaded guilty on 17 December 2021 after the matter had come before me on a couple of occasions as a case conference. At that stage the parties were at odds in respect of some of the charges on the indictment; principally, your connection to the firearms in the vehicle. You had earlier indicated an intention to plead to trafficking in a large commercial quantity. Whilst you did not plead guilty as early as the other offenders in the case, the plea came in the context of negotiations which, in my view, resolved favourably to you. Any difference based on the stage at which the plea was entered compared to the other offenders is very marginal, a fact conceded by the prosecutor, Mr Sonnet, at the plea hearing, fairly. This was a complicated matter and the settlement of the indictment in such cases often involves ongoing negotiations.
31I accept the plea is indicative of remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
32The utilitarian value of your plea is substantial, particularly at a time when the court faces a very substantial backlog of trials resulting from the suspension of jury trials during the pandemic. This increased utilitarian value was recognised by the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 and I apply those principles in your case. I note that any trial in this matter would have been long and complex.
33You are entitled to a substantial sentencing discount because you pleaded guilty.
Seriousness of the offending
34Charge 1 covers a period of a couple of months and involves trafficking in 11,047 grams of methylamphetamine and heroin, nearly 15 times the large commercial quantity threshold of 750 grams mixed. The seriousness of your offending is underpinned by the quantity of drugs sold and possessed for sale, and by the number shifts you worked and transactions you facilitated. It is well established in the authorities that the sentencing regime for drug trafficking offences is quantum based and you introduced a very large amount of destructive drugs into the community as part of a very professional organisation.
35You were a phone holder, above a delivery driver, in the syndicate hierarchy. You were an important operative in the period you worked for this syndicate. I do accept the prosecution submission that you had a trusted and important position.
36That said, it is not put by the prosecution that you were remunerated by a share in the profits. The prosecution case is that you were an employee, but an important one. Your position as an employee reduces, to an extent, the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability. It is not clear what you received in return for your work for the syndicate. It is not disclosed in the evidence. What is clear is that this was effectively your occupation until you were detected as having a connection to the motor vehicle on 25 January 2019, and your motivation must have been financial reward for your role in the syndicate. This syndicate, as I said earlier, was highly professional, operating as though it was an organised, legitimate business.
37By way of comparison to Mr Wu and Mr Tran, you were involved for only two months, whereas they were involved throughout the entirety of the investigation, and you worked less than half the shifts they worked and ultimately facilitated many less transactions. In the end, your connection to the motor vehicle proved fortuitous for you, because it brought an end to your active participation. But for that detection, it is clear enough that you would have continued to participate and faced a charge with a more substantial quantum.
38Ultimately, I find that you are an intelligent person and you must have well understood the gravity of what you were involved in. I consider your moral culpability to be significant.
39Considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing principles in commercial drug trafficking at this level. In particular, the sentencing authorities have emphasised the importance of general deterrence and denunciation. As Mr Sonnet submitted, the principles in the case of Gregory (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151 relating to trafficking in commercial quantities dictate a consequent increase in sentences for trafficking in large commercial quantities in order to maintain the relativities between the two charges. Mr Sonnet took me the recent case of Kumas v The Queen [2021] VSCA 215 where the Court of Appeal reiterated this.
40It is clear from the appellate authorities that offenders who traffic in drugs in large commercial quantities, and in your case those who choose trafficking drugs in these quantities as a full-time occupation, must expect lengthy sentences if detected and convicted. There is no doubt that a proper application of sentencing principles dictates a substantial period of imprisonment, and that general deterrence is the primary sentencing principle.
41In relation to Charge 2 of trafficking in cocaine, I regard that as part of your overall activities for the syndicate and adding little in those circumstances to your criminality as covered by Charge 1.
42Charge 3 of negligently dealing in the proceeds of crime is separated by a number of months from your involvement in the syndicate which ceased on 25 January 2019, and I will impose a modest period of accumulation in relation to that charge.
Parity
43The prosecution submission is that you occupy the second place in the hierarchy of those who pleaded guilty before me. This submission is based on the intensity of trafficking in which you participated (amassing a significant quantity over a lesser period of time than some of the other offenders) and your connection to the motor vehicle.
44As serious and intense as your participation was up until 25 January 2019, and notwithstanding your close association to the vehicle, I have formed the view that you fall below William Wu and on a par with Raymond Tran on an assessment of the objective gravity for Charge 1, taking into account all of the matters that I have referred to.
45Of course, Raymond Tran though had the aggravating feature of being on a community correction order at the time and had other prior convictions, and in my view, his rehabilitative prospects are not as positive as the view that I have ultimately taken in your case.
46William Wu, who is younger than you, had demonstrated rehabilitation in the community and he received a lower sentence than he would have otherwise because of the application of the Akoka principles in his case.
Personal circumstances
47I note your personal circumstances. Your personal background was outlined in the psychological report by Mr Luke Armstrong dated 31 July 2019, which was tendered on the plea.
48You were born in Melbourne to Vietnamese parents who left Vietnam as political refugees. Your father struggled initially to obtain work. Your mother became ill from ovarian cancer soon after she arrived in Australia and was regularly in hospital. The family struggled financially despite your father's hard work 6 or 7 days a week in unskilled labour.
49When you were aged about 7, your family moved from the commission flats in Richmond to Bundoora. The report indicates that in secondary school, you began to act out and started associating with an unsatisfactory peer group, engaging in petty theft. You began binge-drinking, something you have continued throughout your adult life. By the age of 16 you were using cannabis and ecstasy on a weekly basis. By the age of 19 you say you were using MDMA on most weekends and cocaine 3 to 4 times each week. The use of cocaine persisted until the charges in this matter.
50Notwithstanding this drug use, you somehow managed to obtain an ATAR score of 90.8 and enrolled in biomedicine under pressure from your father and grandfather, and graduated.
51You have worked at Crown Casino, apparently, but your substance abuse has impaired your capacity for gainful employment and you do not have a long history in that area.
52You have no criminal record.
53You have been in prison now for some 2 ½ years. During that time, you have worked as a gym billet and in peer support. You have also attended narcotics anonymous meetings and you have had sessions with the Buddhist chaplain. You have continued with your degree in prison, I am told, and you intend to complete your Masters before you are released.
Psychological reports
54The report of Mr Armstrong dealt with your drug and alcohol use, and he was of the view that you fulfilled the criterion for stimulant use disorder. He said that your drinking patterns before your arrest suggest you were most likely an alcoholic.
55He described you as being moderately depressed at that time he interviewed you in 2019. He said that you have a borderline personality disorder and this has affected your interpersonal functioning. He said your symptoms had pervaded across a range of personal and vocational settings, leading to significant impairment in those areas. He said that your personality disturbance had been evidenced from early adolescence.
56He determined your cognitive ability as being in the average range, but it is plain you have significant capacity given your tertiary achievements. He recommended you participate in a course described as MASC, which stands for motivating affect self-control, designed to assist people essentially with substance abuse problems.
57In his second report dated 2 February 2022, he indicates you have now completed that program, and that throughout your two years of ongoing treatment with him, you have demonstrated a willingness to learn about yourself and a strengthened capacity to self-regulate and avoid returning to old coping mechanisms such as drug use. He views your insights and your current circumstances as a ‘significant protective factor against reoffending’.
58He described your risk of reoffending as low.
59I take into account all of these personal matters, including your drug addiction, as contextual matters personal to you, which, to some extent, explain how you became involved in this very serious offending. They are relevant to the assessment of your moral culpability but do not significantly reduce it in this case.
Character references
60I have had regard to the character references provided by Hung Pham, Hong Tran, Tony Van and Cong Van, which were tendered as an exhibit on the plea.
61All of them describe that their experiences with you and that you, in their description, were a person of good character in their dealings with you. Mr Pham said you were compassionate, selfless and trustworthy. He made some observations of your continuation of your tertiary studies and your engagement with a psychiatrist. The referees describe you as being remorseful for your offending and the effect it has had on your family. I take all those matters into account in determining that you do have remorse and in relation to your prospects of rehabilitation.
62Additionally, I received a letter from psychologist, Jack Bullock, stating that you had been employed as a peer support at Fulham since June 2020 and he detailed some of the positive feedback you have received as a result of your engagement as a ‘Peer Educator’ and ‘Peer Listener’. He described you as a valued and respected member of the program.
Prospects of rehabilitation
63Having regard to all this material, the absence of prior convictions, your level of intelligence, and the steps you have taken in the period you have been in prison, I am of the view that you have very good prospects of rehabilitation, provided that, when you are released, you can disassociate from a drug using peer group and address some of the underlying issues that led to your drug and alcohol use and to your involvement in this offending. I see no reason why you do not have capacity to do that.
Standard sentence
64I note the standard sentence. The standard sentence for trafficking in a large commercial quantity is 16 years' imprisonment. The standard sentence operates as a yardstick only and is applicable to an offence in the mid-range of seriousness, having regard only to its objective features. The standard sentence is one of many matters to be considered by a court in the instinctive synthesis of all matters relevant to sentencing. It is not a starting point to be added or subtracted from.
65The law requires me to identify fully the facts, matters and circumstances which bear upon my decision as to the appropriate sentence. In these remarks I have endeavoured to do that in some detail. The sentence which I will impose for trafficking in a large commercial quantity is less than the standard sentence. In arriving at the sentence in this case, I have taken into account all the matters I am required to consider under the Sentencing Act, including the standard sentence, and I have considered all the mitigating factors which apply in this case.
66Current sentencing practices remain a relevant factor, but in sentencing for a standard sentence offence, I am constrained to only consider sentences passed after the introduction of the standard sentencing scheme. I have read and had regard to the cases referred to in the prosecution submissions and the table of cases in the Opening, as well as the Court of Appeal decisions relating to large commercial quantities since the introduction of the standard sentence regime[1].
[1] Quah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 164; Al Janabe v The Queen [2019] VCC 1313; Kumas v The Queen [2021] VSCA 351
Remorse
67As I said, I have had regard to the material tendered in this matter and your guilty plea, and I am satisfied you have remorse for this offending.
COVID-19
68You have been in prison on remand during the pandemic and I take into account that as a mitigating factor because of the additional hardship of being in prison during this period. The restrictions in place in that period have included the suspension of visits and educational courses, and lockdowns have been prevalent. Such conditions are likely to be in existence for some time into the future. In addition, I have taken into account the general anxiety caused by the pandemic as it relates to you in prison and your concern about family and friends in the community.
Totality
69The overall sentence that I must impose must be just and proportionate to the totality of your offending. In this case, as I have said, Charges 1 and 2 arose directly from your activities in the syndicate in the same timeframe. I have had regard to the totality principle in fixing the periods of cumulation in this case.
Non-parole period
70The Sentencing Act provides that in sentencing for a standard sentence offence, unless it is in the interests of justice, I must fix a non-parole period which is at least 60 per cent of the head sentence, if that sentence is less than 20 years' imprisonment. The non-parole period must not be so low as to erode the general deterrent purpose of the sentence. In this case, given the absence of prior convictions and my positive view of your prospects of rehabilitation, I have decided to fix the non-parole period at approximately 60 per cent of a head sentence.
Sentence
71Mr Van, in this case, you will be sentenced as follows:
· In relation to Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 11 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
· In relation to Charge 2 of trafficking in cocaine, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of 6 months' imprisonment.
· In relation to Charge 3 of negligently dealing in the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment. I order that one month of the sentence of Charge 3 be cumulative on the sentence for Charge 1.
72That makes a total effective sentence of 11 years and 10 months. I fix a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.
73Pursuant to s 89DI of the Sentencing Act, I declare you to be a serious drug offender by reason of your conviction on Charge 1, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and heroin.
74I declare 1,031 days of pre-sentence detention to be deducted administratively from the sentence that I have imposed.
75Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 18 years, with a minimum period of 12 years and 6 months.
76HIS HONOUR: Any other orders needed? Mr Sonnet, you're on mute.
77MR SONNET: I apologise, Your Honour.
78HIS HONOUR: That’s all right.
79MR SONNET: In terms of the Crown, the Crown seeks various ancillary orders. They should have been filed with the court.
80HIS HONOUR: Yes. Okay. These are forfeiture orders and so forth, Mr Sonnet?
81MR SONNET: Yes, forfeiture order and disposal order, and the firearm forfeiture order as well.
82HIS HONOUR: Mr Georgiou, no opposition to those?
83MR GEORGIOU: No, Your Honour.
84HIS HONOUR: All right. Any other questions? No. All right. Okay. Thank you. I will now adjourn until 10.30am. Thanks, Mr Sonnet, for all of your assistance in these matters and you too, Mr Georgiou; I know you've been involved. Thank you both.
85MR GEORGIOU: Thank you, Your Honour.
86MR SONNET: Thank you, Your Honour. Sorry for being late too.
87HIS HONOUR: And to Ms Mellios for all her work as well. Thanks.
88MR SONNET: Yes. Thank you very much.
- - -
0
7
0