DPP v Patris
[2017] VCC 1659
•2 November 2017
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-17-00129
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Prosecution
v
CHRIS PATRIS Defendant
----
JUDGE: HIS HONOUR JUDGE MURPHY
DATE OF HEARING: 30 October 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE: 2 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: DPP v Patris
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2017] VCC 1659
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
----
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking a drug of dependence – Non-prohibited person possess unregistered general category handgun – Related summary charges – Offending alleged over a single day – Serious example of this offence – Offender currently serving a sentence of imprisonment – Plea of guilty – Totality – New head sentence and non-parole period set
----
APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr N Batten Solicitor for the Office of
Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant Mr D Dann QC Theo Magazis & Associates
HIS HONOUR:
Chris Patris, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of being a non-prohibited person possessing an unregistered general category handgun. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment or 600 penalty units.
You have also pleaded guilty to two uplifted summary charges of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of offending
The circumstances of the offending were set out in the prosecution opening which was read in open court on the plea. You were arraigned with Ray Mercuri (‘Mercuri’), who pleaded guilty to a single count of trafficking in a drug dependence.
In brief, you have pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine on 6 April 2015. On that day, police executed a search warrant on a property in Narre Warren. It was accepted that the property was occupied by Craig Norman (‘Norman’),[1] and had been regularly used by you to store and prepare methylamphetamine for sale. In the course of that, you employed other people, including Norman and Nathan Findlay (‘Findlay’).
[1] Norman was sentenced by His Honour Judge Montgomery to a Community Corrections Order. See Director of Public Prosecutions v Norman (unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Montgomery, 7 September 2016).
The Crown opening recites that you and Mercuri were trafficking in drugs in the latter half of 2014 and in the first half of 2015.
Located at the premises in Norman’s bedroom within a speaker box, was
a portable safe containing two snap-lock bags containing 49.5 grams of
methylamphetamine. In the same bedroom several sets of scales, firearm ammunition and a ballistic vest was found.
In the roof cavity, police found three locked portable safes which contained methylamphetamine totalling 182.9 grams, 213.4 grams and 319.1 grams, respectively.
Also found in the roof cavity was firearm ammunition, knives, scales, a bag containing batons, balaclavas and jewellery.
In the living room a handgun was found which had earlier been acquired by you. This is the subject of charge two.
10.The methylamphetamine located in the bedroom was in your possession, together with Mercuri, for future sale.
11.The drugs located in the roof cavity were also in your possession, together with Norman’s. The Crown concedes that it cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had the requisite intention or knowledge that the quantity of methylamphetamine located in the roof cavity was a commercial quantity.
12.By way of context, in the Crown opening, Findlay owed you approximately $13,000 as at 13 May 2015 for methylamphetamine supplied and trafficked in. In order to enforce that debt, you had him kidnapped and detained. You subsequently pleaded guilty before Judge MP Bourke for kidnapping and intentionally causing injury to Findlay. On the plea, you denied that the debt was drug-related.
13.You were arrested by police on 13 May 2015 in a motor vehicle being driven by another and were found in possession of $1,000 in cash. Upon a search warrant being executed at your home in Officer, police located the sum of $9,850 in cash. These two sums constituted a rolled-up charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. During the latter search, police located snap lock bags containing methylamphetamine residue and a diary containing a cash ledger.
14.You are also charged in relation to four used motor vehicles, namely a 2003 Holden Statesman, a 2004 BMW 530i sedan, a 2002 Mercedes CLK 500 coupe, and a 1999 Mercedes CLK 230 coupe.
15.These vehicles were purchased by you between 1 February 2014 and 31 May 2015 in cash. The total cost of which was approximately $44,000. These constitute the second rolled-up summary charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.
Assessing the seriousness of the offences
In submissions on the plea, your counsel emphasised that you are to be sentenced for trafficking, by possession, on a single day, for a total amount of 764.9 grams of methylamphetamine.
17.He emphasised that you are not to be sentenced for the more serious offence of trafficking by possession of a commercial quantity. A commercial quantity is 500 grams, whereas a trafficable quantity is three grams.
18.The amount that you possessed is orders of magnitude of a trafficable quantity. Further, you had all the paraphernalia to proceed to traffic that drug.
19.Based on the quantity that you possessed, even though the prosecution could not prove that you intended to possess precisely the actual amount found at the premises, this is a significant amount of methylamphetamine in your possession for the purposes of sale.
20.Given that you and Mercuri were trafficking in drugs in the period up to the date of the charge, I regard your culpability for this offence as high. This is a serious example of the offence of trafficking methylamphetamine.
21.In relation to the firearms charge, which relates to an air powered pistol, your counsel referred to a statement from Norman, who gave an undertaking to give evidence against you and others involved in this trafficking operation, who indicated that the firearm was not working. You had asked Norman to dispose of it, but later changed your mind.
22.Even accepting that it was not in working order, a photo of it was tendered on the plea, which indicates that it had all the appearances of being a pistol. Firearms, whether imitation or otherwise, are regularly associated with drug trafficking. Norman indicates that you intended to exchange it for something.
23.On the plea, little explanation was given for the possession of the cash and the circumstances in which the motor vehicles were acquired. The amounts involved are not insignificant.
Plea submissions
24.
On the plea, your counsel referred me to the sentencing remarks of
Judge Bourke when he dealt with you for the charge of kidnapping of Mr Norman.[2] You are serving a sentence of five years' and four months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and four months, for that offending. The charges relate, as I have said, to kidnapping, intentionally causing injury and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
[2] Director of Public Prosecutions v Patris (unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge MP Bourke, 14 November 2016).
25.Your personal circumstances are set out in your counsel’s plea submission and also set out in the sentencing remarks of Judge Bourke. These were adopted by your counsel, and I incorporate them by reference.
26.You are currently aged 48. You admitted a very limited prior criminal history, which involved possession of a prohibited weapon and careless driving in May 2014, for which you were dealt with without conviction by way of an adjournment.
27.As such, I am dealing with you effectively as a first offender, save in relation to the firearms charge.
28.Judge Bourke, in his sentencing remarks, found that your prospects of rehabilitation were genuine.
29.Based on your lack of prior convictions, your work history, age, Judge Bourke’s description of your prospects of rehabilitation seems appropriate.
30.Judge Bourke noted that you would find imprisonment more burdensome, due to hardship to others, including your elderly parents, your son and your partner. He had found anxiety about these people will make imprisonment harder for you and clearly that remains applicable.
31.In the course of the plea, your work history was canvassed. You have a good work history and including being in practice in naturopathy.
32.The main thrust of the plea was that considerations of totality should lead to only a very modest increase in the total effective sentence and the setting of a new non-parole period.
Sentencing considerations
33.You have pleaded guilty to the charges before me. You are entitled to credit for this. There was also a considerable delay in this matter, as the original charges against you alleged trafficking in a commercial quantity. This was finally resolved to the charge of trafficking simpliciter in September 2017. The prosecution accepts that this is to be regarded as an early plea.
34.Additionally, the charges relating to the kidnapping were proceeded with first by the prosecution, which adds to the delay in this matter. I incorporate the chronology prepared by your counsel which sets out the delay in both matters finally being resolved. This is obviously a factor that is to be weighed, given that this has been hanging over your head until it finally resolved in September 2017. You are entitled to have that delay taken into account in your favour.
35.In sentencing you for the offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine, considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and specific deterrence loom large. Methylamphetamine is pervasive in the community and you, by your plea, have admitted to having a significant quantity in your possession for the purposes of sale – 250 times a trafficable quantity. The quantity of an illegal drug trafficked is a very significant factor in assessing the seriousness of an offence.
36.The sentence of the court has to act as a deterrent for you and for others minded to seek to take advantage of the lucrative opportunities available in the trafficking of illegal drugs, in particular, methylamphetamine. Those who are caught trafficking in illegal drugs have got to be subject to punishment to deter them from the lucrative opportunities available.
37.Similarly, illegal firearms must be suppressed. They are inevitably associated with criminality, whether they are operative or not.
38.In relation to the two summary charges, the amounts involved are not insignificant and your explanation for them was not very satisfactory.
39.Overall, I have taken into account considerations of totality. You are serving a significant sentence of imprisonment currently, however, this is different offending. It was put by your counsel, however, that there is some overlap in the offending, as the original offending for which Judge Bourke sentenced you for was associated with the drug milieu.
40.At the same time, this is your first sentence of imprisonment to be served, so considerations of the effect of that sentence on your prospects of rehabilitation are relevant and the burden of a first sentence is relevant. I take this into account on the issue of concurrency and cumulation of this sentence on your current sentence.
41.Because this is separate offending, it is appropriate that there be some cumulation. I have stepped back and considered the issue of totality, your prospects of rehabilitation and the sentencing purposes in fixing a new non-parole period.
Sentence
42.On the charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, you are sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
43.On the charge of being a non-prohibited person possessing an unregistered general category handgun, you are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
44.On the first summary charge of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
45.On the second summary charge of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.
46.I order that three months’ of the sentence on charge two (the possession of the general category handgun), one month of the first summary charge and two months of the second summary charge be cumulative upon each other and upon the base sentence.
47.The total effective sentence is, therefore, four years and six months.
48.I direct that 18 months’ of this sentence be served cumulatively on the sentence you are currently serving, which makes a global effective sentence of six years’ and ten months’ imprisonment.
49.I set a new non-parole period which I intend to operate from the date of Judge Bourke’s sentence, 14 November 2016, of four years’ and six months’ imprisonment.
50.I declare 44 days of pre-sentence detention and direct that it be noted in the Records of the Court.
51.I declare, pursuant to s. 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, that had you not pleaded guilty I would have imposed a sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.
52.I will also make the forfeiture and disposal orders that are agreed between the parties.
---
0
0
0