R v Del Giglio, Fiala, Fleming & Jdl (A Youth) No. DCCRM-00-695, DCCRM-00-837

[2001] SADC 184

R v GAETANO ANTONIO DEL GIGLIO, SALVATORE FIALA, EVA CATHERING FLEMING & JDL (SUPPRESSED)
[2001] SADC 184

Judge Vanstone
Criminal

Gaetano Antonio Del Giglio, Salvatore Fiala, Eva Catherine Fleming and JDL (suppressed) you have all pleaded guilty to Taking Part in the Manufacture of Methylamphetamine, the offence occurring between 1 June, 1999 and 19 October, 1999 at Fulham Gardens and other places.

On 19 October, 1999 police raided the premises of you, Del Giglio at 12 Sunningdale Road, Fulham Gardens.  They located in the shed what is commonly referred to as a methylamphetamine factory.  The raid was the culmination of several months of investigations of the activities of you all, an investigation which took in the interception of telephone calls and the observation of your movements.  When police entered the premises on 19 October they located over $8,000 worth of equipment and chemicals, some of which had been destroyed immediately prior to the raid, but equipment which had been put together over a number of months.

Originally it was asserted by the DPP that methylamphetamine had been produced and taken away on the very night of the raid.  However after further consideration it has been accepted by the Director that the police raid (or at least the advance warning of it which police gave) interrupted the process of manufacture and that no methylamphetamine had yet been produced.  However it is conceded by you that there had been an earlier attempt in that same month at manufacture which had failed due to an alteration to the constituents of the commercial preparation Sudafed.  Consequently, I am to sentence on the basis that this operation had not yet produced anything of value to you.

You, Del Giglio do not dispute that you were in charge of the operation.  The factory was located on premises belonging to your father where you lived and there can be no doubt that you financed the operation and gave directions as to the purchase of the required equipment and constituents, which directions were fulfilled by you Fleming and you JDL.  You also directed Fiala as to obtaining the recipe which was used and as to advice in relation to following it.  Had the operation proceeded to completion there is no doubt that methylamphetamine worth a great deal of money, perhaps over $100,000, would have been produced.  I am in no doubt that you, Del Giglio would have seen most of the profits.

You, JDL are the brother of Del Giglio’s girlfriend.  You did most of the work of a foot soldier for him, obtaining equipment and ingredients on request.  Some of these were restricted items and both that fact and the fact that you were passing out thousands of dollars put you, and to a large extent your girlfriend Fleming as well, at greatest risk of being detected.  On at least two occasions you and Fleming drove to Melbourne for the purpose of purchasing palladium, a catalyst used in the manufacturing process.  Proof of identity was required and you provided genuine identification.  For all your efforts you were promised by Del Giglio a motor car, but of course, as it turns out, you have received nothing.

I accept that you, Fleming, only became involved in this scheme because of your close relationship with JDL and his involvement in it.  Your motivation was to assist JDL in the tasks that he was required to perform.  I accept that you were not to receive anything directly for your efforts or the danger in which you placed yourself.

It is more difficult to discern the role of you, Fiala.  Certainly you were the means of communication between Del Giglio and an unknown person who provided the recipe for making this drug and who had some expertise in the production process.  You met with that man to obtain the recipe and subsequently to source his expertise.  Your counsel, Ms McCrohan, submitted on your behalf that you had only very limited involvement in this matter and that what you did by way of assistance to your cousin Del Giglio was done only with the motivation of helping him and not for any personal gain.  Further it was put that you believed that Del Giglio wished to manufacture amphetamine only for his own use.  It is not plain from what has been put to me why Del Giglio could not have made contact with “the chemist” himself.  Indeed, on the face of it that would have been more efficient since Del Giglio was involved in the manufacturing process.  It was also put to me that ahead of the police raid you were trying to minimise your involvement and step back from what was happening as a result of your fear.  During submissions I put to your counsel that I found some of these submissions unconvincing.  However you chose not to give evidence.  It was put on behalf of the DPP that your involvement in this matter made you the second most important person in this operation, that is ahead of JDL and Fleming.  I am not prepared to make such a finding, but nor do I accept that your involvement was as limited as has been put to me or that you were not expecting anything in return for your efforts.  Accordingly I consider it appropriate to sentence you as a person having an important role in this operation, but not as a principal.

During the submissions in this matter I was referred to various authorities dealing with penalties for serious drug offences including taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Those authorities included R v Mangelsdorf; R v Perry; R v Richards (1995) 66 S.A.S.R. 60, R v Hill (1996) S.5975; R v Ziemek (1996) 186 L.S.J.S. 458 and R v Di Maria, Hudson and Pehlivanides (1996) 67 S.A.S.R. 466. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding $200,000 or imprisonment for twenty five years or both. It is well established that in the whole scheme of drug offences, offences involving amphetamine are seen as more serious than cannabis offences but less serious than heroin offences. Each of the cases of Hill, Di Maria et al and Ziemek provide some more specific guidance as to the range of penalties which taking part in the manufacture of amphetamine might attract. Of course every case is different and the sentence imposed in a particular case must be understood against the background of the circumstances applicable to it. Di Maria and his co-offenders Hudson and Pehlivanides were convicted after a trial of manufacturing amphetamine, and manufacturing “MDA”, and Di Maria was further convicted of possessing amphetamine for sale. Sentences of seven years imprisonment with a five year non parole imposed on each were not disturbed on appeal. Hill was convicted by a jury of taking part in the manufacture of amphetamine, but that offence occurred against the background of other similar conduct which was before the jury at trial. His sentence of eight years with a five year non parole period was said by the Court of Criminal Appeal to be “appropriate”. Ziemek was a man of previously impeccable character and a qualified chemist. He lent his expertise to an operation involving at least five men, designed to manufacture amphetamine and ecstasy. Upon his plea of guilty he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non parole period of eighteen months. The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that sentence as being “entirely appropriate”. In my assessment the offence before me is not marked by the success nor by the high degree of organization and efficiency which each of the decisions I have just referred to reflected. Nevertheless the offence remains a serious one and no doubt would largely have achieved its purpose had it not been interrupted by police.

I turn to matters personal to you.  You Del Giglio are thirty years of age.  You are in a de facto relationship of five years standing and you and your de facto wife care for her child of an earlier relationship.  I am told that you are a long-term user of drugs.  That factor is borne out by your antecedent report which records drug offences in 1989, 1994 and 1997.  Your counsel, Mr Moffa, has put to me that your involvement in this offence was largely motivated by your need for a source of amphetamine for your own use.  It was put to me that due to a most unfortunate incident concerning your wife, which occurred in 1999, and your inability to cope with that occurrence, your amphetamine consumption increased markedly.  This occurred against a background of unemployment consequent upon the after effects of injuries you had suffered in a car accident.  I am told that you were able to finance the establishment of the operation by means of money which was given to you by your father and that your unlawful plan crystallized in late May or early June, 1999.  Plainly you recruited your cousin Fiala and the youth JDL to assist you in your enterprise.  That fact does you no credit at all, particularly as regards JDL.

I have been provided with several references from persons acquainted with you over a long period.  The referees speak well of your character and the strength of your family.  I have also read a psychological report provided by Doctor White.  I have taken into account the matters put to me by your counsel.  In my mind, the most significant factor in your favour is your plea of guilty.  Whilst your plea was not indicated at an early stage it should, in my view, attract significant credit as there has been a saving of court time consequent upon the plea.  The same can be said of the pleas of Fiala and Fleming.  In relation to JDL’s plea that has always been intimated and I propose to give him full credit for it.

In relation to you Fiala it is noteworthy that you come to the court as a man of entirely unblemished record.  You are thirty one years old and you have lived all your life in Adelaide.  You married in the early nineties but I am told this offence has resulted in a separation from your wife.  You have always been employed and for the last decade or so that has been at the Stirling fruit and vegetable shop as a handler.  I have a reference from the owner of that business who speaks well of you and would like to retain you in his employment.  You come from a hard-working and close-knit family.  I have several references from people who are close to you.  You are said to be well respected in your own community.  Against all that is your own admission that you have been involved in growing cannabis plants.  Notwithstanding that, it surprises me that you should have proceeded into this far more serious matter.  It seems to me that it was your cousin’s involvement which probably encouraged you to do so.   Ms McCrohan put to me that you are extremely ashamed of what you have done, and concerned as to the impact this offence will have on members of your family, particularly the younger ones.  Your wife has left you and you have jeopardized your longstanding employment.  No doubt these things have brought home to you the seriousness of your predicament.  I have considered at length whether, in your prior good character there is “good reason” to suspend the sentence which your involvement in this matter must inevitably attract.  In the end matters of general and personal deterrence have outweighed your claims for leniency.  However in view of your prior good character I think it appropriate to set a non parole period which recognizes that it is very likely that you will be able to resume a law-abiding life upon release from prison.

I turn to you Fleming.  You were eighteen years of age when your involvement in this matter commenced.  I have already related that it occurred because of your relationship with JDL, and that it was of limited nature.  I accept that your involvement did not extend beyond helping JDL fulfil his instructions from   Del Giglio – although those instructions involved very significant undertakings by both you and JDL – and that you were to receive nothing for your assistance.  Your counsel, Ms Ritchie, has made a powerful plea on your behalf.  You came from a stable family but you began to experiment with drugs in your teens and your relationship with your parents deteriorated.  You met JDL when you were sixteen and although the relationship plainly has some strength, it has not been an easy one for you.  Indeed it has been characterized by physical, emotional and financial abuse.  Notwithstanding that, you are still together and you now have a child born in December last year.  Presently you are not living with JDL although that is again contemplated.

I have had the assistance of very analytical reports in relation to you from Ms Alison Newton and Mr G J Ireland, both psychologists.  Ms Newton saw you after referral by your general practitioner and Mr Ireland saw you for medico-legal purposes.  I do not propose to elaborate on the various difficulties which you face in the years ahead.  However it is plain from the reports that help is available to you if you choose to take advantage of it.  Recently you have taken important steps in establishing a better future and they include obtaining your own Housing Trust accommodation and enrolling into a course from which you will be able to obtain a Nursing Certificate.  That is due to start in the New Year.  It has been put to me that your involvement in this offence came about because of what might be called duress, using that term in its colloquial sense.  The reports before me justify that conclusion.  Nonetheless, your involvement continued over a number of weeks and extended to what were plainly important steps to be taken in this process.  Whilst I can accept that JDL is a forceful character, he is younger than you and you have had the benefit of a loving family to whom you could have turned.  For those reasons and because of the seriousness with which the law views this offence I consider that I must impose a sentence of imprisonment upon you.  To impose only a bond – as I was asked to do – would not in my mind recognize the gravity of the offence.  However there is, in your antecedents, good reason to suspend that sentence.

You JDL were not far short of your eighteenth birthday when this offence was committed. On 4 September, 2000 in the Youth Court, His Honour Judge Jennings determined, pursuant to s.17(3) Young Offenders Act 1993 that you should be dealt with in the same way as an adult and committed you to this court for trial. On an earlier occasion I determined that you should be sentenced in this court notwithstanding the power given in s.29(1) of the Young Offenders Act 1993 to remand you to the Youth Court for sentencing. Mr White has asked that I sentence you as a youth, mainly because your antecedents do not show any serious offences and also because you were – obviously – a child when you committed the offence. Notwithstanding those matters I consider that it is appropriate to sentence you as an adult. As I have already said, this offence is an extremely serious one and the role you fulfilled was of fundamental importance and was played over a period of time. Furthermore you were instrumental in Fleming becoming involved in the operation. Having referred to those matters though, your antecedents do provide scope to impose a sentence which recognizes your youth and relatively good prior character.

Your older sister is the de facto wife of Del Giglio.  You also have a brother and a half-brother.  Your upbringing was marked by a poor relationship with your father, who subjected you to physical abuse.  You left school at a fairly early age and had several labouring type jobs of short duration.  The most significant feature of your life over the last few years has been your relationship with Fleming, but you acknowledge that you have abused her.  Whilst living with her you used cannabis which you grew at your home.  Later you graduated to ecstasy and amphetamine.  I accept that your involvement in this offence come about both because of your addiction to drugs and because of the influence which Del Giglio had upon you.

The extent of your involvement is demonstrated by the telephone calls attributed to you.  It is plain that the steps you took were extensive and important.  As mentioned previously, you were told by Del Giglio that he would give you a motor car in return for your work.

Although you intimated your plea at an early stage, because your co-accused were determined to go to trial, your plea was not in fact entered.  Accordingly you have been on bail awaiting the disposition of this matter.  During that time I am told that you have taken significant steps towards your own rehabilitation.  It is noteworthy that there have apparently been no breaches of the law in that period.  And of course you and Fleming have had a child during that period.  You have taken steps to rid yourself of your drug addiction and I am told that since commencing the methadone programme in February, 2001 you have not relapsed.  You have also been seeing Doctor Heint, psychiatrist, for psychological problems which include acute anxiety.  The problems which lie ahead for you cannot be underestimated but it seems to be that you are doing what you can to equip yourself for the life ahead of you.

The sentences I impose are as follows.  You, Del Giglio will be sentenced to four years imprisonment.  But for your plea, the sentence would have been four and a half years.  I set a non parole period of two and a half years.  The sentence will commence today.

I sentence you, Fiala, to two years and nine months imprisonment.  But for your plea your sentence would have been over three years.  I set a non parole period of one year.  That sentence will commence today.

In relation to you, JDL and you Fleming I propose to impose the same sentence.  That is one of ten months imprisonment.  However that sentence will be suspended if you each enter into a bond in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for two years.

I order forfeiture of the equipment and chemicals located at the house at Fulham Gardens.

Gaetano Antonio Del Giglio, Salvatore Fiala, Eva Catherine Fleming and JDL (suppressed) you have all pleaded guilty to Taking Part in the Manufacture of Methylamphetamine, the offence occurring between 1 June, 1999 and 19 October, 1999 at Fulham Gardens and other places.

On 19 October, 1999 police raided the premises of you, Del Giglio at 12 Sunningdale Road, Fulham Gardens.  They located in the shed what is commonly referred to as a methylamphetamine factory.  The raid was the culmination of several months of investigations of the activities of you all, an investigation which took in the interception of telephone calls and the observation of your movements.  When police entered the premises on 19 October they located over $8,000 worth of equipment and chemicals, some of which had been destroyed immediately prior to the raid, but equipment which had been put together over a number of months.

Originally it was asserted by the DPP that methylamphetamine had been produced and taken away on the very night of the raid.  However after further consideration it has been accepted by the Director that the police raid (or at least the advance warning of it which police gave) interrupted the process of manufacture and that no methylamphetamine had yet been produced.  However it is conceded by you that there had been an earlier attempt in that same month at manufacture which had failed due to an alteration to the constituents of the commercial preparation Sudafed.  Consequently, I am to sentence on the basis that this operation had not yet produced anything of value to you.

You, Del Giglio do not dispute that you were in charge of the operation.  The factory was located on premises belonging to your father where you lived and there can be no doubt that you financed the operation and gave directions as to the purchase of the required equipment and constituents, which directions were fulfilled by you Fleming and you JDL.  You also directed Fiala as to obtaining the recipe which was used and as to advice in relation to following it.  Had the operation proceeded to completion there is no doubt that methylamphetamine worth a great deal of money, perhaps over $100,000, would have been produced.  I am in no doubt that you, Del Giglio would have seen most of the profits.

You, JDL are the brother of Del Giglio’s girlfriend.  You did most of the work of a foot soldier for him, obtaining equipment and ingredients on request.  Some of these were restricted items and both that fact and the fact that you were passing out thousands of dollars put you, and to a large extent your girlfriend Fleming as well, at greatest risk of being detected.  On at least two occasions you and Fleming drove to Melbourne for the purpose of purchasing palladium, a catalyst used in the manufacturing process.  Proof of identity was required and you provided genuine identification.  For all your efforts you were promised by Del Giglio a motor car, but of course, as it turns out, you have received nothing.

I accept that you, Fleming, only became involved in this scheme because of your close relationship with JDL and his involvement in it.  Your motivation was to assist JDL in the tasks that he was required to perform.  I accept that you were not to receive anything directly for your efforts or the danger in which you placed yourself.

It is more difficult to discern the role of you, Fiala.  Certainly you were the means of communication between Del Giglio and an unknown person who provided the recipe for making this drug and who had some expertise in the production process.  You met with that man to obtain the recipe and subsequently to source his expertise.  Your counsel, Ms McCrohan, submitted on your behalf that you had only very limited involvement in this matter and that what you did by way of assistance to your cousin Del Giglio was done only with the motivation of helping him and not for any personal gain.  Further it was put that you believed that Del Giglio wished to manufacture amphetamine only for his own use.  It is not plain from what has been put to me why Del Giglio could not have made contact with “the chemist” himself.  Indeed, on the face of it that would have been more efficient since Del Giglio was involved in the manufacturing process.  It was also put to me that ahead of the police raid you were trying to minimise your involvement and step back from what was happening as a result of your fear.  During submissions I put to your counsel that I found some of these submissions unconvincing.  However you chose not to give evidence.  It was put on behalf of the DPP that your involvement in this matter made you the second most important person in this operation, that is ahead of JDL and Fleming.  I am not prepared to make such a finding, but nor do I accept that your involvement was as limited as has been put to me or that you were not expecting anything in return for your efforts.  Accordingly I consider it appropriate to sentence you as a person having an important role in this operation, but not as a principal.

During the submissions in this matter I was referred to various authorities dealing with penalties for serious drug offences including taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Those authorities included R v Mangelsdorf; R v Perry; R v Richards (1995) 66 S.A.S.R. 60, R v Hill (1996) S.5975; R v Ziemek (1996) 186 L.S.J.S. 458 and R v Di Maria, Hudson and Pehlivanides (1996) 67 S.A.S.R. 466. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding $200,000 or imprisonment for twenty five years or both. It is well established that in the whole scheme of drug offences, offences involving amphetamine are seen as more serious than cannabis offences but less serious than heroin offences. Each of the cases of Hill, Di Maria et al and Ziemek provide some more specific guidance as to the range of penalties which taking part in the manufacture of amphetamine might attract. Of course every case is different and the sentence imposed in a particular case must be understood against the background of the circumstances applicable to it. Di Maria and his co-offenders Hudson and Pehlivanides were convicted after a trial of manufacturing amphetamine, and manufacturing “MDA”, and Di Maria was further convicted of possessing amphetamine for sale. Sentences of seven years imprisonment with a five year non parole imposed on each were not disturbed on appeal. Hill was convicted by a jury of taking part in the manufacture of amphetamine, but that offence occurred against the background of other similar conduct which was before the jury at trial. His sentence of eight years with a five year non parole period was said by the Court of Criminal Appeal to be “appropriate”. Ziemek was a man of previously impeccable character and a qualified chemist. He lent his expertise to an operation involving at least five men, designed to manufacture amphetamine and ecstasy. Upon his plea of guilty he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non parole period of eighteen months. The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that sentence as being “entirely appropriate”. In my assessment the offence before me is not marked by the success nor by the high degree of organization and efficiency which each of the decisions I have just referred to reflected. Nevertheless the offence remains a serious one and no doubt would largely have achieved its purpose had it not been interrupted by police.

I turn to matters personal to you.  You Del Giglio are thirty years of age.  You are in a de facto relationship of five years standing and you and your de facto wife care for her child of an earlier relationship.  I am told that you are a long-term user of drugs.  That factor is borne out by your antecedent report which records drug offences in 1989, 1994 and 1997.  Your counsel, Mr Moffa, has put to me that your involvement in this offence was largely motivated by your need for a source of amphetamine for your own use.  It was put to me that due to a most unfortunate incident concerning your wife, which occurred in 1999, and your inability to cope with that occurrence, your amphetamine consumption increased markedly.  This occurred against a background of unemployment consequent upon the after effects of injuries you had suffered in a car accident.  I am told that you were able to finance the establishment of the operation by means of money which was given to you by your father and that your unlawful plan crystallized in late May or early June, 1999.  Plainly you recruited your cousin Fiala and the youth JDL to assist you in your enterprise.  That fact does you no credit at all, particularly as regards JDL.

I have been provided with several references from persons acquainted with you over a long period.  The referees speak well of your character and the strength of your family.  I have also read a psychological report provided by Doctor White.  I have taken into account the matters put to me by your counsel.  In my mind, the most significant factor in your favour is your plea of guilty.  Whilst your plea was not indicated at an early stage it should, in my view, attract significant credit as there has been a saving of court time consequent upon the plea.  The same can be said of the pleas of Fiala and Fleming.  In relation to JDL’s plea that has always been intimated and I propose to give him full credit for it.

In relation to you Fiala it is noteworthy that you come to the court as a man of entirely unblemished record.  You are thirty one years old and you have lived all your life in Adelaide.  You married in the early nineties but I am told this offence has resulted in a separation from your wife.  You have always been employed and for the last decade or so that has been at the Stirling fruit and vegetable shop as a handler.  I have a reference from the owner of that business who speaks well of you and would like to retain you in his employment.  You come from a hard-working and close-knit family.  I have several references from people who are close to you.  You are said to be well respected in your own community.  Against all that is your own admission that you have been involved in growing cannabis plants.  Notwithstanding that, it surprises me that you should have proceeded into this far more serious matter.  It seems to me that it was your cousin’s involvement which probably encouraged you to do so.   Ms McCrohan put to me that you are extremely ashamed of what you have done, and concerned as to the impact this offence will have on members of your family, particularly the younger ones.  Your wife has left you and you have jeopardized your longstanding employment.  No doubt these things have brought home to you the seriousness of your predicament.  I have considered at length whether, in your prior good character there is “good reason” to suspend the sentence which your involvement in this matter must inevitably attract.  In the end matters of general and personal deterrence have outweighed your claims for leniency.  However in view of your prior good character I think it appropriate to set a non parole period which recognizes that it is very likely that you will be able to resume a law-abiding life upon release from prison.

I turn to you Fleming.  You were eighteen years of age when your involvement in this matter commenced.  I have already related that it occurred because of your relationship with JDL, and that it was of limited nature.  I accept that your involvement did not extend beyond helping JDL fulfil his instructions from   Del Giglio – although those instructions involved very significant undertakings by both you and JDL – and that you were to receive nothing for your assistance.  Your counsel, Ms Ritchie, has made a powerful plea on your behalf.  You came from a stable family but you began to experiment with drugs in your teens and your relationship with your parents deteriorated.  You met JDL when you were sixteen and although the relationship plainly has some strength, it has not been an easy one for you.  Indeed it has been characterized by physical, emotional and financial abuse.  Notwithstanding that, you are still together and you now have a child born in December last year.  Presently you are not living with JDL although that is again contemplated.

I have had the assistance of very analytical reports in relation to you from Ms Alison Newton and Mr G J Ireland, both psychologists.  Ms Newton saw you after referral by your general practitioner and Mr Ireland saw you for medico-legal purposes.  I do not propose to elaborate on the various difficulties which you face in the years ahead.  However it is plain from the reports that help is available to you if you choose to take advantage of it.  Recently you have taken important steps in establishing a better future and they include obtaining your own Housing Trust accommodation and enrolling into a course from which you will be able to obtain a Nursing Certificate.  That is due to start in the New Year.  It has been put to me that your involvement in this offence came about because of what might be called duress, using that term in its colloquial sense.  The reports before me justify that conclusion.  Nonetheless, your involvement continued over a number of weeks and extended to what were plainly important steps to be taken in this process.  Whilst I can accept that JDL is a forceful character, he is younger than you and you have had the benefit of a loving family to whom you could have turned.  For those reasons and because of the seriousness with which the law views this offence I consider that I must impose a sentence of imprisonment upon you.  To impose only a bond – as I was asked to do – would not in my mind recognize the gravity of the offence.  However there is, in your antecedents, good reason to suspend that sentence.

You JDL were not far short of your eighteenth birthday when this offence was committed. On 4 September, 2000 in the Youth Court, His Honour Judge Jennings determined, pursuant to s.17(3) Young Offenders Act 1993 that you should be dealt with in the same way as an adult and committed you to this court for trial. On an earlier occasion I determined that you should be sentenced in this court notwithstanding the power given in s.29(1) of the Young Offenders Act 1993 to remand you to the Youth Court for sentencing. Mr White has asked that I sentence you as a youth, mainly because your antecedents do not show any serious offences and also because you were – obviously – a child when you committed the offence. Notwithstanding those matters I consider that it is appropriate to sentence you as an adult. As I have already said, this offence is an extremely serious one and the role you fulfilled was of fundamental importance and was played over a period of time. Furthermore you were instrumental in Fleming becoming involved in the operation. Having referred to those matters though, your antecedents do provide scope to impose a sentence which recognizes your youth and relatively good prior character.

Your older sister is the de facto wife of Del Giglio.  You also have a brother and a half-brother.  Your upbringing was marked by a poor relationship with your father, who subjected you to physical abuse.  You left school at a fairly early age and had several labouring type jobs of short duration.  The most significant feature of your life over the last few years has been your relationship with Fleming, but you acknowledge that you have abused her.  Whilst living with her you used cannabis which you grew at your home.  Later you graduated to ecstasy and amphetamine.  I accept that your involvement in this offence come about both because of your addiction to drugs and because of the influence which Del Giglio had upon you.

The extent of your involvement is demonstrated by the telephone calls attributed to you.  It is plain that the steps you took were extensive and important.  As mentioned previously, you were told by Del Giglio that he would give you a motor car in return for your work.

Although you intimated your plea at an early stage, because your co-accused were determined to go to trial, your plea was not in fact entered.  Accordingly you have been on bail awaiting the disposition of this matter.  During that time I am told that you have taken significant steps towards your own rehabilitation.  It is noteworthy that there have apparently been no breaches of the law in that period.  And of course you and Fleming have had a child during that period.  You have taken steps to rid yourself of your drug addiction and I am told that since commencing the methadone programme in February, 2001 you have not relapsed.  You have also been seeing Doctor Heint, psychiatrist, for psychological problems which include acute anxiety.  The problems which lie ahead for you cannot be underestimated but it seems to be that you are doing what you can to equip yourself for the life ahead of you.

The sentences I impose are as follows.  You, Del Giglio will be sentenced to four years imprisonment.  But for your plea, the sentence would have been four and a half years.  I set a non parole period of two and a half years.  The sentence will commence today.

I sentence you, Fiala, to two years and nine months imprisonment.  But for your plea your sentence would have been over three years.  I set a non parole period of one year.  That sentence will commence today.

In relation to you, JDL and you Fleming I propose to impose the same sentence.  That is one of ten months imprisonment.  However that sentence will be suspended if you each enter into a bond in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for two years.

I order forfeiture of the equipment and chemicals located at the house at Fulham Gardens.