R v Domingues

[2024] NSWDC 40

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v DOMINGUES [2024] NSWDC 40

Hearing dates:

22 February 2024

Date of orders:

1 March 2024

Decision date:

01 March 2024

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Lerve DCJ

Decision:

Sentenced – see [64]-[68]

Catchwords:

CRIMES – sentence – deal with proceeds of crime

CRIMES – sentence – knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug – methylamphetamine - non-exculpatory duress – substantial drug debt – post traumatic stress and depression – aggregate sentence - Form 1 matters

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act, 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Criminal Procedure Act, 1986

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985

Road Transport Act, 2013

Cases Cited:

The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Jibran v R (2020) NSWCCA 86

Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270

Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633

Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex
Daniel DOMINGUES

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr T Bailey for the Crown
Mr J Michie for the Offender

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bunton Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s):

2022/285795

Publication restriction:

No

Remarks on Sentence

1. On 22 February 2024 the offender pleaded guilty to two counts on an indictment, namely that he:

1. On 25 September 2022 in East Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, did deal with the proceeds of crime, namely $58,245.00 knowing that it was the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 and further,

2. On 25 September 2022 in Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales did knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 25.14 grams of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985.

2. Although an indictment was presented it was uncontroversial at the sentence hearing that the offender had entered pleas of guilty to those charges in the Local Court, had been committed for sentence and accordingly the offender was entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.

3. When passing sentence in respect of the Knowingly Take Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug matter the offender asks that I take into account six matters on a Form 1 document. When passing sentence I will need to properly apply the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matter reported (2002) 56 NSWLR 146. As I observed at the sentence hearing, given the number of Form 1 matters there must be some impact on the ultimate sentence to be imposed but given the nature of the matters that impact will be quite modest.

4. In addition there are four matters attaching to a Certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1986. Those charges are:

1. Driver State False Name or Home address, contrary to s 175(2)(b) of the Road Transport Act, 2013;

2. Drive While Disqualified contrary to s 54(1) of the Road Transport Act;

3. Drive with Illicit Drug Present In Blood Or Oral Sample, contrary to s 111(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act;

4. Possess Prohibited Drug (namely 25.93 grams) of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

5. Pleas of guilty were entered to those matters on the day of the sentence hearing. However, noting they attach to a s 166 Certificate that was the first practical opportunity the offender had to enter pleas to those matters. Accordingly, I allow the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of those pleas of guilty as well.

6. The offences of Driver State False Name or Address and Drive with Illicit Drug Present In Blood Or Oral Sample do not carry imprisonment as a maximum penalty. Accordingly, it is appropriate that those matters be dealt with pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999. That course does not preclude the imposition of a period of disqualification.

7. The maximum penalty for Drive While Disqualified is 12 months imprisonment and/or a fine of 50 penalty units. The offence of Drive With Illicit Drug Present in Blood or Oral Sample carries a maximum penalty of 30 penalty units. The charge of Possess Prohibited Drug carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 20 penalty units.

Facts

8. The facts are before the court by way of a set of agreed facts contained within the Crown tender bundle, Exhibit A on sentence. For the purpose of proceeding to sentence I am satisfied of the following beyond reasonable doubt.

9. At about 8 am on Sunday, 25 September 2022 police attached to the local highway patrol observed a dark coloured Subaru SUV bearing Queensland registration plates 076AL9 travelling west on Hammond Avenue in Wagga Wagga. Hammond Avenue is also the Sturt Highway. The vehicle was checked travelling at 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The vehicle was stopped.

10. Police asked the driver, that is this offender, to produce his driver’s licence. He informed police that he did not have his licence on him. The offender assured police that he did in fact hold a licence. An alcohol breath test was administered and returned a negative result. The offender was again asked whether he held a licence and he told police that he held a standard New South Wales licence, but he left behind as he was in a rush.

11. The offender was asked to produce some type of identification and he maintained that he did not have any identification on him. He gave a name Murray Carmichael before quickly correcting himself stating “Richey”. He maintained his date of birth was 28 May 1996 and his residential address was 38 Tradewinds Avenue, Summerland Point. The offender again assured police he held a valid driver licence.

12. When asked the offender said that he was travelling from the Central Coast towards Albury. Police conducted a search of the details provided by the offender and those results did not match the details provided by the offender. Police formed the opinion that the offender was not been truthful about his identity.

13. Police then informed the offender that if he could not produce any form of identification he would need to accompany them to the local police station in order that his identity could be confirmed. Police again gave the driver the opportunity to provide his name and the offender told police, “I have just given them to you”. This grounds the charge of Driver State False Name or Address which attaches to the s 166 Certificate.

14. Police requested the offender to exit the vehicle, cautioned him and placed him under arrest for the purposes of identification. Police informed the offender that he was going to be searched. The offender removed his sunglasses, a mobile phone and a large sum of cash with rubber bands around it. Police located a black folding knife in the rear waistband of the offender’s pants. This grounds the charge of Have Custody of a Knife, which attaches to the form 1 document.

15. The knife was secured and police reached for handcuffs to place on the offender. The offender pulled away in an attempt to make his way back towards the driver’s side of the vehicle. Police told the offender multiple times to turn around and place his hands on the car, however he continued to pull away and would not comply with directions. It is this conduct which grounds the charge of Resist Police, which also attaches to the form 1 document.

16. The offender was taken to the police station where he was entered into custody and given the opportunity to speak with a solicitor and obtain legal advice. After being cautioned the offender provided a sample of oral fluid for analysis, which sample returned a positive result for methylamphetamine. A further test conducted by the analytical science service also returned a positive result for methylamphetamine and cocaine. This grounds the charge of Drive with illicit Drug in Blood or Oral Sample which attaches to the s 166 Certificate.

17. Police then returned to the offender’s vehicle and searched for any form of identification. They located a set of keys and a leather wallet in the console of the vehicle. The wallet contained a New South Wales photo identity card in the name of Daniel James Domingues, with the date of birth 5 September 1995 and a Glenmore Park address. Checks revealed that the offender was a disqualified driver. This grounds the charge of Driving Whilst Disqualified attaching to the s 166 Certificate.

18. During the search a police officer observed a further mobile phone in the driver’s door compartment and also observed a white plastic bag located under the driver’s seat which contained a disposable foil cooking container, containing a large sum of Australian currency in $50 and $100 denominations. The cash was tightly packed by way of cryovac. The money totalled $58,245. The plastic bag also contained a small amount of illicit substances.

19. Further, during the search of the vehicle police located two hard suitcases, with the larger bag containing clothing and personal items that belonged to the offender. In this bag police also located a sealed cryovac bag with the word ”Saboxone” clearly identified on the packet. Police seized the bag. The smaller suitcase contained a cryovac bag sealing machine, three sets of digital scales, plastic bags, scissors, blue disposable gloves, white cloth gloves, rolls of cryovac bags, large rolls of cling wrap, a box of zip lock plastic bags and five small containers with one containing a white residue.

20. Also located were two blue plastic containers containing small resealable plastic satchel bags with a “Simpsons family” motive printed on each bag. Further there were two cryovac bags containing blue gloves and additional plastic bags, blue pens, rubber bands and seven vials of steroids.

21. At 12:45 pm police digitally recorded the search of the motor vehicle. Police located an open cigarette packet in the centre console, which contained one sachet of methylamphetamine and one satchel of cocaine. The substances were later conveyed to the Albury crime scene unit for drug analysis where the substances were sampled, weighed and sub-sampled. On 24 November 2022 the Forensic and Analytical Science Service analysed the exhibits. The analysis revealed the following:

• 25.93 grams of methylamphetamine, which relates to the charge of possess prohibited drug attaching to the s 166 Certificate;

• 25.14 grams of methylamphetamine, which relates to count 2 on the indictment;

• 3.47 grams of cocaine which relates to a charge of possess prohibited drug attaching to the Form 1 document;

• 4.86 grams or 110 films of buprenorphine, which relates to a charge of possess prohibited drug attaching to the Form 1 document;

• 19.1 grams of nandrolone, which relates to a charge of possess steroid attaching to the Form 1 document; and

• 36 grams of testosterone, which relates to a charge of possess prescribed restricted substance, attaching to the Form 1 document.

Assessment

22. Going initially to the charge of Deal with the Proceeds of Crime the sum of $58,000 is a substantial sum of money. There was some degree of sophistication, given the manner in which the money was packaged. The offender was transporting the cash. Given these factors and the cases to which Mr Michie refers in his written submissions, the charge of Deal with Proceeds of Crimes is below mid range but not at the bottom of the range.

23. The charge of supply prohibited drug is well below mid-range noting the quantity of the drug. There was some degree of sophistication about the enterprise but again the offender was transporting the drugs. There was however present a number of indicia of supply.

24. The offender raises non-exculpatory duress in mitigation, which I will deal with in more detail later. However, I am satisfied on balance that the offender was subject to non-exculpatory duress. That reduces the seriousness of the matter – see Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365 at [42] and also reduces the offender’s moral culpability. I have taken this into account when making the assessments that I have.

25. The Drive While Disqualified offence is a particularly serious example of the offence noting the distance the offender was driving, taken with the fact that he was driving having taken an illicit drug. I note it is not suggested that the offender was affected by the drug, but nevertheless he had taken that drug. The charge of Possess Prohibited Drug is a typical example of that offence noting the quantity of the drug.

Criminal History

26. The offender was born on 5 September 1995 and accordingly is 28 years of age and was 27 at the time of offending. He has been convicted of a significant number of serious driving offences including Drive While Suspended, Driving in a Manner Dangerous in a Police Pursuit, and Drive While Disqualified. Indeed the offender has been convicted of Drive While Disqualified a number of times (eight convictions on my reading of the traffic record) and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence.

27. Further, on 16 June 2022 the offender was sentenced on indictment for Supply Prohibited Drug – Commercial Quantity and was sentenced to a total sentence of 2 years and 8 months. He was on parole at the time of the offending presently under consideration and accordingly the factor of statutory aggravation of committing further offences while subject to conditional liberty as provided for by s 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 is made out.

28. I will deal with the offender on the basis that his criminal history does not entitle him to any particular leniency. He should be aware however that if he were to keep offending it will not be long before a court takes the criminal history into account as an aggravating feature.

General Deterrence

29. Although general deterrence is ameliorated to an extent because of the mental condition of the offender, with which I will deal later in these reasons, general deterrence still has some work to do in this sentencing exercise. In respect of the drug matters I note and have regard to what was said by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633, particularly at [107]– [115]. As I often observe in matters involving the supply of methylamphetamine rarely a day, let alone a week, goes by where this court does not deal either on indictment or on appeal from the Local Court with serious criminal offending committed by persons under the influence of methylamphetamine and/or committing crime in order to finance the purchase of more of the substance.

30. There is a very real issue of general and surprisinglyspecific deterrence to be addressed in this matter so far as the charge of driving while disqualified is concerned. In this regard I note and have regard to what was said by Johnson J (Leeming JA, Harrison J - as his Honour then was - agreeing) in Jibran v R (2020) NSWCCA 86 at [181]-[201]

Subjective Case

31. The offender gave evidence and a volume of material was tendered in the offender’s case on sentence. The offender relies upon non-exculpatory duress as a matter of mitigation. Noting the decision of the High Court in Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270 and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365 at [32] this is a matter that the offender must establish on the balance of probabilities.

32. The offender gave evidence to the effect that he committed the offences in September 2022 in part because of threats made to him by people to whom he owed debts for drugs. The offender has been stabbed twice while in custody at the Wellington Correctional Centre. Even over the audiovisual link the scars were obvious enough. The offender also gave evidence that about two weeks before the offences were committed a group of people arrived at his home and threatened him. As I understood the evidence threats included that they knew where his parents lived, and where his parents conduct their business. He was also given instructions on the delivery that he had to make.

33. Further, the offender raised the issue of non-exculpatory duress with Dr Dornan, the author of the Psychological Report, Exhibit 1 on sentence. I note in particular paragraphs 29 to 34 inclusive and paragraph 49 of the report.

34. The offender was extensively cross-examined by the Crown. It was put to the offender by the Crown that the offender’s evidence was all lies. The offender did concede in cross-examination that part of the reason he participated in the enterprise was to obtain drugs for himself.

35. Noting the offender’s evidence on this aspect of the case, the fact that it was mentioned to the author of the psychological report and the fact that the offender maintained his position under extensive cross-examination I am satisfied on balance that the offender should get the benefit of non-exculpatory duress as a mitigating factor.

36. While non-exculpatory duress is a matter in mitigation reducing the seriousness of the criminality and also reducing the moral culpability, it is not a matter to which is assigned a numerical discount. Rather it is a consideration in the instinctive synthesis process of determining the appropriate sentence. It occurs to me that determining the weight to be given to non-exculpatory duress involves an undesirable but unavoidable degree of imprecision. Words describing the weight given to such a factor include slight, some, meaningful, substantial, and very substantial. In the matter presently under consideration part of the motivation of the offender becoming involved in the enterprise was to obtain drugs for himself. In all the circumstances of this matter the aspect of non-exculpatory duress attains some weight.

37. The offender also gave evidence that he was remorseful about his involvement in the enterprise. He said that drugs had absolutely destroyed his life and while in gaol he pondered how ice (methylamphetamine) had destroyed his life and that the substance was “absolutely destructive”. At paragraph 50 of the psychological report Dr Dornan notes that the offender “…reported that he was remorseful for his actions and stated that he accepted full responsibility for his behaviour…”. In these circumstances I am more than satisfied on balance that the offender is entitled to a finding that he is remorseful.

38. Further, the offender gave evidence that he has been on the buprenorphine or “Bupe” programme in custody, which has assisted him and he wishes to continue with that treatment upon his eventual release. He has not participated in any rehabilitation programmes while in custody.

39. The evidence of the offender also included that he still owes the drug debt and that upon his release he would prefer to move to another state where no one knows him, however, in the short term on release he is able to live with his father in the Penrith area. He has an offer of employment.

40. I turn now to the report of Dr Dornan, Exhibit 1 on sentence. As I observed at the sentence hearing the report is prolix to the point of almost rambling in places. However, a number of matters can be distilled from the report. I have already dealt with the issues of remorse and non-exculpatory duress.

41. Despite his parents separating, it seems the offender enjoyed a good upbringing. Although initially feeling resentful towards his father because of limited contact he had with his father in his formative years he has since reconciled with his father. His mother re-partnered and the offender described his stepfather as “a good man”. The offender conceded that there was a distinct lack of supervision when he was younger because of the long hours that his mother worked.

42. The offender reported to Dr Dornan that he began associating with an anti-social peer group, the members of which endorsed a drug using lifestyle. He saw this as a way of “rebelling against the world”. He began using cannabis at the age of 14 as a way of attempting to fit in. Between 14 and 16 years of age the offender began to experiment with other substances including methyl- amphetamine. His behaviour became increasingly more aggressive and violent as a result. He now reflects that at this time he was “immature and stupid”.

31. At paragraph 23 of the report it is noted the offender was happy in primary school. However the sentence assessment report notes that the offender was sexually abused by a teacher at school. There is no mention of this in the psychological report. The Crown Prosecutor cross-examined the offender, at least as I understood the cross examination, to the effect that there was no such abuse and that it was something the offender disclosed to make his subjective case stronger.

32. The offender responded quite passionately to the questions by the Crown Prosecutor. Further, the offender said to the Crown Prosecutor that it was because of this abuse he commenced using drugs in his teenage years. The offender also said a little later that he felt disrespected. In all of the circumstances and noting what was uncovered by the Royal Commission I am satisfied on balance that the offender was subject to that abuse.

33. On this issue I understood Mr Michie to concede in the course of his submissions that, “we are not in Bugmy and Fernando territory”. I understood from this concession that counsel for the offender was not submitting at what have become known in shorthand as the “Bugmy factors” are enlivened. This is an appropriate concession in the circumstances of this case. Be that as it may the abuse suffered by the offender must be part of the overall subjective mix.

34. Returning to the report, Exhibit 1 on sentence, at paragraph 28 it is noted that the offender became unemployed and began selling methylamphetamine as a way of funding his own drug use. He was at that point using “a ball a day”. I understand the reference to “a ball” is one eighth of an ounce or 3.5 grams.

35. I have already referred to the issue of the offender being stabbed while in custody. The injuries apparently resulted in him needing to be airlifted to a hospital. In these circumstances is not surprising that the offender has developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Further, it is understandable that the offender does not feel safe in custody.

36. The offender has previously completed a course of residential rehabilitation at The Restoration Centre, North Richmond. Dr Dornan reports that the offender commented to him that he (the offender) found the programme highly effective and he was able to remain abstinent from all drugs for the eight months prior to returning to custody.

37. Exhibit 2 on sentence is material from The Restoration Centre. The offender was undertaking that programme from 24 January 2023 until 18 September 2023, a period of very close to 8 months. The report is quite positive and indicates that the offender engaged in the programme and other recreational activities.

38. Dr Dornan goes on to note that the offender reported that he suffered with episodic periods of depression since adolescence. Not surprisingly he began to experience the onset of anxiety and hypervigilance in 2023 after being stabbed in custody. At paragraph 58 of the report Dr Dornan opines that the offender meets the criteria for a diagnosis of Persistent Depressive Disorder as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That diagnosis is repeated at paragraph 64.5. The offender also meets the criteria for stimulant use disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment.

39. At paragraph 64.7 Dr Dornan helpfully sets out that depression is a complex mental health condition that affects not only mood but also cognition and behaviour. It seems that Dr Dornan draws a causal connection between the offending and the depressive illness in that he goes on to say later in paragraph 64.7 that, “this appeared to have affected Mr Domingues’ ability to fully comprehend the consequences of his actions”. Essentially this is repeated at paragraph 64.17 of the report.

40. Further, Dr Dornan opines the depressive illness has the potential of making custody more onerous for the offender but the post-traumatic stress disorder will likely result in imprisonment weighing more heavily. This goes to the issue of special circumstances. For completeness I also note the impact of the COVID pandemic on persons in custody, which also goes to a finding of special circumstances.

41. A number of recommendations are made towards the end of the report, going mostly to recommendations for ongoing treatment and counselling. Clearly, there should be a reasonably generous finding of special circumstances made. There is a need for an extended period of supervision to ensure that the offender receives appropriate treatment and counselling and the partial accumulation of sentence as well as other matters raised within these remarks including in the paragraph immediately above.

42. Given the record of the offender and the breach of conditional liberty, I am not prepared to find that the offender is unlikely to reoffend. While there are some very positive signs, I am not prepared at this point in time to make a finding that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation. Much will depend on the manner in which he engages with the appropriate agencies on his release.

Sentence Assessment Report (SAR)

55. The report notes that the offender’s pattern of offending has escalated over time. The issue of non-exculpatory duress is raised with the author of the SAR. The report confirms that the offender is on the monthly buprenorphine depot injection programme and that he wishes to continue that upon his release. I have already dealt with the issue relating to the offender’s claim that he was sexually abused during his primary school years. The report also notes that the offender was subject to parole at the time of the commission of the offences.

Submissions

56. Both parties provided comprehensive written submissions which were supplemented by oral submissions. I have dealt with the subjective features advanced by counsel for the offender and I have found in his favour on the issues of non-exculpatory duress. I have earlier set out my findings and the reasons for those findings as to the seriousness of the offending. I accept that the impact of general and specific deterrence is ameliorated, but not eliminated because of the mental health conditions suffered by the offender. The oral submissions were essentially directed to these issues.

57. The Crown submitted in oral submissions that the offender’s evidence was essentially all lies and that I could not place any weight on any of the offender’s evidence. In oral submissions the Crown put that the offender’s evidence had three features namely that he “minimised”, “pathologised” and “apologised”. The offender was far from an impressive witness. There is some substance to the Crown’s oral submission that when the offender was giving evidence of the threats made against him he commenced to say “a couple” which was changed to a “carload” of persons. I acknowledge that there is a possibility that the offender was exaggerating, but for reasons already given I accept on balance that the non-exculpatory duress is made out.

General Remarks

58. In passing sentence I will need to give proper regard and effect to sections 3A and 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Section 3A sets out the purposes of punishment, namely:

1. To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence;

2. To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences;

3. To protect the community from the offender;

4. To promote rehabilitation of the offender;

5. To make the offender accountable for his or her actions;

6. To denounce the conduct of the offender

7. To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

59. Section 5(1) provides in effect that a court should not impose any sentence of imprisonment unless having considered all possible alternatives the court concludes that no other sentence is appropriate.

60. Despite the relatively strong subjective case, given the offending, the maximum penalties provided, the criminal history and the breach of conditional liberty I am firmly of the opinion that no other sentence than imprisonment is appropriate in this matter. Further, essentially for those same reasons, the sentence must be one of full time imprisonment. I did not understand counsel for the offender to submit otherwise.

61. There is a real issue of totality to be considered. Further, the offender has spent time in custody bail refused and has spent eight months in quasi custody. Mr Michie for the offender submits in written submissions that the court could commence the sentence on 25 April 2023. The Crown suggests in written submissions 14 April 2023 as an appropriate commencement date. The date suggested by the Crown slightly favours the offender over the date suggested by Mr Michie and accordingly I will commence the sentence on 14 April 2023.

62. This is an appropriate matter for an aggregate sentence. The sentences that would have been imposed had separate sentences been imposed are:

Count 1 (Deal With Proceeds of Crime) – A total sentence of 2 years 3 months, indicating a starting point of 3 years;

Count 2: (Supply Prohibited Drug) – taking into account the Form 1 matters a total sentence of 18 months, indicating a starting point of 2 years;

Drive while Disqualified (s 166 Certificate)(sequence 2)– a Total sentence of 8 months, indicating a starting point of 11 months;

Possess Prohibited Drug (methylamphetamine) (s 166 Certificate) (sequence 12) – a total sentence of 6 months, indicating a starting point of 9 months with some rounding down.

63. If separate sentences were imposed there would need to be some degree of partial accumulation to note the different offending, particularly so far as the matters attaching to the s 166 Certificate is concerned. For reasons already outlined there should be a reasonably generous finding of special circumstances.

Orders

64. In respect of the offences to which the offender has pleaded guilty he is convicted. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 10 months (22 months).

65. The non-parole period will commence on 14 April 2023 and will expire on 13 February 2025. The balance of term on parole of 1 year 5 months (17 months) will commence on 14 February 2025 and will expire on 13 July 2026.

66. The offender will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period and I recommend that release. Although it is a matter for the parole authorities I recommend that any release to parole be conditioned that the offender be supervised and obey all reasonable directions relating to ongoing treatment and counselling for substance abuse issues.

67. In respect of the charges of Driver State False Name or Home Address (Sequence 1) and Drive Vehicle with Illicit Drug Present in Blood or Oral Sample (Sequence 11) the offender is convicted but no further penalty is imposed pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

68. In respect of the charges of Drive While Disqualified and Drive Vehicle with Illicit Drug in Blood or Oral Sample the offender is disqualified for the automatic period in respect of both offences. It is the court’s intention that the disqualification periods be served concurrently.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 April 2024