Director of Public Prosecutions v Weston
[2018] VCC 1051
•9 July 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-17-02257
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHN ANTHONY WESTON |
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 June 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 9 July 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Weston | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 1051 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Guilty Plea – Possession of Substances, Material, Documents or equipment for Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence – Offender with relevant criminal record for drug trafficking and other relevant offences – Offender importuned by others due to his expertise as an amphetamine cook – Offending involved conducting a test cook or experiment on a single date – Insufficient equipment/chemicals to produce amphetamine on that date – Offender suffered brain injury from assault six months before current offending – Cognitive deficits caused by that injury and offender’s already entrenched drug associating lifestyle contributed to offending – No evidence offender stood to personally gain from this offence - Offender aged 41 at time of offending and 43 at time of sentence – Relatively poor prospects of rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited: R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308.
Sentence: 18 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 12 months; Pre-sentence detention of 81 days declared; s.6AAA indication of 2 years with non-parole period of 18 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr D Plummer (Plea) Mr M Vella (Sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms S Wendlandt | Stary Norton Halphen |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1 John Weston, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of possession of substances, material, documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence. That is an offence contrary to s. 71A (1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 The circumstances in which you committed that offence are set out in the detailed typed prosecution opening dated 13 June 2018, a copy of which was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea hearing. You were 41 years of age at the time and are now 43, having been born on 15 March 1975.
Circumstances of the offending
3 On 12 July 2016, an unknown male used a credit card in the name of Goranco Gjoreski to check into cabin 31 of the West City Motel (“the Motel”) in Ardeer.
4 On 14 July 2016, at about 10am, that person made arrangements with the duty manager to extend his stay and to pay for it by 12pm. When no payment had been made by the agreed time, the duty manager made an unsuccessful attempt to make phone contact with that person. Shortly after 12.15pm, the manager decided to attend cabin 31 to secure payment. As he approached, he noticed a strong chemical smell. He knocked on the door but no one answered. By then, the chemical smell had become almost overwhelming. After waiting for a minute or so, he opened the door and looked inside. He then saw a number of people inside the room, two cook tops to the left of the door and a syringe on the floor. He immediately told the occupants to leave and threatened to call the police if they did not. He then returned to the office and phoned police.
5 At about 12.30pm, one of the tradesman working at the adjoining cabin noticed two males and a female leave cabin 31. One male drove away in a white van, which the other two followed in a blue BMW convertible.
6 Police arrived at the Motel shortly after 1.00pm. As they were being escorted to cabin 31, they detected a strong chemical smell. Before entering, they put masks on. However, they soon had to leave as they began to feel unwell due to the strong chemical smell.
7 One of the Motel guests informed the police that a male and female had been staying in the cabin for about 2 days.
8 In due course, police from the Clandestine Laboratory Squad and Forensic Officers from the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre (VPFSC) attended at the Motel. During the site safety assessment they conducted, the following were noted:
· There was scientific glassware, chemicals, liquids and solids inside the cabin;
· The smoke detector on the cabin’s ceiling had been covered with what appeared to be plastic bags and tape;
· All of the windows were closed and covered with curtains; and
· There was an elevated Volatile Organic Content (VOC) reading throughout the cabin. As a result, they had to open a window and the curtains to assist with ventilation.
9 The cabin was thoroughly searched. As a result, various items were located, photographed, and seized, including:
· Various plastic containers and bottles containing liquids and solids;
· A portion of plastic bottle labelled mineral turpentine;
· A glass dish containing liquid and solid, plastic funnel and metal spoon;
· A metal pot containing liquid;
· A quantity of used filter papers;
· A plastic bottle labelled Acetone, 1 litre, and a tube through lid containing liquid;
· An electric hot plate;
· A clip seal bag containing grey solid;
· A clip seal bag labelled Nah2PO2 (hand labelled) containing white solid;
· Various glass bottles containing liquids;
· An electric water pump with attached tubing;
· A metal tin labelled Repo Fuel Can, 5 Litres, tube attached through lid;
· A portion of plastic bottle with tape, syringe driver, traces of liquid and broken glass tubing;
· A quantity of striker plates;
· A drinking glass containing liquid;
· A drinking glass containing liquid and solid;
· A glass dish labelled Pyrex;
· A plastic container labelled Caustic Soda 500 grams containing solid;
· A portable gas cooker;
· A portable gas cooker labelled Austcrown missing top plate;
· 5 x syringes, 1 with tube attached, a glass stopper;
· A glass jar with clamp attached;
· A glass condenser with tape and tubing attached and traces of liquid; and
· A glass jar labelled Korean Ginseng containing liquid.
10 Police also located 3 black dash cameras in a black satchel bag on the bed. When analysed, they were found to contain recordings on which Mr Weston could be heard to refer to chemicals and discuss mixing different acids. The sound of bubbling liquid could also be heard.
11 A fingerprint examination of the scene was also conducted. Mr Weston’s prints were located on a 5 litre fuel can, a plastic bottle, a plastic container with tape and a portable gas cooker.
12 On the same day, a Forensic Officer at the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre examined cabin 31.
13 The substances from a glass bottle containing liquid and solid and the liquid decanted from another container were each found to contain the drug methylamphetamine.
14 The respective quantities were:
· 4.3 grams, with an approximate purity of methylamphetamine of 0.1%; and
· 2.4 grams, with an approximate purity of methylamphetmine of 0.1%.
15 The total was therefore 6.7 grams of methylamphetamine with an approximate purity of 0.1%.
16 The substances from a clip seal bag containing grey solid and from a plastic container with pink tape attached containing solid with brown staining, each contained iodine which is listed as a prescribed pre-cursor chemical. The total quantity of the substances including the iodine was 29.9 grams which is above the prescribed quantity.
17 The substance from a clip seal bag containing white solid contained sodium hypophosphite which is a hypophosphite salt. Those salts are listed as a prescribed precursor chemical. The total quantity of the substance including the sodium hypophosphite was 79.7 grams which is above the prescribed quantity.
18 The liquid decanted from the glass jar labelled Ginseng contained phosphorous acid which is listed as a prescribed precursor chemical.The total quantity of the substance including the phosphorous acid was 49 millilitres which is above the prescribed quantity.
19 The striker plates from matchboxes are a source of recoverable phosphorus. Phosphorus is listed as a prescribed precursor chemical. The total quantity of the phosphorous on the matchboxes was below the prescribed quantity.
20 Methylamphetamine can be manufactured from pseudoephedrine and/or ephedrine (which was not located) in conjunction with iodine and sodium hypophosphite, phosphorous acid or phosphorus.
21 The scientific glassware, equipment and chemicals found in cabin 31 were found to be suitable for the manufacture of controlled substances, however other key equipment and/or chemicals would be also be required.
Arrest and Interview
22 On 10 August 2017, Mr Weston was arrested by police and then conveyed to the Melbourne West Police Station and interviewed. During that interview, he told police the following:
· He couldn’t remember staying at the Motel;
· If his fingerprints were there then he was there;
· He recognised himself on the dash cam footage;
· After being told what was recorded in the dash cam footage, he said that he could now remember being there;
· He didn’t want to be there. It was somebody else. But it didn’t work;
· There was no arrangement, it was do it or find himself in a hole;
· Someone else made them stay in the room while the other person tried to gas off;
· The other person was using hydrochloric acid, a concoction to try and get it to crystallise or something;
· He (Mr Weston) was doing a test for someone else;
· Apparently there was a 44 litre, a 200 litre drum to be done; and
· There’s a thousand different ways to cook. He knows one way. Doing it that way it didn’t work.
Pre-sentence detention
23 Immediately following his arrest and interview on 10 August 2017, Mr Weston was charged and remanded in custody.
24 He has remained in custody ever since. The period up to but not including the date of his plea hearing, 22 June 2018, was 316 days. The period from remand up to but not including the date of this sentencing hearing is 333 days.
25 However, not all of that period can be declared as pre-sentence detention for this charge because during part of that period he served a sentence in relation to an unrelated matter for which a significant part of that period was declared as pre-sentence detention.
26 More particularly, on 18 April 2018, he appealed to this Court against a sentence imposed in the Magistrates’ Court for a charge of trafficking in the drug of dependence, methylamphetamine. On appeal, he was sentenced to a term of 252 days’ imprisonment, for which an identical period was declared as pre-sentence detention. It would seem therefore, that the sentence effectively expired on that date, after which Mr Weston remained on remand in relation to the current charge.
27 It should be noted that the gap between the earlier offending in late 2015 and the current offending in July of 2016, was not great, approximately 6 or 7 months. As defence counsel pointed out at the plea hearing for the current matter, the principle of totality has application in such circumstances. As the current matter had not resolved by the time the County Court appeal was determined, Mr Weston was denied the opportunity to seek a degree of concurrency between the two sentences. The only way in which that can now be achieved, in effect, is to moderate the sentence imposed for the current matter. The prosecution did not argue against that course and I propose to proceed on that basis. Thus, the sentence I will impose on the current matter will be less than it otherwise would have been but for this totality issue.
Timing of the Plea
28 Realistically, this matter could not have resolved very quickly. It took the police some time to process fingerprint evidence and identify the speaker on the dash cam footage. Moreover, the prosecution had to await the results of the analysis in relation to the various liquids and solids seized at the scene. That all took some time. From that point, further time was no doubt required for both parties to consider their positions and then engage in the necessary plea negotiations. That resulted in a more serious charge of trafficking being withdrawn by the prosecution in exchange for the accused pleading guilty to the lesser charge on this indictment. The matter ultimately resolved in this Court just prior to the Final Directions Hearing held on 2 May 2018.
29 In those circumstances, I consider that plea to have been entered at a relatively early stage of these proceedings, but not at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
30 For taking the course that he did, when he did, Mr Weston is entitled to a commensurate discount in his sentence, the extent of which I will make clear later in these sentencing reasons.
Prior Criminal Record
31 As the filed criminal record dated 28 May 2018 shows, Mr Weston has a very relevant criminal record for current sentencing purposes.
32 There are three notable prior Court appearances in Queensland.
33 On 2 October 1995, he appeared in the Mackay Magistrates’ Court for possession of a dangerous drug (14.09.1995), and produce a dangerous drug (between 31 07 and 01.09.1995), for which he was convicted and fined.
34 On 8 July 2008, he appeared in the Rockhampton Magistrates’ Court for possession of a dangerous drug, possessing utensils or pipes etc for use, and producing a dangerous drug, for which he was convicted and fined. That offending occurred on 10.06.2008.
35 Mr Weston then appeared in the Rockhampton Supreme Court on 28 August 2012. On that occasion, he faced two charges of producing a dangerous drug and one of publishing or possessing instructions for producing dangerous drugs. The drugs in question were amphetamines.[1] The offending in respect of the latter offence occurred on or about 12.11.2008, while the other offences were committed between 30.09.2008 and 13.11.2008 and on or about 16.06.2011. For the publishing or possessing instructions charge, he was convicted but not further punished, while for the other charges, he was convicted and sentenced to a term of 3 years’ imprisonment which was suspended for a period of 4 years. The 420 days he had spent on remand between 06.07.2011 and 28.08.2012 was declared as pre-sentence detention.
[1] Exhibit C, [3].
36 I note that Mr Weston has also been sentenced on two occasions by a Victorian Court. The one of real note relates to his appearance at the Ballarat County Court on 13 May 2014. On that occasion, he faced two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence and one of deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. For that offending, he was sentenced by Judge Mullaly to a total effective sentence of 18 months for which a non-parole period of 12 months was fixed. The 271 days spent on remand pending sentence were declared as pre-sentence detention.
37 The revised sentencing reasons of His Honour were tendered as Exhibit C on this plea. The two separate charges of trafficking related to the drug amphetamines. The first charge involved the establishment of an amphetamines factory in a friend’s house. He was not arrested until 5 weeks or so after the police had discovered that factory. They intercepted his vehicle and searched it. They found a mobile amphetamine laboratory together with ingredients and documents and drawings that related to cooking amphetamines. When interviewed, he admitted to having cooked amphetamines in a motel the previous night and the offending at the friend’s house. He told the police that he had cooked amphetamines for his own use, an assertion that was accepted by the prosecution at the plea hearing before Judge Mullaly.
38 As His Honour noted when sentencing you in May 2014, you committed those offences not long after you had been released from custody in Queensland. That sentence had been imposed for serious drug offending. Your release from custody was conditional and it was while subject to that release that you committed the drug offences for which Judge Mullaly sentenced you. At the time of sentencing, His Honour considered your prospects of rehabilitation to be ‘guarded’.
Subsequent conviction for trafficking methylamphetamine
39 As already indicated, Mr Weston also has a very relevant subsequent conviction for trafficking in methylamphetamine. The circumstances of that offending were explained briefly by his counsel as follows. In December 2015, police attended at his home for an unrelated purpose. During a search, the police discovered various items of drug-manufacturing equipment in Mr Weston’s bedroom. When later interviewed, he made significant admissions. Accordingly, he was charged with and pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking methylamphetamine on the basis that he had manufactured the drug. As already noted, he was ultimately sentenced for that offending on 18 April 2018 to a term of 252 days’ imprisonment.
40 This subsequent conviction has obvious relevance to this Court’s assessment of Mr Weston’s prospects of rehabilitation and to the weight that needs to be attributed to specific deterrence.
Explanation for current offending
41 On the account that you gave police and your legal representatives, you only became involved in the current offending at the strong urging of others. In light of your known expertise in cooking amphetamine, you were approached to conduct “a test cook”. You felt under some degree of pressure and threat to do so, although by no means were you under any form of legal duress. As the lack of some key equipment and/or chemicals revealed, it was, at all stages, a test or experiment. There appears to be no evidence to suggest that you received any payment for your involvement, or that you stood to gain any financial or other benefit for what you did.
42 You were likely suffering a number of cognitive deficits at the time due to a serious head injury you had suffered from an assault that occurred in November 2015. As the neuropsychologist, Ms Scott, has noted, that would have played a part in you returning to past behaviours and routines such as associating with high risk individuals and engaging in drug-related activities, particularly where some coercion was involved. But, any such problems would have only been exacerbated by your drug use. As your counsel indicated, you were addicted to amphetamines at the relevant time and were using that drug on a regular basis.
Neurological Assessment
43 Your legal representatives arranged for you to be neurologically assessed. The relevant testing was undertaken by the clinical neuropsychologist, Laura Scott, on 2 March 2018. Her report of 19 March was tendered as exhibit 2, while her addendum report of 8 June was tendered as exhibit 3.
44 You presented as of average intelligence and mildly depressed.
45 You provided a history to Ms Scott that included a significant history of intravenous methamphetamine use and several head injuries, including a clearly documented one in November 2015. As was evident on the scan, it was of sufficient force to fracture your skull and cause neural bleeding and mass effect. As noted by Ms Scott, the current offending occurred less than a year after you received that head injury.[2] In that context, she was of the opinion that at the time of your current offending, you would have been demonstrating all of the impairments seen on recent testing but at a more severe and extensive level.[3] She also noted that if you were acutely intoxicated (from drug use) and had been exposed to the toxic inhalants in the cabin, those would have contributed to reducing your overall level of cognitive function.
[2] Although Ms Scott noted that it was 8 months after, it might be slightly less than that.
[3] Exhibit 3, page 2.1. A less emphatic opinion is expressed at page 2.6; namely “…it is possible that…”
46 One of the purposes of the full neuropsychological assessment was to determine the nature and extent of any cognitive impairments. The results revealed subtle impairments in memory and executive function, likely attributable to a combination of longstanding amphetamine abuse and multiple head injuries. This was considered by Ms Scott to represent an ongoing and relatively stable level of function.
47 You reported a prior lengthy involvement in “the drug scene” and acknowledged difficulty extracting yourself from that. In Ms Scott’s view, your difficulties with executive function would make you prone to repeating well-known behaviours even if there had been negative consequences in the past; you would have found it difficult to consider alternative options to your daily routine of drug use and socialisation with associated people.
48 When addressing your primary criminogenic risk factors of drug use and involvement in high risk social circles, Ms Scott noted your self-reported efforts to reduce your drug use and sever ties with your past associates, with the support of your current partner. In her opinion, you would benefit from external support and guidance to assist you to build the relationship with your children, learn new ways of doing things, and obtain employment. Obviously, drug treatment and counselling is also clearly warranted and recommended.
Personal circumstances
49 As for your personal circumstances, I note the following.
50 You are a 43 year old man with indigenous heritage. You were born and raised in rural or outback Queensland. You left school part-way through Year 11.
51 After leaving school, you worked on farms and stations. Your counsel referred to your employment history as varied and as including training racehorses, truck driving, operating heavy machinery and mining related roles.
52 You met your first partner when you were still quite young and the two of you had five children together. In the wake of your two years of significant amphetamine use, the relationship broke down and the two of you separated. However, the two of you remained close and when she was tragically killed in a car accident in the early 2000s, her death affected you greatly. It still does. Your children are currently being cared for by their maternal grandmother.
53 You have a long history of drug use, mostly amphetamines, for which you have not undertaken any significant treatment in the past.
54 In November of 2015, you were the victim of a serious assault in which you were struck with a baseball bat and sustained a head injury. The resultant cognitive impairments were exacerbated by your continued use of amphetamines.
55 You are currently being supported by your new partner, Analise, and some friends. You met Analise about 4 years ago and she travels a considerable distance each week to visit you in custody and provide what support she can. Like you, she has experienced issues with drug use in the past, but the two of you are supporting each other with a view to giving up drugs and re-building your lives.
Matters in mitigation
56 Your counsel was also able to rely on a number of other matters in mitigation on your behalf.
57 Given the effects of your recently sustained head injury, I accept that you were not well placed to avoid mixing in the drug scene or to resist the overtures that were made to you by others. In light of the opinions expressed by the neuropsychologist about those matters, I am prepared to view your moral culpability for this offending as somewhat reduced and to effect a modest reduction in the weight to be attached to deterrence. Accordingly, I am satisfied that Verdins case[4] has some application here.
[4] (2007) 16 VR 269.
58 I accept that you were not the architect of this criminal venture and that your involvement was relatively brief in duration. You received no personal benefit from conducting the test cook that you did. And, it was simply not possible in the circumstances that the test cook was undertaken, to produce any amphetamines by way of a finished product.
59 Once arrested, you co-operated with the investigating police and made admissions.
60 You have followed that co-operation by pleading guilty at what I regard to be a relatively early stage of these proceedings. By taking that course, you have facilitated the course of justice and saved the community from the cost and time that would have been incurred if the matter had proceeded to trial.
61 I am prepared to accept that the entry of that plea is attended by some remorse on your part.
62 As in the past, you have endeavoured to use your time on remand constructively. You have undergone drug detoxification and completed a number of educational and work orientated courses, as well as an aboriginal men’s cultural healing program and a release related harm reduction program.[5] At an earlier point in time, you signed up as a peer listener. [6]
Objective gravity of the offending
[5] As to which, see exhibits 6 and 4, respectively.
[6] Exhibit 5.
63 Of course, matters personal to you are not the only considerations for this Court, Mr Weston. This Court must also consider the objective gravity of your offending.
64 This type of offence is intrinsically serious. Parliament has reflected that by fixing the relatively high maximum penalty that it has, 10 years’ imprisonment.
65 This example was by no means a minor one. Whilst I accept that you were put under some degree of pressure to become involved, the fact remains that you must have known that you were taking part in a well organised criminal operation that was ultimately designed to make its architects money through the sale of illicit drugs to members of the public. By doing what you did, you were playing an important part in that process. Through your previous experience of the criminal justice system, you well knew that the Courts treated drug related offending very seriously. And, you had only recently finished serving a sentence of imprisonment for trafficking methylamphetamine. In such circumstances, and even allowing for some reduction for the cognitive deficits caused by your brain injury, I still consider that your moral culpability for this offending was relatively significant.
Relevant sentencing considerations
66 Whilst reduced to some extent, general deterrence is still a relatively important sentencing consideration. So too is denunciation. By the sentence that it now imposes, this Court must seek to condemn the criminal conduct in which Mr Weston engaged and go some way towards discouraging other like-minded people from becoming involved in such an insidious industry.
67 Clearly, specific deterrence is a very relevant sentencing consideration in this case. Given the nature of this offending and Mr Weston’s very relevant criminal history, the sentence imposed by this Court must be of a sufficient magnitude to dissuade him from similarly offending in the future. In this regard, I note that the psychological material to hand does not suggest that Mr Weston is incapable of being deterred.
68 It is worth noting that Mr Weston had served a number of gaol sentences prior to the current offending. Furthermore, at the time of committing this offence in July 2016, he was facing Court proceedings in relation to the December 2015 trafficking charge, for which he had been charged and released on summons[7]. And, the current offending occurred a relatively short period after Mr Weston had finished serving the parole sentence imposed by Judge Mullaly on 13 May 2014. After a number of breaches of that parole, Mr Weston finished serving his sentence and was released from custody on 27 February 2016.
[7] Mr Weston was charged and released on summons in relation to that offending on 23 December 2015.
69 Protection of the community from Mr Weston also assumes some significance in this case on account of the nature of this offending and his repeated forays into drug related offending. Some of the observations made by Ms Scott have some relevance to this issue.
70 This Court must also have regard to Mr Weston’s age and prospects for rehabilitation. Any assessment of the latter must be undertaken with some caution, however. He is now a man of mature years who has struggled with an entrenched and serious amphetamine addiction for many years. That has been instrumental in him offending as he has, including on this occasion, albeit not in order to fund his own addiction as has been the case on some previous occasions. If there is to be any hope of achieving real and sustained rehabilitation, Mr Weston must successfully complete a suitably tailored drug treatment program, preferably a residential-based program, and abstain from drug use altogether. Psychological counselling addressing the unresolved grief over his former partner’s untimely death may also assist in avoiding any resort to drug use and re-offending to support such use.
71 I note that Mr Weston has told Ms Scott that he realises that manufacturing drugs is an inherently dangerous process and likely to be even more dangerous on account of his head injury. Rather than engage in that pursuit in the future, he would like to play some part in educating young people as to the dangers.
72 I am prepared to accept that Mr Weston has shown some motivation to work towards addressing his drug problems and, in that context, cutting his ties with associates who mix in the drug milieu. But, I do not underestimate the difficulty of that task, especially in light of the cognitive difficulties he will continue to experience on his eventual release from custody.
73 In the end, doing the best that I can with the available material, I consider those prospects to be relatively poor.
Sentencing submissions
74 In her sentencing submissions, Ms Wendlandt submitted that a combination sentence was both open and appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case. Such a disposition would, she submitted, be able to recognise and give sufficient weight to all of the relevant sentencing considerations, both punitive and rehabilitative.
75 For their part, the prosecution submitted that nothing short of a custodial sentence was appropriate, although Mr Plummer, counsel who appeared on behalf of the Director, did not seek to make any submissions as to whether that should be effected by way of a wholly custodial sentence or a combination sentence.
Analysis
76 Whilst I am mindful of everything that the Court of Appeal stated in Boulton v The Queen[8], and in a number of subsequent cases regarding the parsimony principle as it relates to consideration of a community correction order, whether stand alone or in combination with a term of immediate imprisonment, I am unable to accede to the defence submission on penalty in the particular circumstances of this case.
[8] [2014] VSCA 342; (2014) 46 VR 308.
77 In my view, nothing short of a wholly custodial sentence is warranted given the particular circumstances of this case. In arriving at that conclusion, I have taken account of the nature and seriousness of this offending and the fact that past offending of a similar nature limits the degree of leniency that can now be extended to Mr Weston.
78 I will, however, provide him with the opportunity for release on parole in the interests of fostering what limited chances of rehabilitation he does have.
79 It is to be hoped that in the event that he is considered suitable for release on parole, Mr Weston will utilise that opportunity for supervision in the community to assist him to integrate back into the community and to improve his prospects of rehabilitation.
Sentence
80 Having carefully considered, balanced and weighed the various sentencing considerations raised by this case, I have decided to convict Mr Weston and sentence him as follows.
81 On Charge 1, possession of substances, material, document or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence, he will be sentenced to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment.
82 In respect of that sentence, I fix a non-parole period of 12 months.
Pre-sentence detention
83 The period of 81 days pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date, is hereby declared as having already been served in respect of this sentence and I order that such declaration and its details be entered in the records of the Court.
Section 6AAA declaration
84 Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had Mr Weston pleaded not guilty to the charge for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment today, he would have been sentenced to a term of 2 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.
Disposal Order
85 I am prepared to grant the prosecution’s application for a disposal order in the terms sought, which I note was not opposed by the defence. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997, I order that the items listed in the schedule attached to the application be forfeited to the State in accordance with the terms of the order that I have signed today.
Other Matters
86 Counsel, are there any matters that either of you wish to raise in respect of either the sentence or reasons for sentence at this stage?
87 MR VELLA: No, your Honour.
88 MS WENDLANDT: No, Your Honour.
89 HIS HONOUR: Very well. I will now stand down until the next matter is ready to commence.
- - -
3
0