DPP v Xiao Kang
[2023] VCC 2431
•20 December 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| GENERAL LIST |
Case No. CR-23-00786
Indictment No. N12493806
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TEE XIAO KANG |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA: | 8 December 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 December 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Xiao Kang | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – two charges of trafficking a drug of dependence in a large commercial quantity cooperation with the police - high moral culpability for the offences – Malaysian national - bridging visa – no prior convictions – serious drug offender – standard sentence.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Migration Act 1958 (Cth);
Cases Cited:Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; Rahmani v The Queen [2021] VSCA 51; Gregory (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151; Quah v The Queen (2021) VSCA 164; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.
Sentence: 14 years imprisonment and a non-parole period of eight years and 10 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors | |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms D. Caruso | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions | |
| For the Offender | Mr P. Dunn KC | Melasecca Kelly & Zayler Barristers and Solicitors | |
HIS HONOUR:
1Tee Xiao Kang, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence in a large commercial quantity (namely 1,4-Butanediol and methylamphetamine). The maximum penalty for trafficking in a large commercial quantity is life imprisonment.
2You were born in August 1999. You are a Malaysian national in Australia on a temporary bridging visa. At the time of the offending, you were 23 years old and living at 285/3609 La Trobe Street in Melbourne.
3On 7 August 2022, you leased two storage units, units 4056C and 4075 from Kennards Self Storage in Abbotsford. You provided your Malaysian driver's licence and made a payment of $725. Later, you made further payments in cash.
4On 14 September 2022, you received a delivery of an estimated 650 packets of toilet paper which was taken to the storage units to be used to conceal future consignments of drugs. You forwarded images of the toilet paper stacked inside a storage unit via WeChat to three unknown contacts.
5On 23 September 2022, you received an image on your phone showing several cardboard boxes with consignment labels being unloaded from a truck.
6On an unknown date in September 2022, you received a consignment of 51 cardboard boxes, some of which matched the appearance of the boxes in the image received on 23 September 2022. Each box contained 30 red plastic bottles labelled 'VEA Fuel Injector Cleaner' believed to contain 1,4-Butanediol in liquid form.
7You arranged for a moving company to transport the 51 cardboard boxes from 3 Pickford Street, Burwood to 2 Walker Street, Doncaster. You then moved the boxes to your storage units in a moving van you hired. You concealed them in unit 4056C behind the toilet paper.
8On 29 September 2022, you used your security code to access the storage units, and using a trolley you moved the cardboard boxes containing 1,4-Butanediol from unit 4056C to unit 4075.
9From the end of September, you failed to make any further storage fee payments despite Kennards contacting you requesting payment. In November 2022, Kennards advised that if payment was not made, then the property in the two units would be sold.
10On 16 November 2022, Kennards employees entered both storage units to conduct a stocktake of the property inside the units and saw the multiple packets of toilet paper in unit 4056C and that unit 4075 was half filled with toilet paper packets and cardboard boxes. They opened one of the boxes to find the red bottles labelled ‘VEA Fuel Injector Cleaner’ and further inspection revealed a crystal substance inside the bottles.
11Concerned by the contents of the bottles, Kennards employees contacted police.
Search Warrants and Arrest
12On 17 November 2022, police executed a search warrant at the storage units. Police seized 50 cardboard boxes containing red plastic bottles from unit 4075.
13At approximately 12.15 pm that day, when police were present, you attended at Kennards to pay the overdue storage fees. As you were leaving, police arrested you. They searched you and seized two mobile phones (including an Apple iPhone), two Malaysian driver's licences in your name, $450 cash and a Kennards invoice. Under caution you told police there was approximately three to four kilograms of Ice (methylamphetamine) in your apartment at 3609/285 La Trobe Street.
14You provided your pin codes for the mobile phones.
15Police executed a search warrant at your apartment and seized:
·multiple Ziploc bags containing a crystal substance located on a side table in your lounge room and in a drawer in your TV unit;
·one cardboard box containing red plastic bottles (similar to the ones in the storage unit);
·a tenancy agreement for the apartment, identifying you as the sole occupant of the address;
·$10,350.00 in cash from a drawer in the TV unit;
·four mobile phones and an Apple MacBook.
Record of Interview
16Following your arrest, you were taken to the Richmond police station for interview which was conducted with a Mandarin interpreter. You made the following admissions:
·You had hired two storage units and provided your driver’s licence as identification, and paid monthly in cash (QA116, 129-132).
·There were more than 10 boxes in the storage unit in Abbotsford (QA101).
·There were bottles inside the boxes for lubricate oil, but they contain 'something like ice, people call ice' (QA104-109).
·You put the toilet rolls in the storage unit to cover up the boxes (QA124-126).
·You paid for the boxes, but you cannot remember how much it cost. You estimated the value of the drugs to be 'maybe 300 something, Australian dollar' (QA177-178, 182).
·You had removed one box and taken it to your apartment (QA183-184).
·You had lived alone in your apartment for one month and had only been visited by one friend (QA222-225).
·You had a few kilograms of 'ice' in your apartment which were packaged in 'sandwich bag[s]'. You were not sure how much it was worth, but it would take you a month to sell it (QA235-237, 249, 255-256).
·You had two different drugs. 'They are the same things, chemically… just physically… different way to store' but have never changed the form of the drugs you had received (QA381-385, 517-520).
·You denied storing drugs in any other locations (QA202).
·You have three phones as one of them is for 'business' (QA297-298).
·You would arrange for the purchase of the drugs by asking people at 'random' pubs, looking for people who used cannabis. With respect to the drugs seized by police, you had paid a person but had never seen him and would leave the money in different locations (QA407-419, 505-507).
·You receive the boxes with the bottles from overseas through a contact but cannot remember from which country or where the contact is based (QA323-326).
·The drugs would be imported from overseas and transported from the port or harbour by someone to 3 Pickford Street, Burwood. You would then hire a moving company to transfer the boxes to Doncaster, then transport it to your storage units (QA353-367, 394, 426-429).
·You intended to sell the drugs and have sold ice previously on several occasions making 'at least $30,000 or a little bit each time'. You have been selling drugs for several months, however, you cannot remember how much you have made since starting the business (QA180, 193-195, 197, 322).
·When you sell the drugs, you collect them from the storage unit and put it in a sack or a bag and take it to the customer. You transfer the drugs from their original containers to multiple sandwich bags prior to sale (QA214-217, 395-398).
·You spend the money from the sales to 'purchase something, enjoy, play' and gamble at Crown Casino (QA448-460).
Drug Analysis and further investigation
17The drugs seized were subsequently analysed on 2 December 2022 and on 16 February 2023.
18The total quantity of methylamphetamine found was 7339.1 grams (approximately 7.3 kilograms), with a purity ranging from 77 to 88 per cent. The threshold for trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is 500 grams (pure) and 750 grams (mixed).
19The total quantity of Butanediol found at the storage unit and at your apartment was approximately 566.5 kilograms). The threshold for trafficking a large commercial quantity of 1,4-Butanediol is 20 kilograms (mixed).
20On your Apple iPhone Pro Max were:
·two photographs taken on 24 June 2022, showing bags containing a clear crystal substance, believed to be methylamphetamine, with similar markings to the bags seized at your apartment; and
·a photograph taken on 16 July 2022, showing four bags with a clear crystal substance, believed to be methylamphetamine, also with similar markings to the bags seized from your apartment.
Personal circumstances
21Your personal circumstances are set out in the psychological report of Dr Luke Armstrong, which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea hearing. They are also set out in detail in the defence written submissions. You were born in Johor, Malaysia. You are the oldest of four children. You are a third-generation Malaysian, but your grandparents were born in China. You speak Malay, Mandarin and English as a second language. Your immediate family live in Malaysia. You have contact with them, but you have now not seen them for seven years.
22You and your brother spent your early childhood in the care of your maternal aunt and grandmother. You were told that your parents had run away in the aftermath of heavy gambling debts incurred by your father. You had no contact with your parents until you were nine years old when they returned. In the period you lived with your aunt and grandmother you were unsettled, and you had a difficult relationship with your aunt. She had three children of her own and, according to you, resented you and your brother. You say your aunt was at times emotionally abusive, and physically as well, on occasions.
23When you were nine years old and you were in Grade 3, your parents returned. Your family was re-unified, and you lived with your paternal grandmother. Your father worked in a clothing factory and your mother worked with your aunt in her hair salon.
24You say that you struggled to connect with your parents when they returned, and you had no real attachment to them. You say that your relationship with your mother was strained from the beginning. You never had any discussion with her about her absence. You describe your father as a passive figure in your life. You describe your family as unhappy and that you are not close.
25By the time you reached high school, you had lost interest in your studies, and you fell into an unsatisfactory peer group, according to the report. You believed that you were discriminated against because of your minority status as a Chinese Malay. You described being bullied at school for this reason.
26You describe smoking cigarettes from 13 years old and using Ketamine from the time when you were fifteen years old.
27You left school when you were fifteen and started full-time employment at a café. You describe working for a gambling syndicate, securing clients for an online gambling enterprise, for which you received a commission. You became a gambler yourself from when you were 16 years old. You accrued significant gambling debts. You defaulted on a loan you took out to repay your debts and you approached your father, who paid out the loan. Your father believed that the only way to reform your problems, including your gambling and drug use, was for you to leave Malaysia. Your father arranged for you to travel to Australia. You came to Australia in 2017, when you were 17 years old.
28You came to Melbourne initially and stayed with a friend of your fathers for a few months, initially reducing your drug use and drinking. You obtained casual employment in food delivery for EASI eats. You moved to Footscray and lived in a share house and through one of your flatmates you obtained additional employment with Uber Eats.
29In 2019 you moved to Sydney and in 2020 to Brisbane. You started a business with a friend named Alvin, who was an older man, something of a mentor to you. The business involved leasing motorcycles to EASI eats. That business went broke, Alvin disappeared, and yourself and a number of your friends were left with significant debts.
30You returned to Melbourne in 2021. You obtained part-time work in a karaoke bar, but your problems with drugs and alcohol continued. You lived in share accommodation.
31Your counsel, Mr Dunn, submitted that the context of your offending was a desire to pay out the debts which had been accumulated by your friends and also to pay for your own drug, alcohol, and gambling and that the offending commenced against the backdrop of your own drug use.
32In his report, Dr Armstrong says that you were a polysubstance abuser for one to two years before the offending and you were also addicted to gambling. At the time you were arrested, you fulfilled the criteria for a stimulant use disorder, alcohol use disorder and gambling use disorder.
33Dr Armstrong describes you as battling with depression-like symptoms since adolescence, which are secondary to your dysfunctional and compromised familial attachments. Your addiction problems are a feature of your depressive illness according to Dr Armstrong.
34In prison, you have stopped smoking, you have started to exercise, you have engaged in study, and you have obtained a job as a billet.
35Dr Armstrong describes you as street smart, but nonetheless vulnerable, having been deprived of a healthy family upbringing. He describes you as 'not unsalvageable'. He believes you will be more vulnerable in prison than more sophisticated offenders, which will make imprisonment more arduous for you than others.
36Turning then to the seriousness of this offending.
Sentencing Principles
37Trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence has a maximum penalty of life and a standard sentence of 16 years, so self-evidently it is amongst the most serious criminal offences in this state. In this case the quantity of methylamphetamine of which you were in possession for sale was over 9.7 times the mixed commercial quantity which is 750 grams and approximately 12 times the pure threshold of 500 grams. The quantity of 1,4-Butanediol was more than 28 times the large commercial quantity threshold.
38The sentencing regime for serious drug trafficking is quantity-based and therefore quantity is a significant factor in assessing the objective gravity of the offending. Of course, other considerations such as your role in the trafficking enterprise are important in the assessment of the offending and the assessment of your moral culpability, but on any analysis, these were very large amounts in your possession.
39The seriousness of the offence of large commercial quantity trafficking was made clear in the case of Rahmani where the Court of Appeal said:
'The maximum penalty of life imprisonment sends a message to the community, and to sentencing courts, that this is an offence of the utmost seriousness. As is well recognised, the sentencing regime for drug trafficking offences is quantity-based. The maximum of life imprisonment for large commercial quantity trafficking is to be compared with the maximum of 25 years’ imprisonment for commercial quantity (CQ) trafficking.[1]
It is the Parliament which sets the parameters within which the sentencing discretion is exercised. In the case of large commercial quantity trafficking, the sentencing court is guided by two related parameters: the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and the place of this offence in the legislative hierarchy of trafficking offences differentiated by quantity. As we have said, the quantity trafficked in the present case took it into the highest quantitative category, which marks out the most serious drug trafficking offence under Victorian law.'[2]
[1] Rahmani v The Queen [2021] VSCA 51 [23].
[2] Ibid [30].
40Considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are the most important sentencing principles in commercial drug trafficking at this level. The need to send a message to you as well, which is specific deterrence, is also significant.
41In Rahmani the Court of Appeal confirmed that 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 to maintain appropriate relativities between trafficking a commercial quantity and trafficking a large commercial quantity.[3] In Quah, a standard sentence case involving trafficking a quantity which was 3.8 times the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine amongst other charges, the Court of Appeal said given what was said in Gregory in respect of commercial quantity trafficking, the sentence of 15 years in the present case was unremarkable.[4]
[3] Gregory (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151.
[4] Quah v The Queen (2021) VSCA 164; 290 A Crim R 136.
42In respect of your role, your counsel Mr Dunn submitted that the account you gave in your interview was implausible. You suggested in the interview that you had no ready customers for the drugs but that you would find them, perhaps at a hotel, and that you would sell to anyone and that you had done that before. As I follow the interview, you were painting yourself as a retail trafficker for the drugs you had in your possession. Mr Dunn highlighted your inaccurate belief that what was in the red bottles was ice as an indicator that you were not a principal in relation to the drugs. He submitted there was no evidence of active selling on your devices nor any evidence of enrichment one would expect if you were selling such large quantities of drugs; and nor did you have the resources to purchase the quantities the police found in your possession. He submitted that you were being paid to hold and deliver these drugs to someone else.
43In the prosecution written submissions the references in your interview to conducting drug activities via the pub are described as less than forthright.
44In oral argument the prosecutor Ms Caruso really conceded that your account in the interview about selling at a pub was implausible and that there was no evidence of active selling on your phone or any evidence of enrichment or of financial resources consistent with buying and selling such vast quantities of drugs.
45She submitted though that if you were playing a storage and transport role for a syndicate, you had been entrusted to look after a very large quantity of drugs of high value; therefore, you were performing a trusted and essential role in the movement of the drugs to the market. She submitted that the quantities involved and the purity of the methylamphetamine indicates this possession for sale was at the top of the distribution chain. Moreover, the context to the charges in this case is that the evidence shows you had been involved in this drug activity for months prior to 17 November 2022.
46I accept that the account you gave in the interview of personally selling these drugs via a 'pub' is implausible and I accept that in that interview it seems you were covering for others involved in this drug operation. The photographs of the toilet paper you sent via WhatsApp indicates that there were others involved, as does the photograph sent to you of several cardboard boxes with consignment labels being unloaded from a truck.
47It is not possible for me to conclude precisely what your role was in respect of the drugs found at the storage units and at your apartment, but I accept that you were not the principal in this offending in the sense that you had paid for and stood to directly receive the profits from their sale. There is just simply no evidence that you had the resources to purchase drugs of this scale. Broadly, I accept your role was to store and move the drugs.
48However, the quantity involved in respect of both charges is extremely large and obviously the profits available from the sale of such large amounts would have been correspondingly substantial. You were playing an important and trusted role in this operation. Having regard to the scale of this trafficking, I infer that you were to receive a substantial benefit for your endeavours. Indeed, you had $10,000 in cash at your apartment. Moreover, you were operating with some autonomy, renting and paying for the units yourself and arranging transport of the drugs to the storage units.
49Based on the quantities and the activities you were performing in this enterprise, both offences are serious examples of trafficking in a large commercial quantity, and I regard your moral culpability for the offences as high. It is apparent that you had an understanding of the value of these drugs.
50However, it could hardly be said that you were organised and professional in the execution of your role. The failure to pay the rent on the storage units was a striking display of ineptitude. Your immediate cooperation with the police was somewhat unusual, although no doubt you understood at that point that you had no real way out of this.
51As regards Charge 1 relating to the 1,4 Butanediol, I have had regard to the observations of the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Maxwell that the fact that a drug dealt with has a low value compared to other drugs may be relevant to sentencing considerations such as the gravity of the offending and general and specific deterrence because of the lower profits to be made from the sale of a relatively low value drug.[5] Mr Dunn referred to these principles in his submissions and their application was accepted by the prosecutor. That said, what you had in your possession was an extremely large quantity of 1,4 Butanediol and although I do not have direct evidence as to the market value of that drug, I infer as a matter of common sense that the amount you had was worth a very substantial amount of money, particularly given it was 28 times what Parliament has fixed as the large commercial quantity.
[5] Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.
52A further guidepost towards substantial sentences for trafficking in large commercial quantities is 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. A standard sentence is not a mandatory sentence, nor is it a primary sentencing consideration or the starting point from which to add or subtract time. It is just one of the many matters to be considered by the court in the instinctive synthesis of all matters relevant to sentencing.
53The law requires me to identify fully the facts, matters and circumstances which bear upon my decision as to the appropriate sentence. I have endeavoured to do that in some detail in these remarks. The sentence which I will impose for each charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity is less than the standard sentence. In arriving at the sentences in this case, I have taken into account all the matters I am required to consider under the Sentencing Act, including the standard sentence.
54The 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 of at least 60 per cent of the head sentence if that sentence is less than 20 years' imprisonment. No submission was made that I should impose a lower ratio than 60 per cent and I have not done so.
55Current 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 regime. I have had regard to the cases referred to in the prosecution submissions and I have in fact had quite some experience in sentencing for all large commercial quantities since the standard sentence was imposed. Of course, current sentencing practices are a guide, but they are not a controlling factor in deciding the appropriate sentence. What is required is individualised justice to the circumstances of your case.
Guilty Plea
56You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity at the committal mention in this matter.
57Although you may have been less than forthright in the interview, and that is not to your credit, it is perhaps understandable given the potential consequences of revealing other people involved in this offending. You did make very significant admissions to the charges from the first time you spoke to police. You gave them the PIN code to your phones, you told them about the methylamphetamine at your apartment, you were clearly cooperative. I accept that your guilty plea is indicative of remorse and in coming to that view I have also had regard to the matters contained in the report of Dr Armstrong.
58I also accept your guilty plea indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. You have saved the court, the prosecution and the police the use of the time and resources involved in conducting a trial. The utilitarian value of your plea is heightened in circumstances because by your plea you have contributed to the reduction of the trial backlog in this court which arose in the pandemics. I apply the principles in the case of Worboyes.[6] You must receive a significant sentencing discount because you have pleaded guilty to these offences.
[6] Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169.
Deportation
59You are not a citizen of this country. You are in Australia on a bridging visa. You will almost certainly be deported after you have served your sentence. The sentence I impose will trigger the automatic cancellation provisions in the Migration Act.
60The law is clear that I cannot assume you will be deported but I am satisfied that the high likelihood of deportation, including the potential of immigration detention at some stage in the future and uncertainty about whether you will have to serve the entirety of your head sentence, or a substantial portion of the head sentence will increase the burden of your imprisonment. Furthermore, you have now been in this country for approximately six years, and I accept you intended to try and settle here, and deportation would therefore end that hope, which is an additional punitive consequence of some weight, although much less significant than in many cases.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
61These are very serious offences and there is little detailed explanation of how you managed to become involved in the drug trade at this level, so some caution is required in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. However, when you committed these offences, you were just 23 years old, still a young man. You have no prior convictions. You were cooperative with the police, and you pleaded guilty. In prison you have completed courses including a course in relation to drug use. You have never been in custody before. Mr Armstrong said in his report that you recognise your offending is extremely serious and you are thinking appropriately about your future. You are realistic about the likely sentence of imprisonment, but you are nonetheless able to genuinely reflect that you want to change your life. You said to him that you realise what you did was wrong, and you want to start over again and you want to be a good person. Mr Armstrong thought these were genuine reflections and that you have made attempts to match your reflections with actual rehabilitation and reformation behaviours.
62Taking everything into account, in my opinion you have positive prospects of rehabilitation.
63When you are released from the sentence I impose you will be a much older and more mature person and, in my opinion, you should be able to lead a productive life. It is likely that will be in Malaysia. Given these factors I will allow for a significant period on parole via the minimum sentence.
64In his written submissions Mr Dunn raised COVID-19 as increasing the burden of imprisonment. I accept that you have been in custody during a period when there have been some restrictions in the prison in response to the pandemic and I take that into account as increasing the burden of your imprisonment. More significantly I accept that you have been and will remain lonely and isolated in prison. You have some limitations with English, your family are in Malaysia, and you have had only one visitor since you were remanded in custody. I accept that the lengthy sentence I must impose on you will weigh heavily.
Serious Drug Offender and Totality
65You are to be sentenced as a serious drug offender in respect of Charge 2. This means that in determining the length of sentence for Charge 2, I must regard community protection as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed although the weight to be given to community protection is tempered by the positive view I have taken of your prospects of rehabilitation. The prosecution does not submit that a disproportionate sentence is warranted to achieve community protection. Plainly, there is significant scope in sentencing to satisfy community protection in this case. The ordinary statutory presumption of concurrency is displaced and a term of imprisonment on a serious drug offender must be served cumulatively unless otherwise directed.
66These provisions modify but do not exclude the operation of the totality principle which requires that the overall sentence be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending. Mr Dunn submitted that totality has a significant role to play. He submitted that the quantity-based regime for each type of drug made separate counts on the indictment necessary but that the offending in relation to each count is intimately connected and difficult to disentangle. Both offences were part of the one enterprise. He submitted there ought to be significant if not total concurrency between the sentences.
67In my opinion totality is important in this case. The offences are part of the same course of trafficking conduct and therefore substantial concurrency is required. However, each charge represents a very substantial quantity of a different drug and involves significant criminality. Therefore, some cumulation is necessary.
68In this case, in order to achieve totality, I have ordered very substantial concurrency between the sentences with relatively modest cumulation. I have also found it necessary in this case to moderate the length of the periods of imprisonment to comply with totality and also to avoid imposing a crushing sentence on you, still a young man with no prior convictions, in circumstances where you will serve your sentence as a lonely, isolated individual waiting for deportation. The non-parole period is the minimum period justice requires you to serve before becoming eligible for release. It mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation, but it must be consistent with the objective gravity of the offence. As I said earlier, I have decided to allow for a significant period of parole in this case.
Sentence
69In relation to Charge 1 in respect of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of 1,4-Butanediol, the sentence I impose is you are convicted and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
70In relation to Charge 2 of trafficking in a large commercial quantity in respect of methylamphetamine, you are convicted and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment. In relation to Charge 2 you are sentenced as a serious drug offender.
71I order that 12 months of the sentence on Charge 1 is to be served cumulatively on the sentence for Charge 2, the base sentence. That makes a total effective sentence of 14 years. I fix a minimum non-parole period of eight years and 10 months. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act I indicate that but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 19 years and 10 months with a minimum of 14 years.
72Pursuant to s89DI, I declare you to be a serious drug offender and I allow for 399 days of pre-sentence detention to be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act.
73Are those all the declarations I need to make? So the fact that you are a serious drug offender on Charge 2 will be noted in the records of the court. Separately, I make the declaration under s89DI that you are a serious drug offender. That is the way I am supposed to do it?
74COUNSEL: Yes, that's right, Your Honour, and then there should be a disposal order and a forfeiture order.
75HIS HONOUR: I will make those. No objection to those orders?
76COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
77HIS HONOUR: All right, I will make those orders, if they could be sent through to my associate, thank you. Nothing else required? Do you want the link open for a moment?
78COUNSEL: Yes, please.
79HIS HONOUR: All right, I will do that. I will adjourn till tomorrow.
---
4
1