R v Field; R v Sibbritt; R v Tran; R v Ting; R v Yueng

[2016] NSWDC 411

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Field; R v Sibbritt; R v Tran; R v Ting; R v Yueng [2016] NSWDC 411
Hearing dates:	8/7/16, 28/7/16, 29/7/16
Date of orders:	15 October 0016
Decision date:	14 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	FIELD: AGGREGATE SENTENCE: Special Circumstances found. Convicted in respect of each charge and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 8 ½ years with a 6 year NPP commencing on 15/10/15 and expiring on 14/10/21. The balance of term of is 2 ½ years to commence on 14/10/21 and to expire on 14/4/24. Eligible for release to parole on 14/10/21. I recommend that parole be supervised by NSW Community Corrections for the balance of term with particular regard to counselling and/or treatment in respect of drug abuse and should include random urinalysis for the balance of term. SIBBRITT: AGGREGATE SENTENCE: Special Circumstances found. Convicted and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 7 years with a NPP of 5 years to commence on 1/7/15 and to expire on 30/6/20. The balance of term of 2 years is to commence on 30/6/20 and to expire on 30/6/22. Eligible for release to parole on 30/6/20. I recommend that parole be supervised by NSW Community Corrections with particular regard to counselling and/or treatment in respect of drug abuse. Supervision should include random urinalysis. YEUNG: Form 1 matter taken into account on sentence imposed. Convicted. Special circumstances found. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months, comprising of a NPP of 3 years and 9 months to commence on 1/8/16 and to expire on 30/4/20, and a balance of term of 1 year and 9 months to commence on 1/5/20 and to expire on 31/1/22. Eligible for release to parole on 30/4/20. I recommend that parole be supervised by NSW Community Corrections with particular regard to training in respect of future employment and counselling and/or treatment in respect of drug abuse, and should include random urinalysis. TING: Form 1 matter taken into account on sentence imposed. Convicted. Special circumstances found. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a total term of 4 years, comprising a NPP of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 1/7/15 and to expire on 31/12/17, and a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months to expire on 30/6/19. To be released to parole on 31/12/17. Parole to be supervised by NSW Community Correction with particular regard to counselling and/or treatment in respect of drug abuse, and should include random urinalysis for the balance of term. TRAN: Convicted. Special circumstances found. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, comprising of a NPP of 18 months to commence on 1/7/15 and to expire on 31/12/16, and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 31/12/16 and to expire on 31/12/17. To be released to parole on 31/12/16.Parole to be supervised by NSW Community Corrections with particular regard to counselling and/or treatment in respect of drug abuse, and I note that such supervision should include random urinalysis for the balance of term.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence – manufacture prohibited drug large commercial quantity – supply prohibited drug commercial quantity – supply prohibited drug on ongoing basis – methylamphetamine – role - parity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Thomson and Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383 Callahan v R [2006] NSWCCA 5
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Joshua James Field Kristy Sibbritt Cam Tang Simon Tran Kwun Yip Ting Gilbert Wai Kit Yeung
Representation:	Counsel: Crown: Mr M Barr Field: Mr P Rowe Sibbritt: Ms S Hall Ting: Mr R Rajalingam Tran: Mr J Payten, sol Yeung: Mr G Brady SC   Solicitors: Crown: Ms T Collison Field: Mr G Walters Sibbritt: Mr S K Jawas Tran: Ryan & Payten Criminal Specialists Yeung: Mr S Alexander
File Number(s):	014/00203277, 015/00193422, 014/00203320, 015/00193421, 015/00193277, 015/00193424, 015/00193427

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Joshua Field, Kristy Sibbritt, Gilbert Yeung, Kwun Yip Ting and Cam Tang Tran each appear for sentence in respect of a variety of charges all involving either the manufacture or supply of the prohibited drug, methylamphetamine.

2. Joshua Field appears in relation to a total of six charges and one additional charge to be taken into account on a Form 1. Those charges are, in chronological sequence: 9 July 2014, being an accessory after the fact to a serious indictable offence, being the manufacture of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, being 19,343 grams of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty provided by s 350 of the Crimes Act for such an offence is five years’ imprisonment. A large commercial quantity at the time was 1 kilogram or more, although the legislature has, as of approximately September 2015, reduced the large commercial quantity qualifying amount to half a kilogram. At the time of this offence a large commercial quantity was 1 kilogram.

3. In addition, the second matter for which he is to be sentenced is supplying a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine, being 385.1 grams. A commercial quantity is 250 or more grams. The maximum penalty provided by legislation is 20 years’ imprisonment. There is a standard non‑parole period of ten years.

4. In addition, there is a further offence commenced by way of an ex officio indictment in respect of an offence on 3 September 2014 of manufacturing a prohibited drug, being more than an indictable quantity and being 24.61 grams of methylamphetamine contrary to s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty provided by legislation is 15 years’ imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units. There is no relevant standard non‑parole period. An indictable quantity is 5 grams or more.

5. The fourth matter is supply of a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. There were three separate supplies of approximately 80 grams each on each occasion for $18,000. The total quantity involved was 259.97 grams of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty provided by the legislation is 20 years’ imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units. There is no standard non‑parole period provided in respect of such an offence.

6. When being sentenced for that offence, the Court is asked to take into account a further offence on a Form 1, being supply of a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, being 0.61 grams of methylamphetamine. That matter would have been dealt with, if it stood alone, in the Local Court, where the maximum penalty provided is two years.

7. In addition, there is a further offence of supplying a prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The penalty is again a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units, and there is a standard non‑parole period of ten years provided by the legislation.

8. The final offence is a further offence of supply a prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity, that is, 282 grams of methylamphetamine and the maximum penalty is the same as for the last mentioned offence.

9. Kristy Sibbritt appears to be sentenced in relation to five offences and there is a Form 1 to be taken into account in respect of one of those offences. The first offence is being an accessory after the fact to a serious indictable offence, being the manufacture of a prohibited drug, being more than a large commercial quantity. The quantity was 19,343 grams of methylamphetamine. A commercial quantity is one kilogram. The maximum penalty provided by s 350 of the Crimes Act for such an offence is five years’ imprisonment.

10. The second offence is supply prohibited drug being more than a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The quantity is 385.1 grams of methylamphetamine, the commercial quantity being 250 grams or more. The maximum penalty is 20 years and there is a standard non‑parole period provided by the legislation of ten years.

11. In addition, there is a further offence commenced by way of ex officio indictment of take part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, being more than an indictable quantity contrary to s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, the quantity being 24.61 grams of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty available is 15 years’ imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units. The indictable quantity is 5 more grams.

12. The fourth offence is take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Act, being 282 grams of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty is 20 years and/or 3,500 penalty units and there is a standard non‑parole period of ten years. When being sentenced in respect of that offence, the Court is asked to take into account a further offence contained on a Form 1, being take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being more than an indictable quantity contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, being 103.10 grams of methylamphetamine. When dealt with separately, such an offence attracts a maximum penalty of 15 years and/or 2,000 penalty units.

13. The final offence in relation to Sibbritt is take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, being 279.29 grams of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty is 20 years and/or 3,500 penalty units. The legislation provides a standard non‑parole period of ten years. The commercial quantity is 250 grams.

14. Gilbert Wai Yeung appears for sentence in respect of a single offence, being supply of a prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, the quantity being 282 grams. The maximum penalty is 20 years and/or 3,500 penalty units and there is a standard non‑parole period provided by the legislation of ten years. In being sentenced in respect of that offence, he asks the Court to take into account a further matter contained on a Form 1, also being supply of a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, being a quantity of 279.29 grams of methylamphetamine.

15. Kwun Yip Ting appears for sentence in respect of a single offence, being supply of a prohibited drug, of more than a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Act, being 282 grams of methylamphetamine. The maximum is 20 years and/or 3,500 penalty units and the legislation provides for a ten year standard non‑parole period.

16. When being sentenced in respect of that matter he asks the Court to take into account a further matter contained on a Form 1, being a further offence of supply a prohibited drug of more than a commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the Act, being 279.29 grams of methylamphetamine.

17. Cam Tang Tran appears for sentence in respect of a single offence, being supply of a prohibited drug, being more than an indictable quantity contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum provided for such an offence is 15 years and/or 2,000 penalty units. There is no applicable standard non‑parole period. The quantity was 103.1 grams of methylamphetamine. There was no Form 1 offence in respect of Mr Tran.

18. The Court has been provided in respect of the sentences with nine separate sets of facts in relation to the five offenders. I have endeavoured to combine the facts into a single set of facts, and for that purpose I note that not all of the facts that I will refer to are relevant to all of the offenders. It is necessary to provide some material by way of background, in particular to the accessory after the fact offences in respect of Mr Field and Ms Sibbritt.

19. On 12 March 2014, Thomas Levar became the registered tenant of Unit 170/398 Pitt Street, Sydney, being a 30 level apartment complex. At all relevant times that was Mr Levar’s place of residence. On 15 May 2014, Kristy Sibbritt and Joshua Field signed a lease for Unit 20 at 48 to 68 Wentworth Park, Glebe. At all relevant times this was their place of residence. On 8 July 2014, Levar was arrested and charged with the supply of methylamphetamine. He was released on police bail. His phone was kept by police and when looking through the phone they located drug-related messages.

20. During the evening of 8 July 2014, a male named Jason Pereira came under the attention of staff from 398 Pitt Street for parking his blue Mitsubishi Magna so that it was obstructing traffic. Police were called and he moved his car. At about midnight Pereira entered Unit 60/398 Pitt Street. He did not know the occupants, who were all in bed and were woken by his presence. Security was called and he left without incident. He was identified by security as a person they had dealt with earlier regarding the parking issue. Unit 60 was in the same position as Thomas Levar’s apartment, albeit several floors below. It appears that Pereira had entered Unit 60, thinking it was Levar’s.

21. Police were notified of the incident and began patrolling the area looking for the Mitsubishi Magna. At about 1am the vehicle was located on Oxford Street, Darlinghurst. They activated their warning lights and pulled up behind the vehicle. Levar immediately exited from the passenger side. The officers approached the driver, Pereira, and Levar. Levar was questioned and told police that he had only known Pereira for about five minutes and was just getting a lift down the road. He was unable to produce any identification. At the time of speaking to Levar, police observed a bulge protruding from his jacket pocket. He denied anything was in the pocket. He was then searched and a plastic resealable bag containing 166.1 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 79.5% was located. Three smaller bags were found in other pockets. They contained a total of 9.55 grams of methylamphetamine, bringing the total to 175.68 grams, having a street value of approximately $42,000.

22. He was also found to be in possession of three mobile phones. He was in the circumstances arrested and charged.

23. At 8.18am on 9 July 2014, Levar was granted bail by police. In the hours after his release police began looking at the phones that were seized. One contained approximately 700 text messages. Many related to the supply of prohibited drugs.

LARGE COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURE OF METHYLAMPHETAMINE - 19,343 GRAMS

24. Also located on Levar’s phone were plans for a methylamphetamine lab and instructions for making methylamphetamine. As a result police suspected that Levar was using his unit for the manufacture of drugs. While they were waiting for a search warrant to be authorised they obtained CCTV from the management of 398 Pitt Street and in particular from outside Levar’s unit.

25. A male, John Poniris, was shown entering and leaving the unit on a number of occasions between 7:48pm on 8 July 2014 and 2.48am on 9 July 2014. He had also been in the company of Levar and others at the unit during that time. The footage showed that at 1.53am on 9 July, Kristy Sibbritt and two other males entered Unit 170. Sibbritt and one of the males exited the unit at 2.05am.

26. The recording showed that at 5.34am on 9 July (that is, four hours after Mr Levar’s arrest but prior to his release on bail at 8.18am) the male, John Poniris, exited Unit 170 in possession of numerous boxes and bags. He moved the items downstairs, loading them into a taxi and left. At 8.32am. Levar arrived back at his unit 14 minutes after his release on bail. At 9.59am Levar left his apartment in possession of a large sports bag and did not return.

27. At about 10am, John Poniris returned to Unit 170 and at 10.44am left again. On this occasion he was pushing a trolley stacked high with plastic storage bins and bags, including a distinctive blue and white striped bag. He was also in possession of a 40 litre plastic bucket and a laundry basket. When he reached the lobby, an Asian woman assisted him to move the items outside and load them into a taxi. He directed the driver to a location in Wiley Park where the items were unloaded onto the footpath. A short time later he and his female associate made arrangements to transport themselves and the various items to 48-64 Wentworth Park Road, Pyrmont. Unit 20 at that address was at the time leased by Kristy Sibbritt and Joshua Field. The items that John Poniris had removed from Levar’s apartment were carried into the unit.

28. By about midday police viewing the CCTV were of the belief that John Poniris was in the process of removing the clandestine lab from Levar’s apartment, however they were still waiting on the search warrant to be signed. They therefore conducted covert surveillance on the lobby area of 398 Pitt Street.

29. At 2.39pm Poniris was observed carrying a number of items from a lift into the lobby. As before, he hailed a taxi and loaded the items into it. The Asian female was not with him on this occasion. He then directed the taxi to the Wentworth Park premises. Upon arrival police observed Field assisting Poniris to unload the items and place them on the ground outside the unit block. After observing this for a short time, police approached Field and Poniris and placed them both under arrest.

30. Police then searched the items removed from the taxi. In the bags were numerous pieces of clothing bearing a Fight Gym logo, being a business owned and run by Levar. Also located were a number of items commonly used in clandestine methylamphetamine labs, including:

• A freeze dryer machine to promote the formation of methylamphetamine crystals.

• A condenser.

• Reactionary flasks.

• Heating equipment.

31. On Poniris, police located a small set of electronic scales, five mobile phones and six small resealable bags containing a total of 8.28 grams of methylamphetamine. It was later discovered that one of the phones had a video recording of a process for refinement of methylamphetamine. Poniris and Field were conveyed to Sydney City Police Station.

32. While police were outside the Wentworth Park premises, Kristy Sibbritt exited the unit complex. A senior constable stopped her briefly to ascertain her identity. She gave her name and the Unit 20 number. Unit 20 is on the second floor of the complex. She then entered a taxi and departed. At that time, police had not connected her or Unit 20 to the actions of Poniris and Field.

33. A few minutes later, police entered the complex and spoke with the building manager, who resided in the unit directly opposite number 20. She reported suspicious activity at Unit 20, including a large number of people coming and going. She also said that in the moments prior to speaking with police she had heard someone running to the fire escape, and what sounded like objects being dropped. Police inspected the fire escape and immediately noticed a strong chemical smell. They also observed a number of items stacked together at the top of the stairs. A guard was put on the stairwell while one officer went downstairs to call the chemical operations officers.

34. A few minutes later an officer entered the lift at ground level and immediately saw Kristy Sibbritt had returned to the location and engaged her in conversation. She admitted that she had seen Field being arrested and that they were in a relationship. When they reached level 2, the sound of a toilet flushing could be heard coming from Unit 20. Concerned that evidence was being destroyed, police gained entry. It was immediately apparent that the unit contained drugs and equipment used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Sibbritt and a female were located inside the unit.

SUPPLY 385.1 GRAMS OF METHYLAMPHETAMINE (SIBBRITT AND FIELD)

35. Police conducted a comprehensive search of the unit. The Asian female who had helped Poniris to move items in and out of taxis during the morning was present. She was released without charge. On top of the fridge, police located a bag of white crystals, being 385.1 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 79%. Police also located 1.31 grams of methylamphetamine located in several small resealable bags on a table in the lounge.

35. There was also equipment consistent with the supply of drugs including two sets of electronic scales and small resealable plastic bags.

MANUFACTURE EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 20/48-68 WENTWORTH STREET

37. Police also located a large amount of equipment and liquids that are used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Some of the items included:

• Three 4 litre containers of Diggers demineralised water.

• One 20 litre bucket three-quarters full of brown liquid.

• 3.5 litres of formic acid.

• Two 500 gram packs of caustic soda.

• One 5 litre bottle of hydrochloric acid.

• A pressure cooker containing clear liquid.

• A ceramic hotplate with white residue.

• A fan.

• Funnels.

• Glass equipment and tubing.

• 125 mls bottle of isopropyl alcohol.

• 125 mls bottle of isopropyl alcohol.

38. Chemical operations police attended the location and searched the stairwell. There they located numerous pieces of equipment and liquids involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamine including the laundry basket (containing a 20 litre round bottom reaction flask) and the blue stripy bag that Poniris was seen with earlier in the day. Other significant items include:

• a temperature/pH meter,

• 4 glass condensers;

• a 10 litre separating funnel;

• various flasks;

• funnels;

• stands;

• clamps;

• filters and strainers;

• 320 litre plastic pails with various amounts of coloured liquids;

• an 11 litre pail;

• a pressure cooker;

• 4 litres of Diggers Turpentine; and various liquids, many of which contained methylamphetamine of varying purity.

39. Many, if not all of the items, had been removed from the Levar’s unit by Poniris earlier that day. Fingerprints belonging to both Field and Poniris were located on various items located at the address. Police removed the s-bend to the kitchen sink; testing showed that this had liquid methylamphetamine in it, consistent with efforts to destroy evidence.

THE SEARCH OF 170/398 PITT STREET

40. Shortly after the search of Sibbritt and Field’s unit began, detectives also executed a search warrant on Levar’s unit. Upon entry, a strong chemical smell was detected; bottles of chemicals and drug manufacture equipment were located all throughout the apartment, as was equipment consistent with drug use. In the main bedroom, a ventilation system was located, and throughout the apartment smoke detectors had been covered with plastic bags to prevent activation.

41. Amongst numerous items the following were located:

• two heating mantles;

• two electric frypans with white meth residue;

• two gas ring burners;

• one 250 ml Pyrex jug containing brown crystal substance;

• two 4 litre Diggers Acetone; one litre Pyrex jug;

• two 4 litre Diggers Methylated Spirits;

• one 4 litre Diggers Xylene;

• 3 metal sieves;

• 4 litres of Diggers Thinner;

• 1 litre of ammonia;

• 1 litre of Diggers Paraffin Oil;

• two 4 litres Diggers Demineralised Water;

• two 11 litre plastic buckets;

• approximately 100 filter papers;

• two 500 grams of caustic soda;

• 1 litre of methylated spirits;

• 5 litres of hydrochloric acid; and

• various liquids, many of which contained methylamphetamine of varying purity.

42. Fingerprints belonging to both Field and Poniris were located on various items located at that address.

EXPERT OPINION ON MANUFACTURE

43. A chemist involved in the analysis of the items located at the two premises opined that the totality of the equipment and the various chemicals located were proof that methylamphetamine was being manufactured.

Evidence of primary stages:

44. There are two ways of manufacturing methylamphetamine that relate to the chemicals present in this case. The equation is basically ephedrine and/or pseudoephedrine + iodine + plus hydro-phosphorous or red phosphorous = methylamphetamine.

45. At 170 Pitt Street, two items containing ephedrine were located; they were each in quantities of approximately 10 grams. At Wentworth Park a large pail was located at the stairwell which contained 3,032 grams of liquid that contained both methylamphetamine and ephedrine. None of these compounds contained hydro-phosphorous acid or iodine, suggesting that these compounds related to the early stage of manufacture.

Evidence that extraction had taken place:

46. Once methylamphetamine has been produced it initially exists in a liquid compound and needs to be extracted; this is commonly done by adding caustic soda which causes the methylamphetamine to separate from the mixture as an oil which can then be extracted using a solvent such as Xylene. Xylene was located at 170 Pitt Street and caustic soda was located at both Pitt Street and Wentworth Park.

47. Chemists established that of the items located at Wentworth Park, both in the unit and the stairwell, there was a total of 47,970 grams of waste material. This material contained methylamphetamine in an unknown concentration. Waste material is what is left over after methylamphetamine has been extracted; it may either be intended for waste or further extraction procedures to obtain the small amounts of remaining methylamphetamine. A significant proportion of the waste material had been transported from Unit 170 to Wentworth Park by Poniris.

Liquid containing methylamphetamine pre-refinement:

48. In other containers, chemists located liquid containing higher amounts of methylamphetamine; this liquid was located in 17 different containers. It weighed a total of 17,849 grams. Of the couple of items that were tested, the purity ranged from 1% to 7%. It is not known at what stage of manufacture the liquid was at, however the processes could be used to extract the methylamphetamine from that liquid. The vast majority of this was located in the stairwell at Wentworth Street but had been transported from Levar’s apartment by Poniris in the blue and white striped bag.

Evidence of extraction taking place:

49. Once methylamphetamine has been extracted, in order to be marketable it is ordinarily made into a solid which can be done by the application of heat evaporating all but the methylamphetamine solids. In an alternative process heat can be used to refine methylamphetamine through a crystallisation method. Both locations had multiple items that were used in one or both of these processes, almost all of them had methylamphetamine residue on them. At Levar’s apartment two electric frypans were located; at Field and Sibbritt’s unit the following were located: a pressure cooker; a ceramic hotplate; an electric wok; hairdryer; and fan.

50. In addition to the heating equipment, which is suggestive of a refinement process, chemists located two items which actually contained crystals. One of these was located at Pitt Street and weighed 369 grams. It contained methylamphetamine, but the purity was not tested. The other item was located at Wentworth Park; it weighed 3,169 grams, and consisted of 32% methylamphetamine. This was therefore a total of 4,438 grams of methylamphetamine-containing substance in the process of refinement. If refined to 100% purity, this would result in no less than 1,012 grams of methylamphetamine and almost certainly more, as the 369 grams is not included in this calculation, given that its purity was not tested.

Solid marketable product:

51. Methylamphetamine in crystal form was located at Pitt Street in the amount of 113.5 grams; this was located in varying amounts in equipment used to extract/refine methylamphetamine.

Calculation:

52. Through this manufacture operation, the participants had already refined and extracted,

• 113.5 grams of marketable methylamphetamine. They were in the final stages of refining

• 3,169 grams of methylamphetamine, which could theoretically realise 1,012 grams of pure methylamphetamine

• 369 grams of methylamphetamine. The purity was not tested, so it is unknown how much pure methylamphetamine could have been realised.

53. There was a total of 17,849 grams of liquid from which the methylamphetamine could be extracted.

54. The total manufacture is estimated to be equal to 113.5 grams + 3,169 grams + 369 grams + 17,849 grams = 19,343 grams of methylamphetamine. There was also a total of 47,970 grams of waste liquid which contained methylamphetamine, from which it would be possible to extract a small additional amount of methylamphetamine from the liquid. That amount was not used in the above calculation.

55. Those facts of course concern the offenders Field and Sibbritt and not Mr Yeung, Mr Ting, or Mr Tran. The offenders Field and Sibbritt are not charged with the manufacture of the prohibited drug, but with being accessories after the fact of such manufacture as evident from the removal of various items of equipment and solutions and chemicals to their premises in Wentworth Park, Glebe. Either they were aware that Mr Levar had been arrested, or they were sufficiently aware of the operation and trusted by others to take part in a prearranged removal of equipment from the Pitt Street premises to the Wentworth Park premises. There is no evidence that they were aware that Mr Levar had been arrested, but their conduct as accessories after the fact, as outlined in the Facts, demonstrates that they must have known and been trusted in relation to the dismantling of the lab and its removal to premises where it might be anticipated it was intended to continue the manufacturing process. Their role in doing so makes their offending in respect of the offence of being an accessory after the fact an offence in the mid‑range of objective seriousness.

56. The following facts again relate only to Joshua Field and Kristy Sibbritt, being the counts I previously referred to as “ex-officio counts” in respect to the manufacture of a prohibited drug being more than an indictable quantity, being 24.61 grams of methylamphetamine. The charge in respect to Mr Field was one of manufacturing a prohibited drug, and in relation to Ms Sibbritt was of knowingly take part in the manufacture, both offences being contrary to s 24(1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act.

57. The Agreed Facts are as follows, on 2 September 2014, management of the Adina Apartments, located at 183 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, identified a number of abnormal routines and behaviour relating to Apartment 55. Management made a number of observations relating to the apartment, namely a strong chemical smell emanating from within the apartment, and due to safety concerns within the apartment identified a number of sheets hung over the windows and plastic taped over the fire alarms. A review of the building’s closed-circuit television footage identified a large number of comings and goings from within the unit at late hours of the evening. On that day, building management contacted police to attend and investigate.

58. Police attended on 2 September 2014 and made a number of inquiries into the activities within the unit. It was established that on 28 August 2014 Kristy Sibbritt had checked into the unit using her driver’s licence. A review of the CCTV at the apartments was conducted and police identified her and Joshua Field as the occupants of Apartment 55. The CCTV review revealed Field paying cash for the room at 11.15 on 28 August 2014.

59. Between the hours of 12.50 and 5.55 on 2 September 2014, Field, Sibbritt, and a male known to police as Cuong Pham, and three other males repeatedly entered and exited the Adina Hotel. All persons were seen to carry varying sized bags in and out of the hotel.

60. At about 1.15pm on 2 September 2014, Sibbritt and Field were recorded on CCTV leaving the apartments carrying various bags, and entering a taxi. Room 55 was not occupied again until Field and Sibbritt’s subsequent arrest on 3 September 2014.

61. At 9pm police executed a search warrant on Unit 55 and during the conduct of that search warrant a number of items consistent with the manufacture of prohibited drugs were identified and seized. The chemical operations unit provided specialist advice and assistance to process the crime scene, numerous pieces of equipment and liquids involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamine were identified and seized.

MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 55/183 COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE

62. Police located a large amount of equipment and liquids used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The items included:

• portable fuel filters;

• vacuum sealed bags;

• funnels with white staining;

• a plastic container with brown staining and “Poison” written on the sides;

• two pH probes;

• a pH test machine with a pH controller box;

• Harris filter paper;

• a bottle of approximately 200 mls LTC pH and calibration;

• plastic tubing;

• an electric air pump;

• Aquapro Waterfeature Pump;

• a metal stand with recessed area;

• a 20 litre plastic Maxi Pail buckets;

• grey buckets containing a small amount of brown liquid hydrochloric acid;

• 1,000 ml conical flask;

• a vacuum condenser head;

• circular glass head apparatus with measuring intervals to 300 mls;

• circular glass bowl with a large amount of white residue stuck to the basin sides;

• plastic hairnets covering smoke detectors;

• an electronic pump;

• a tablecloth covering windows;

• a 2 kg bottle of caustic soda, half full;

• a 3 litre plastic bottle labelled “Mildura” containing 2,486 grams of liquid methylamphetamine with a purity of 0.3%;

• a 1 litre plastic bottle labelled Diggers Acetone containing 1,043 grams of liquid methylamphetamine with a purity of 0.4%;

• a 1 litre plastic bottle labelled KCB Methylated Spirits containing 1,041 grams of liquid methylamphetamine with a purity of 0.4%;

• a 750 ml glass bottle labelled Bickford’s Lemon, Lime & Bitters containing 742 grams of liquid methylamphetamine with a purity of 0.4%; and

• a 600 ml plastic water bottle labelled Cool Ridge Spring Water containing 429 grams of liquid methylamphetamine with a purity of 0.7%.

ARREST AND CHARGE OF FIELD AND SIBBRITT

63. At around 12am on 3 September 2014, Field returned to the premises and was stopped by police as he approached the door to Unit 55. He was arrested for his suspected involvement in the manufacture of prohibited drugs. At 12.05am Sibbritt was approached by the police in the foyer of the building and placed under arrest for her suspected involvement in the manufacture of prohibited drugs.

64. Forensic analysis was conducted in the unit. Fingerprints matching those of Joshua Field were located within the unit on a glass bowl containing white methylamphetamine residue; DNA matching that of Kristy Sibbritt was also located on a drinking straw within the unit. After further advice from specialist police processing the apartment, police discontinued Sibbritt’s arrest, and she was released from police custody pending further investigation. Field was not charged with the manufacture of prohibited drugs and was advised by police that they would be conducting further investigations. The manufacture charge was subsequently proceeded with by way of an ex-officio count of which each of the offenders was informed on 10 March 2016, and each entered a plea of guilty six days later.

EXPERT OPINION ON THE MANUFACTURE

65. A New South Wales Police Force chemist determined that methylamphetamine manufacture had taken place.

Evidence that extraction had taken place:

66. Once methylamphetamine has been produced, it initially exists in a liquid compound and needs to be extracted; this is commonly done by adding caustic soda which causes the methylamphetamine to separate from the mixtures and oil. Caustic soda was located at Unit 55. Items located within the unit contained a total 5,741 grams of waste material. This material contained methylamphetamine in varying purity. Waste material is what is left over after methylamphetamine has been extracted, it may either be intended for waste or further extraction procedures to obtain the small amounts of remaining methylamphetamine.

Evidence of extraction taking place:

67. Once methylamphetamine has been extracted, in order to make it marketable it is ordinarily made into a solid. This can be done by the application of heat which evaporates all but the methylamphetamine solids. In an alternative process heat can be used to refine methylamphetamine through a crystallisation process.

68. Unit 55 had multiple items that were used in one or both of these processes; almost all of them had methylamphetamine residue on them. During the process involved in the manufacture of prohibited drugs, hazardous vapours or fumes are produced. These vapours can condense on surfaces such as walls and ceilings, leaving residues. Methamphetamine can be found on surfaces within a premises from coming in contact with methylamphetamine, being in proximity of the manufacture of methylamphetamine, and being in proximity to the smoking of methylamphetamine.

69. During analysis of the unit, a swab of the cooktop area of the unit contained methylamphetamine, amphetamine, and N-isopropylbenzylamine. A swab of the range hood contained methylamphetamine and N‑isopropylbenzylamine; a swab of the intake area of the air conditioner contained methylamphetamine and N-isopropylbenzylamine.

Solid Marketable Product:

70. Methylamphetamine in crystal form was located in the unit in an amount of 2.91 grams; this was located in a glass bowl used to extract/refine methylamphetamine.

Calculation:

71. There was a total of 5,741 grams of waste liquid which contained methylamphetamine; it would be possible to extract a small additional amount of methylamphetamine from this liquid. The chemist involved in the analysis of items located at the premises opined that 21.7 grams of methylamphetamine was manufactured within the unit, that amount did not include the 2.19 grams of solid product located. A combination of those two figures gives the total of 24.16 grams, the subject of the charge.

72. The conduct of the offenders involved the manufacture of methylamphetamine in a commercial apartment complex. It involved the release of volatile and toxic fumes contaminating the apartment, and in circumstances where the fire alarms or fire alarm had been covered to prevent it from alerting a fire if one had occurred.

73. The quantity produced, at 24.61 grams of methylamphetamine as estimated, is not a particularly large quantity but it is the offenders’ participation together in the process of manufacturing methylamphetamine in those circumstances which makes this offence a matter in the midrange of objective seriousness despite the small quantity involved. It was fortuitous that the operation was discovered so soon after it had commenced.

74. Finally, I turn to the Agreed Facts relating to each of the five offenders. In February 2015, investigations commenced into the supply of prohibited drugs, namely methylamphetamine. During the course of the investigations Joshua Field, Kristy Sibbritt, Gilbert Wai Kit Yeung and Cam Tang Tran were identified as prohibited drug suppliers of methylamphetamine. Field was in a de facto relationship with Sibbritt and they were known to reside together at 409/37 Amalfi Drive, Wentworth Park Point, New South Wales.

75. Field’s role in relation to the identified drug related offences is that of prohibited drug distributor. Yeung acted in part as a prohibited drug distributor to Field, able to supply him with commercial quantities of prohibited drug. Sibbritt acted to assist Field in the distribution of prohibited drug as identified during this investigation. Tran is the lowest placed associate, able to supply indictable quantities of prohibited drug to Field when he required it.

76. On 17 March 2015, investigators were granted a warrant authorising the use of surveillance devices in respect of the conversations, activities and geographical locations of Field, Sibbritt and Yeung.

77. Throughout the conduct of the investigation between 5 May 2015 and 1 July 2015 numerous surveillance operations were undertaken targeting Field, Sibbritt and Yeung. The operations were supplemented by the interception of the telecommunications services of Field and Sibbritt.

FIELD - H59188316/5 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG ON AN ONGOING BASIS CONTRARY TO S 25A(1) OF THE DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 259.97 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE ON 5, 12 AND 19 MAY 2015

78. On Tuesday 5 May 2015 at 1.36pm, Field entered the front passenger seat of a vehicle in Mill Park Street, Rhodes, where he supplied a female undercover operative with 81.98 grams of methylamphetamine for the sum of $18,000. The vehicle then travelled to the underground car park of 2 Timbrol Avenue, Rhodes.

79. On Tuesday 12 May 2015 at 1.40pm, Field entered the front passenger seat of a vehicle at Mill Park Street, Rhodes, whereby he supplied a female undercover operative with 84 grams of methylamphetamine for a sum of $18,000. The vehicle travelled via Shoreline Drive where it became stationary on the eastern kerb near the intersection of Timbrol Avenue, Rhodes. Field exited the vehicle and walked via the driveway to the underground car park of 2 Timbrol Avenue, Rhodes.

80. On Tuesday 19 May 2015 at 1.50pm, Field was monitored entering the front passenger seat of a vehicle on Shoreline Drive, Rhodes, near the intersection of Timbrol Avenue, where he supplied a female undercover operative with 93.99 grams of methylamphetamine for a sum of $18,000.

81. Those three individual supplies of approximately 80 to 93.99 grams constitute the offence of ongoing supply, relevant only to Mr Field.

82. FIELD - H59188316/4 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG PURSUANT TO S 25(1) OF THE DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT (FORM 1) - 0.61 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

83. Field further supplied on 19 May 2015 0.61 grams of methylamphetamine at no cost to the female undercover operative. After the supply, the vehicle travelled via Shoreline Drive to Timbrol Avenue, where Field exited the vehicle and entered the lobby of 2 Timbrol Avenue.

SIBBRITT - H113450402/1 - TAKE PART IN THE SUPPLY OF PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN AN INDICTABLE QUANTITY PURSUANT TO S 25(1) OF THE DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT (FORM 1) - 103.10 GRAMS

TRAN - H60056580/1 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN INDICTABLE QUANTITY CONTRARY TO S 25(1) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 103.10 GRAMS

84. On Tuesday 2 June 2015, Tran was the subject of electronic and physical monitoring. At 10.27am Field called Tran and arranged for Tran to meet with the female undercover operative who had arranged to purchase an amount of prohibited drug that day. Tran asked, “Have they got any paper (money)?”

85. At 2.26pm Tran called Sibbritt and asked for the phone number of the female drug buyer.

86. At 2.30pm Tran called the female buyer and introduced himself as Simon.

87. At 2.36pm Sibbritt called the female buyer and introduced herself. During this conversation Sibbritt told the buyer that Field had sent his friend “Simon” (Tran) to meet her because “things were a little bit off” with Field. Sibbritt told the buyer that Simon was “all good 100%”.

88. At 2.40pm Sibbritt called Tran. During this conversation Sibbritt told Tran that “it’s all good” and directed Tran to call the female again.

89. At 2.45pm Tran entered the front passenger seat of a vehicle on Shoreline Drive, Rhodes, where he met with the undercover female operative and discussed the supply of prohibited drugs. The vehicle travelled via Shoreline Drive to Rhodes Shopping Centre where Tran exited the vehicle and entered the shopping centre.

90. At 3.06pm Sibbritt called Tran. During this conversation Tran informed Sibbritt that he was nervous. Sibbritt asked Tran if it was “done”. Sibbritt told Tran to call her once it is “done”.

91. At 3.10pm Tran returned to the vehicle where he supplied the female with 103.10 grams of methylamphetamine for a cost of $18,000.

92. At 3.15pm Tran exited the vehicle. At 3.19pm Tran called Sibbritt. During this conversation, Sibbritt asked Tran if it was “all good”. Tran asked where Sibbritt was. Sibbritt asked Tran if he could see her at her place.

FIELD - H59188316/6 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY - S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 279.29 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

SIBBRITT - H113450402/2 - KNOWINGLY TAKE PART IN THE SUPPLY OF PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY CONTRARY TO S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 279.29 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

YEUNG - H59129008/2 - KNOWINGLY TAKE PART IN THE SUPPLY OF PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY - S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT (FORM 1) - 279.29 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

TING - H58929167/2 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY CONTRARY TO S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT (FORM 1) - 279.29 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

93. At 9.32pm on 22 June 2015, Field called Yeung. During this conversation Yeung asked Field, “Is tomorrow still going ahead?”, referring to “the lady”. Field told Yeung that he needs to talk to him about it.

94. On Tuesday 23 June 2015 at 11.50am, Yeung called Sibbritt. During this conversation Yeung told Sibbritt that his friend said, “He can do, he is a little busy” but Yeung had told him the time frame and he had said that he will work within that. Yeung told Sibbritt that the “numbers are a little high and going to be 4,500 an ounce each”. Yeung asked Sibbritt to have Field call him back.

95. At 12.25pm Yeung called Field. During this conversation Field asked Yeung how long he would be. Field asked Yeung to get two more, and told Yeung, “Even if you can get the five man all up and then I’ll do it”. Field told Yeung, “I’ve got to be there at 1.50pm”.

96. At 2.25pm a blue coloured Hyundai hatchback being driven by an Adam Amato with Kwun Ting, Field, Sibbritt and Yeung as passengers was observed travelling on Mill Park Street, Rhodes.

97. At 2.27pm Field entered the front passenger seat of a vehicle at Mill Park Street whereby he met with the female undercover operative buyer. On the instruction of Field, the buyer sent Sibbritt a text message that read, “Tell K to come over”.

98. At 2.30pm Sibbritt called Yeung. During this conversation Sibbritt told Yeung to “go over”. Yeung told Sibbritt that he is going to “send his mate”.

99. At 2.31pm Ting entered the rear passenger seat of the vehicle where he supplied the female with 279.29 grams of methylamphetamine for a cost of $50,000. The $50,000 provided by the female as the cost of the drug transaction was then handed by Field to Ting. Both Ting and Field then exited the vehicle.

FIELD - H59188316/7 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY - S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 282 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

TING - H58929167/1 - SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY - S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 282 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

SIBBRITT - H113450402/3 AND YEUNG H59129008/1 - KNOWINGLY TAKE PART SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG GREATER THAN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY CONTRARY TO S 25(2) DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT - 282 GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE

100. On Monday 30 June 2015, Yeung contacted Field and the following conversation was recorded.

“FIELD: Hello.

YEUNG: Hello.

FIELD: Hey buddy, how are you?

YEUNG: Good, whereabouts are you?

FIELD: I’m at the hotel at Marrickville near Watsons.

YEUNG: Oh okay have you got wheels?

FIELD: No, no I haven’t.

YEUNG: Well how do you want me to - how do you want to meet?

FIELD: You haven’t got no wheels?

YEUNG: No I haven’t got no wheels, I got my dad to drive me.

FIELD: Oh okay, even if you want to jump in a cab or whatever and I’ll fix you up or something for you.

YEUNG: Yeah all right, I’m going to head home first but yeah I will…whatever, whatever you wanted I got.

FIELD: Yeah, cool cool.

YEUNG: All right.

FIELD: All right, thank you.

YEUNG: I told him, I told him, I said um well he just have - have to give me another six tomorrow.

FIELD: All right, cool cool.

YEUNG: The rest tomorrow morning and then um he was still sussing out, he was still sussing out are they trustworthy. I was like fuck man are you serious.

FIELD: Yeah.

YEUNG: Yeah but it’s all good.

FIELD: All right, all right, cool.

YEUNG: If you can, if you can then maybe you try and come past.

FIELD: Yeah all right no worries.

YEUNG: Yeah all right, I’ll try and get some wheels if I can, I’ll make a phone call, I’ll see if Gavin’s available or not.

FIELD: Yup.

YEUNG: If not then I’ll leave it but yeah we’ll see what happens.

FIELD: Okay, all right mate.

YEUNG: Thanks, bye.

FIELD: Bye.

YEUNG: If you need it before that, if you’re urgent then come past and grab it.

FIELD: Yeah all right, cool.

YEUNG: All right.

FIELD: All right, bye.

YEUNG: Bye bye.”

101. On Wednesday 1 July 2015, Field and Yeung were the subject of electronic and physical monitoring. At around 10am Field and Sibbritt were observed as they attended 8 Terry Street, Blakehurst, after exiting a taxi. Yeung resided at 8 Terry Street, Blakehurst.

102. At around 11.35am Sibbritt was observed exiting 8 Terry Street and then went by taxi to the Hurstville Aquatic Centre where she met a female drug buyer in a vehicle. Sibbritt and the female drug buyer continued in conversation up to around 12.31pm.

103. During this time, Sibbritt made a number of calls to Field discussing aspects of the proposed drug supply and requesting a timeframe for how long Field would be before attending her location to complete the drug supply to the female.

104. Around 12.31pm Sibbritt exited the vehicle, and around 12.43pm Field, Yeung, Ting and Amato as the driver were monitored as they left the address of 8 Terry Street and travelled to the Hurstville Aquatic Centre.

105. At that location, Field and Ting exited the vehicle and met with the female drug buyer. At that time Ting supplied the female with 282 grams of methylamphetamine. A short time later, Field, Yeung, Ting, Sibbritt and Amato were arrested and detained. All persons were conveyed to the Kogarah police station. Amato was later released from custody, with the remaining persons charged with a number of criminal offences as identified during the investigation.

106. A short time later Tran was arrested at Unit 8, 84 Harris Street, Fairfield, during the execution of a search warrant on those premises. At that time he was detained for his part in the offence as committed on 2 June 2015 and conveyed to the Fairfield police station. He was subsequently charged with the relevant criminal offence.

107. The facts in relation to this sequence of offending demonstrate a close relationship between each of the offenders in relation to the supply of methylamphetamine on a number of occasions, although their roles vary, and in particular, in relation to Mr Tran, he is only involved in one instance of supply, being 103.1 grams of methylamphetamine. It is, however, clear that Sibbritt was an intimate of Field and Yeung, trusted to participate in communications and arrangements in relation to the supply of methylamphetamine on a number of occasions.

108. It would appear from the facts that Field was the most senior person, if that is a correct way to describe him, who called on others from time to time to actually supply the prohibited drug to be sold to persons that he had arranged to supply to.

109. In respect of each of Field and Sibbritt, it is of serious concern that having been arrested in respect of the accessory to the manufacture and the first offence I referred to in respect of each, of supply prohibited drug, each continued thereafter to participate in criminal offending relating to methylamphetamine.

110. Field, at the time of the first offending before this Court was subject to a s 12 bond imposed on 1 April 2014 in respect of an offence of possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm. He was given a ten month sentence suspended pursuant to s 12. Having been arrested in respect of the first sequence of offending, at the time that the manufacturing process at the Adina apartments was discovered, he was not only still subject to the s 12 bond, he was also on bail in respect of the first set of offending, and at the time of the final sequence of offences involving Field, Sibbritt, Yeung, Ting and Tran, he was no longer subject to the s 12 bond but he was subject to bail in respect of the original offending, and must have been cognisant of the likelihood of being charged in respect of the manufacture at the Adina apartments.

111. On 7 May 2015, he was committed for trial in respect of the offences that occurred on 9 July 2014. Of note is that the three offences of ongoing supply occurred on the 5th, 12th and 19 May 2015, that is, in close proximity to the time at which his trial on the earlier charges was before the Court for committal proceedings.

112. A s 12 bond had been imposed in respect of his being found in possession of what is referred to as a “keychain gun” which I will refer to later. That offence was the only offence on his record prior to the offending represented by these charges.

113. Kristy Sibbritt had no criminal convictions prior to the commencement of her offending in relation to these matters, but in respect of the take part in the manufacture at the Adina apartments, she was then on bail as a result of being arrested for the offences in respect of 9 July 2014. The manufacturing offence was only approximately two months later, and at the time of the third sequence of offending involving Field, Sibbritt, Yeung, Ting and Tran, she was still on bail in respect of the offences from 9 July 2014, and had been committed for trial in respect of those offences on 7 May 2015.

114. In respect of Mr Yeung, I will subsequently refer to his criminal history but I note at the moment that at the time of his offending, he was on conditional liberty, being subject to a s 9 bond for possessing a prohibited drug. The bond was for two years from 5 June 2015, that is, shortly before the commission of the offence and the offence on the Form 1. He was also on bail in respect of two offences of driving while disqualified, for which he had been charged on 22 February 2015 and 27 May 2015.

115. As to Mr Ting, at the time of his offending - I will refer to his criminal record later, but he was the subject of a s 9 bond of nine months, imposed on 19 March 2015 for driving while disqualified, and he was also the subject of a s 9 bond of 18 months, imposed on 5 May 2015 in respect of an offence of possessing a prohibited drug.

116. Each of the offenders, Field, Sibbritt, Yeung and Ting, was, accordingly, at the time of the commission of the offences on conditional liberty, which is an aggravating circumstance. I will deal with the respective subjective matters.

117. Joshua Field was born on 17 February 1984. He was at the time of the various offences aged either 30 or 31, and he is now 32 years of age. He is the eldest of two children, his parents having separated amicably when he was nine years of age. He lived with his mother until Year 8 and then with his father after being suspended from school. He had a supportive family who have remained supportive.

118. He obtained the School Certificate and then moved out of home and commenced an apprenticeship at approximately 16 years of age, being more interested in sports than academia. For approximately one year he was employed by Telstra as a pipe and pit layer, and over a period of approximately a year and a half he completed an apprenticeship in formwork and carpentry at the Tuggerah TAFE. He started a concreting business with a friend but sold the business when the friend died in 2009. He worked for approximately one year on a casual basis before moving from the Central Coast to Sydney. The work on a casual basis would appear to have been with a business called Remote Drilling Australia as a site supervisor - see Exhibits JF2 and JF1.

119. At about the time that he moved to Sydney, a relationship of approximately ten years duration ended. On moving to Sydney, he became associated with drug users and quickly became addicted to methylamphetamine or “ice” and became isolated from his earlier life, friends and family. He formed a relationship with Kristy Sibbritt, which continued throughout the period of offending.

120. He did not give evidence on sentence, and the subjective matters are taken from the material that was tendered on his behalf: Exhibit JF1 being a psychological report of Helen Kearney, dated 4 July 2016, and JF2 being a reference from Clint Bass, the director of the business Remote Drilling Australia, as well as the material provided by the Crown as to the criminal history and a Pre-Sentence Report under the hand of Stephen Mahoney, the unit leader of the Cessnock Parole Unit, dated 29 June 2016.

121. The offender informed Helen Kearney, psychologist, that:

“He lived in the moment and his only concern was his next fix. This need for a consistent supply of ice was his motivation for becoming involved in criminal activities as he had to have a regular supply to prevent withdrawal and maintain his addiction.”

122. He is said to have overcome his addiction while in custody and has undertaken relevant courses in custody. There have been no disciplinary infringements while in custody. He has been assessed as a medium risk of re-offending by Mr Mahoney. He has only two prior entries in his criminal history, one being an offence of public nuisance committed in Queensland in 2008, but in respect of which a conviction was not recorded, and he was fined $450.

123. I have already referred to the charge of possess unauthorised prohibited firearm, being the “key chain gun”. That matter also came before me and I have previously dealt with the s 12 by revoking the s 12 and imposing the sentence that had been determined by the learned magistrate of ten months, and imposing a five month non-parole period commencing on 15 May 2015. The sentence in respect of the revoked s 12 of ten months commenced on 1 July 2015 and the five month’s non-parole period expired on 30 October 2015. The total sentence expired on 30 April 2016. Since 1 December 2015 he has been in custody solely in respect of these matters.

124. As I have previously said, of serious concern and an aggravating factor, is the fact that he was on conditional liberty in relation to the s 12 as well as also being on bail after the detection of the first offences during the period when the subsequent offences were committed.

125. As to remorse, he is said to have gained some insight into his offending and he is determined not to use and wishes to in due course return to the Central Coast where he is apparently still held in high regard by the proprietor of Remote Drilling Australia, who has indicated he is prepared to employ him in the future.

126. His addiction to methylamphetamine is not an excuse for the offending behaviour, but it is at least some explanation for why a person who had had no relevant trouble with the authorities for so long fell foul of the law. It cannot be said, in light of the continued offending or repeated offending over the period from July of 2014 to July 2015, and the re-offending occurring in the circumstances of conditional liberty, that there is a low prospect of re-offending, except in circumstances where the offender first addresses his drug-related problems and not only determines to cease using prohibited drugs in the future but in fact manages to do so. Considering his prior good character, should he be able to achieve cessation of the use of prohibited drugs, in my view he would have a low prospect of re-offending, and there is in the circumstances at least a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation.

127. Kristy Sibbritt was born on 24 June 1993. She did not give evidence on sentence and the subjective matters are drawn from the Pre-Sentence Report of Oscar Yu, dated 29 June 2016, and the material contained in Exhibit KS1, being the report of Ruth Allen, psychologist, dated 9 May 2016, a mental health care plan dated 5 October 2011, and a letter from Fe Limjap, psychologist, dated 3 June 2011, the Justice Health Mental Health Assessment dated 22 December 2015, and a letter from Michelle Tzirkas of Odyssey House, dated 28 January 2016.

128. At the time of the offending, she was variously 21 to 22 years of age. She is now 23 years of age. She is one of four children from a blended family, her parents separating when she was eight years of age due to her father’s substance abuse and violence towards her mother. Unfortunately, her mother is apparently also an abuser of prohibited drugs, in particular amphetamines and methylamphetamine. The offender maintains contact with her mother but not with her father. The material indicates that she had a very disrupted childhood both in relation to emotional support and education. She attended six different high schools, but managed to obtain the School Certificate and Higher School Certificate, and later attended the University of Western Sydney to do a one year diploma in Social Science. However she discontinued this course in order to help and support her then partner’s studies and never returned.

122. At 15, she had left home and then lived with a boyfriend and his family while finishing her Year 10. She had moved in with a new boyfriend when she was approximately 17 years of age. During her Years 11 and 12 she worked in butcher shops and then did some store work and bartending. After ceasing at university, she commenced escort work to support herself and her then partner. She is said to have met the co-offender, with whom she formed a relationship, through her mother’s drug associates when she was approximately 20 years of age. She was said to have been exposed to drug use at an early age and on an ongoing basis.

123. At 17, it was her mother who introduced her to methamphetamine, although she did not begin using that substance regularly until approximately three years ago while working as an escort. Her usage increased over time and particularly after forming the relationship with the co-offender, Field. She has been previously diagnosed with anxiety, depression and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder when she was 17, and was prescribed the anti-depressant Prozac. Since being taken into custody she has re-commenced that medication. She has had some assistance in the past with cognitive behaviour therapy, and was medicated with Lovan in 2011 for her Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. She is said to have gained insight into her offending. She has no prior convictions, has not incurred any institutional charges, and has been employed as a leading hand in the kitchen while in custody.

124. She has been assessed by Probation and Parole as having a low to moderate risk of re-offending. I accept that she is remorseful, and should she be able to conquer her addiction to the prohibited drug methylamphetamine and/or any other prohibited drug, there is a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation. Should she fail in the future to address those problems, then she is very much at risk of re-offending.

125. Gilbert Wai Kit Yeung did not give evidence on sentence. Before the Court in respect of subjective matters is his criminal history and a number of documents tendered on his behalf, being a report from Mr Watson-Munro, psychologist, dated 16 May 2016, a letter from Jane Wilson of the Offender Services and Programs Unit, dated 8 June 2016, a character reference from Gavin Koo, dated 10 June 2016, and a further character reference from Vivienne Rodgers, dated 20 June 2016. In addition tendered on behalf of the offender was a letter from him to the Court, tendered without objection from the Crown. In addition a certificate of completion dated 13 July 2016 of the EQUIPS Addiction program, being a 20 session program, has been tendered and is Exhibit GY2. The subjective material is drawn from that material.

126. He was born on 27 September 1983. He is now 31 years of age, and was 33 at the time of the offending. I have already referred to the fact that at the time of the offending he was on conditional liberty in relation to a Section 9 Bond for possessing a prohibited drug, and on bail in respect of two offences of driving while disqualified.

127. He is one of two siblings born in Hong Kong. He came to Australia with his parents and his sister when he was approximately seven. His father continued to operate a business in Hong Kong and visited Australia every two months for approximately a fortnight. He discontinued high school in Year 12 after failing the trial Higher School Certificate. While supported initially by his parents, he was for several years unemployed, and attended a number of TAFE courses which he failed to complete.

128. When approximately 25 years of age, his parents financed him into an Optus dealership, but the business failed. He married at approximately 25 years of age, and there were two children approximately six and a half and eight years of age, however, he and his wife separated at a time when the offender was serving a term of imprisonment, and he has had no physical contact with his children, who reside with their mother in Hong Kong. There had been ongoing conflict in the marriage due to the offender’s mood changes and drug abuse. His use of methylamphetamine or “ice” had commenced when he was approximately 25 and it escalated over time to an addiction and a significant level of use.

129. Mr Watson-Munro, psychologist, has diagnosed him as suffering from major depression with features of an anxiety disorder. While in custody, he has worked in the metal workshop at Parklea and in the textile industry at Lithgow. On 4 May 2016, he commenced the EQUIPS program, being 22 hour sessions targeting substance abuse, which he completed in July 2016. He continues to be supported by his family and friends.

130. His criminal history includes four previous offences of possessing prohibited drugs, and at the time of these offences, as previously referred to, he was subject to the Section 9 bond. He has been convicted of a total of ten drive whilst disqualified offences, and is disqualified from driving until the year 2040. The relevance of those offences in particular is that he had previously served a period of time in custody in respect of such offences. There are a small number of other offences of a comparatively minor nature. After being arrested in respect of the current matters, he was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment for drive whilst disqualified offences which were committed in February and May of 2015. The terms were partially concurrent and the total effect was a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 months commencing on 13 August 2015, the non-parole period expired on 12 September 2016.

131. From his arrest on 1 July 2015 to 13 August 2015 .which was the commencement of the combined sentences for the drive whilst disqualified offences, he spent a period of 43 days in custody which are solely referable to this matter and must be taken into account. There was apparently no action taken in respect of the breach of the s 9 two year bond for possessing a prohibited drug. While in custody there have been no disciplinary charges.

132. His remorse has been referred to by Mr Watson-Munro. It is also contained in a letter to the Court from the offender and was also referred to by his sister, Vivienne Rodgers, and also his friend Gavin Koo. I accept that the offender is remorseful for his conduct, and I accept that should he be able to conquer his addiction there would be a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation and a low prospect of re-offending. However, I note that he has had a significant addiction for a substantial period of time. The absence of any disciplinary charges while in custody and the fact that he has completed the EQUIPS Program would appear to hold out reasonable hope that the offender either has or can successfully address his drug addiction.

133. Kwun Yip Ting was born on 21 August 1977. He was 37 years of age at the time of the offending, and he is now 39 years of age. At the time of the offending, as I have previously referred to, he was subject to two Section 9 bonds for driving whilst disqualified and a Section 9 bond of 18 months in relation to the possession of a prohibited drug. There appears to have been no action taken in relation to any of the Section 9 bonds.

134. Again, the offender gave no evidence on sentence. Subjective material is drawn from his criminal history, part of Exhibit 11, the Corrective Services Report, also being part of Exhibit 11, the material contained in Exhibit KT(1) being a psychological report from Mr Milic, psychologist, dated 5 July 2016, and a report from Mr George Tirris, being a MERIT or Magistrate’s Early Referral Into Treatment program report, dated 30 April 2015, prepared and provided for his appearance at the Local Court on 5 May 2015 at Burwood for an offence of possessing a prohibited drug. Of note of course is that the Section 9 bond of 18 months was imposed on 5 May 2015, and the two matters that are before the Court by way of the charge on the Form 1 occurred on 23 June 2015 and 1 July 2015, that is, in close temporal relationship to his being given the benefit of the 18 month bond for possessing a prohibited drug.

135. He was born after his parents migrated to Hong Kong from mainland China, and he has an older sister. During his second year of high school he was transferred to a Hong Kong English language school, where because of his poor English language skills, he fell behind and truanted in order to play video games with like-minded friends. He arrived in Australia at the age of 13 and spent one year in a language school; having been bullied at school in both Hong Kong and Australia he continued truanting and performing poorly academically. After completing high school, he worked picking and packing for Woolworths and Franklins for approximately two to three years which was followed by a number of odd jobs. He was a computer technician with Optima for nearly two years and with Asus for about 18 months prior to his last period of imprisonment. However, due to his drug abuse, his performance had deteriorated in those jobs, causing him to lose them.

136. He is said to have commenced using MDMA (“ecstasy”) at the age of 20 during a period of social and familial isolation, later becoming dependant on methylamphetamine at the age of 30, and after a successful period on parole for offences of dealing with the proceeds of crime and possessing counterfeit money, the offender reoffended in November 2014. He attended the MERIT program between February and April 2015 and completed detoxification but ultimately did not enter a residential rehabilitation or attain complete abstinence. He had of course failed in his attempt to cease the use of prohibited drugs by 23 June 2015, as the offender was using half a gram of ice over a period of two to three days at around about the time of this offence.

137. Mr Milic opined;

“It is likely that the offender’s addiction and the underlying issues maintaining his addiction were significant causal factors in his offences.”

145. I accept that an addiction to methylamphetamine is of course likely to contribute to the motive for participating in offences such as this, but it is not an excuse.

146. His criminal history is consistent with a long standing dependency on illicit substances.

147. His past criminal history indicates a variety of offences: such matters as wilful and obscene exposure, larceny, shoplifting, using false instruments, obtaining money by deception, and a number of those offences, particularly using false instruments, have been the subject of a number of charges. There are also offences of receiving/disposing of stolen property and terms of imprisonment have been imposed.

148. He has four previous offences of supplying prohibited drugs, and two previous offences of possessing prohibited drugs, again including several periods of imprisonment between 2003 and 2015. As well, there have been offences involving the proceeds of crime, driving while disqualified, possessing and uttering counterfeit money. His Corrective Services Report indicates that he has had no disciplinary charges while in custody at any time.

149. In relation to rehabilitation, it is clear from the records that past attempts at rehabilitation have failed, and appear to have failed relatively quickly. There is no expression of remorse contained in any of the material. The offender clearly has a significant difficulty with the consumption of prohibited drugs and while I accept that it is likely that most of his criminal history is orientated around that addiction it cannot in the circumstances be said that there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, or a low prospect that he would not reoffend.

150. Cam Tang Tran was born on 26 September 1974. He was aged 40 at the time of the offending, and is now 42. However, according to the psychologist’s report and one of the birthdates given in his criminal history, he was 42 years of age at the time of the offending and is now 44. As I understand it, the offender’s case is that the correct ages are 42 and 44.

151. I note that the Crown material contained an error in relation to suggesting that he was the subject of bail at the time of the offending, but that error has been acknowledged by the Crown, and I disregard that information. The offender did not give evidence on sentence, and the subjective material was taken from: a Pre-Sentence Report under the hand of Christine Moellmer, Community Corrections officer, dated 1 July 2016, his criminal history, and the Corrective Services Report contained in Exhibit 13, the Crown bundle, and from material contained in Exhibit CT1, the report of Dr Jeremy O’Dea, forensic psychiatrist, dated 8 July 2016, a discharge referral from New South Wales Health and various hospital notes from Justice Health, in particular in relation to a previous shooting injury. In addition, I note a number of certificates from TAFE in relation to courses of: “Working Safely with Industrial Chemicals and Materials”, “Producing Powder Coated Products” and a letter to the Court from the offender which was not objected to by the Crown.

152. The offender was born in Vietnam and is the youngest of six children. He came to Australia with his family, when he was approximately 15 years of age. There is no significant family history. The offender claims limited education in Vietnam and that on coming to Australia he attended Fairfield High School and participated in a “Special English” class, completing Years 8 to 11 by the age of twenty, and leaving school in 1992 with limited skills in respect to reading and writing. He commenced using heroin in 1998 and rapidly escalated to a daily habit. He was a member of the “5T” gang for approximately twenty years before ceasing.

153. He has a very limited work history, and the Pre-Sentence Report indicates a considerable difference between his claims and his sister’s reporting of his work history. He continues to have family support but to a lesser degree than claimed by him. While in custody he has worked in the powder coating unit and has received high praise from the overseer. As referred to, he has completed relevant TAFE courses.

154. He married at 23 and there is one 18 year old child of the marriage. He was divorced in 2001 and he has had no contact with his wife or child for approximately ten years. He has been in a further relationship for a period of approximately two years.

155. In 2002, he was “ambushed” and shot by “enemies” to the hip, shoulder and jaw while seated in a motor vehicle. The face/jaw injury has required multiple operations and resulted in chronic pain and infection. He lost all of his lower teeth. While previously in custody he commenced a methadone programme. He states that he ceased using heroin in 2002/2003 but unfortunately had commenced using ice to deal with the pain. He was using ice twice a week at the time of the offence.

156. He has an extensive criminal history, commencing as a juvenile. There are nine previous convictions for possession of prohibited or restricted substances, although no convictions for supply. The penalties imposed would appear to indicate that they were all relatively minor matters. He has been subject to a number of fines, bonds and custodial sentences. He has had the benefit of two s 12 bonds and one s 9 bond with supervision, but breached the bonds due to non-compliance with supervision. There are a number of offences involving violence or threatened violence. His longest sentence was one of six years and six months with a two and a half year non-parole period, concluding in August of 2003.

157. The Pre-Sentence Report indicates that he responded well to parole supervision and complied with all parole requirements and conditions. However, by 2009, he was again regularly before the courts with a poor record of attendance. There have been no disciplinary charges while the offender has been in custody.

158. As to remorse, Mr O’Dea’s report contains the following p 5:

“...I went to my friend’s house...they asked me to smoke (ice)...they asked me to do them a favour...I know dealing drugs is bad...but I did not realise until the day that I delivered the package...I did not realise it was a serious crime...I feel like I owe him a favour...because he asked me if I wanted to smoke...”

159. In light of the offender’s past history of offending in respect of drugs, and previous terms of imprisonment as well as his admitted lengthy connection over twenty years to a notorious criminal gang titling itself “5T”, it cannot be accepted that the offender did not appreciate the seriousness of his conduct in participating in the supply of the prohibited drug on this occasion.

160. The submissions by Mr Payne, Barrister, on behalf of the offender indicated:

“...benefitted to the extent he was able to further his own drug habit”.

161. There is no evidence of financial involvement, but in his submissions, Mr Payne accepted that he participated for financial gain. There is no evidence as to what that may have been, but at least there appears to be no issue that there was at least a gain, or expected gain in the sense of obtaining access to the drug to which he was addicted.

162. The Pre-Sentence Report indicates that he informed the officer that he was to be given drugs in return for his services. It also states that he expressed remorse for his actions as well as accepting responsibility. In the absence of dealing with his drug addiction, in respect of which his past history indicates great difficulty, it cannot be said that there is a low risk of reoffending or a good prospect of rehabilitation. That is, of course, not to say that there is no prospect of rehabilitation or that he will necessarily reoffend in the future. While it is not an excuse for the offending conduct, I accept that having a significant addiction to the prohibited drug methylamphetamine is a strong motivation for participating in offences of this nature.

163. Endeavouring to sentence the five offenders in relation to this matter has been a complex task, not assisted by the provision of nine sets of individual facts and complicated by the manner in which the Crown has elected to proceed such as in respect of Mr Field and Ms Sibbritt, and in relation to the last series of offences, the Court being expected to sentence separately for the two offences, that is, on 1 July 2015 and 23 June 2015 of supply commercial quantity of methylamphetamine in the amounts of 282 grams and 279.2 grams as separate offences, when in respect of the offenders Yeung and Ting, the Crown has accepted that it was appropriate to proceed by way of a single charge of supply prohibited drug, being 282 grams, and to place on a Form 1 the second offence of 279.29 grams of methamphetamine.

164. I note as previously indicated during the hearing of the sentence proceedings, that the Court of Criminal Appeal has frowned in the past on offences which have legislated standard non-parole periods being included on a Form 1.

165. However, despite the past comments of inappropriateness by the Court of Criminal Appeal, I will deal with the matters. But it does I note make the task of providing parity between offenders more difficult than it might otherwise have been.

166. While I have endeavoured to reduce the facts into one set of facts, I indicate that I only take into account the facts that I have referred to that were specifically relevant to each of the offenders, as contained in the individual set of facts provided in respect of each of them. As I noted on a previous occasion, I have been careful to note where there was any difference between the facts for the individual offenders, a process which required a considerable period of time to achieve.

167. I note that where an offender at the time of the offending was the subject of conditional liberty, whether that be by way of a s 12 bond, a s 9 bond, or bail, that there is a long line of authority that that fact is a serious aggravating circumstance. The protection of the community from those who abuse their conditional liberty calls for significantly deterrent sentences.

161. In respect of these matters, I will later refer to the individual discounts for the utility of the plea as allowed when dealing with the individual charges.

162. In respect of each of the offenders, in my view both specific deterrence and general deterrence are important factors for the Court to take into account. For the purposes of sentencing, the Court must have regard to s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors as referred to in s 21A(2) and (3).

163. Any sentence must reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, as well as the need for both specific and general deterrence, as well as meeting the fundamental purpose of punishment, that is, the protection of society. The protection of society is important in relation to offences involving the prohibited drug, methamphetamine, which in recent years has become such a scourge in the community that the legislature has seen it appropriate since the time of this offending to reduce the large commercial quantity from 1 kilogram to half a kilogram.

164. I am of course, however sentencing, according to the state of the legislation at the time of this offending.

165. I am satisfied, pursuant to s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in relation to each of the individual offenders, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. I note that no counsel on behalf of any offender has suggested in submissions that there is any course available to the Court other than a period of imprisonment.

166. I have taken all of those matters into account, and I intend to deal with the offenders by way of sentence in the reverse order to which I have so far referred to them.

167. Accordingly, in respect of the offender Cam Tang Tran and the offence of supply prohibited drug, more than an indictable quantity, being 103.1 grams of methamphetamine, with a maximum available period of imprisonment of 15 years, noting that the plea of guilty was entered in the Local Court on 2 March 2016 and that in those circumstances it is appropriate to provide a utility discount of 25%, as referred to in Thomson and Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383, and noting that the quantity of 103.1 grams is somewhat less than half of the next level of seriousness, being a commercial quantity, 250 grams, but is nonetheless approximately 20 times more than the indictable quantity, the sentence will be a non-parole period of 18 months commencing on 1 July 2015, when he was taken into custody. The non-parole period will expire on 31 December 2016. The balance of term, having found special circumstances to provide for a period of one year on parole to assist him with supervision in relation to rehabilitation and dealing with his drug habit, the full sentence is two years and six months with an 18 month non-parole period. The sentence will expire on 31 December 2017.

168. I order that he be released on the expiry on the non-parole period. I direct that his parole be subject to supervision by Community Corrections with particular regard to treatment and/or counselling in respect of drug abuse and note that such supervision should include random drug urinalysis.

169. Mr Tran, I have no doubt in relation to you and your past history that you understand that if you are in breach of your conditions of parole you will end up back in custody for any unexpired parole period, all right? Please take a seat.

170. In respect of Kwun Yip Ting, and in respect of the offence of supply of prohibited drug being more than a commercial quantity, being 282 grams of methamphetamine, and taking into account the matter contained on the Form 1, being a further offence of supplying a commercial quantity of methamphetamine, being 279.29 grams, I have allowed for the maximum utility discount of 25%, the plea of guilty having been entered in the Local Court at the earliest opportunity, on 2 March 2016.

171. The offender has been in custody since the 1 July 2015, and only in respect of this matter, however Mr Ting was involved, unlike Mr Tran, in two separate matters involving significantly larger quantities. The sentence must reflect that as well as the fact that he was on conditional liberty.

172. The sentence in respect of Mr Ting is a non-parole period of two years and six months with a balance of term of one year and six months, the total sentence being four years. The sentence commences on 1 July 2015. He will be first eligible for parole on 31 December 2017 and then subject to parole for the balance of the four years. The full term of sentence will expire on 13 June 2018.

173. I have again found special circumstances in relation to Mr Ting, those special circumstances being to provide for a more significant period on parole than would otherwise be the case if the statutory relationship applied to assist him with rehabilitation, that is treatment and/or counselling in respect of his drug addiction.

174. I recommend that when released on parole, he be subject to requirements to participate in drug counselling and/or treatment as well as being subject to random urinalysis. Thank you, sit down.

175. In respect of Gilbert Wai Kit Yeung, and the offence of supply prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity, being 282 grams of methamphetamine, and taking into account the further offence contained on the Form 1, being the further offence of the same nature in respect of a quantity of 279.29 grams of methamphetamine, noting again, as previously referred to, that he was on conditional liberty, and that the plea of guilty was entered at the Local Court on 2 March 2016, that it is appropriate to provide a 25% discount for the utility alone of the plea.

176. Further, taking account of the fact that after entering custody, he was sentenced in respect of the two drive while disqualified offences to a combined sentence totalling one year and six months, with a non-parole period of one year and one month, that sentence commencing on 13 August 2015, he having been taken into custody in respect of these matters on 3 July 2015, the non‑parole period of one year, one month, expired on 12 September 2016.

177. I recognise that the sentencing discretion to be exercised today includes the ability to make the sentence imposed in this matter concurrent, partially concurrent with or wholly accumulative upon the sentence to which the offender has been sentenced as a result of the drive while disqualified charges for the reasons referred to be Simpson J in Callahan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58.

178. In my view, however, it is not appropriate to make the sentence to be imposed in respect of this matter in any way concurrent with the sentences imposed for the drive while disqualified offences, and so I intend to commence the sentence to be imposed in respect of Mr Yeung from 13 September 2016, that is, the first day after the expiry of the non‑parole period imposed for the drive while disqualified offences, but I intend to take into account the 43 days in custody between 1 July 2015 and the commencement of the drive while disqualified offences on 13 August 2015. Accordingly, the sentence will be backdated by 43 days from 13 September 2016.

179. Mr Yeung had a significantly more senior role in the supply for which he is to be sentenced than Mr Ting, who essentially appears to have only acted at the direction as necessary of Mr Yeung. Mr Yeung was himself a supplier of methamphetamine at the direction of Mr Field, and in view of his much more significant role, it is appropriate to impose a more significant sentence than was imposed on Mr Ting.

180. In respect of Mr Yeung, he is sentenced to a non-parole period of three years and nine months, commencing on 13 September 2016, but, backdated by 43 days, it will commence on 1 August 2016, meaning that he will be first eligible for parole on 30 April 2020. The balance of term is one year and nine months, the total sentence being five years and six months.

181. I have found special circumstances in respect of Mr Yeung in relation to his need for a longer period of supervision on parole to assist him to deal with his drug addiction problems. I have also taken into account the concept of totality. While I have made the sentence cumulative on the non‑parole period for the drive while disqualified offences, the overall relationship of the total non‑parole period for those offences and this offence to the total sentence for those offences and this offence is less than 75%, having found special circumstances both on the basis of the need for assistance in rehabilitation and also to take account of the principle of totality.

Thank you, Mr Yeung, I take it, in view of your past history, you have no difficulty in understanding that your release on or about 30 April 2020 will depend largely upon how you perform in custodial circumstances and with Community Corrections. There are courses available in custody. You should ensure you make full effort to take whatever courses that might assist you in the future in relation to both your use of prohibited drugs, and also possible work in the future.

189. I turn first of all to Ms Sibbritt. Ms Sibbritt, like Mr Field, has to be sentenced in respect of a number of offences, and I have decided that it is appropriate to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence, in which case it is necessary for me to give individual indicative sentences for the various offences currently before me, including where such offences have a standard non‑parole period provided, indicating not only the head sentence or total term, but the non‑parole period that would have been imposed for the individual offence. Accordingly, I will indicate, first of all, each of the indicative sentences.

190. In respect of the offence of accessory after the fact to the serious indictable offence of manufacture a prohibited drug, in respect of which the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment, noting that while the quantity assessed to have been manufactured was in fact almost 19.4 kilograms of methylamphetamine, there is no indication in the evidence that the offender was aware of such a quantity, the indicative sentence is a fixed term of 18 months. I have taken into account that the plea was entered on 16 March 2016, which was two days after the trial had been listed to proceed.

191. I have allowed in respect of the accessory after the fact offence a utility discount, in those circumstances, of 10% for that offence. I similarly allow a discount of 10% in respect of the further offence of supplying 385.1 grams of methylamphetamine on the same basis; that is that the plea was a belated plea, two days after the trial was listed to commence.

192. In respect of the second offence of supply a prohibited drug, being contrary to s 25(2), being 385.1 grams of methylamphetamine, the indicative non‑parole period is two years and nine months. The total term is four years and nine months, which would have meant a parole period of two years on the basis of special circumstances.

193. In respect of the charge of take part in the manufacture, being 24.61 grams of methylamphetamine, commenced by way of ex officio indictment, of which the offender was informed on 10 March 2016, that is, four days before the trial was anticipated to commence, and in respect of which she entered the plea six days later, on 16 March 2016, it is appropriate to allow the maximum discount for the utility of 25%, and I do so. The indicative sentence is a fixed term of 22 months.

194. In respect of the offence on 1 July 2015 of take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity, being 282 grams of methylamphetamine, I take into account the Form 1 attached to that offence, being a further offence of take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being 103.10 grams of methylamphetamine, and in respect of the further offence on 23 June 2015 of take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being 279.29 grams of methylamphetamine.

195. Each of the pleas was entered in the Local Court on 2 March 2016 and I allow in each case a maximum utility discount of 25%.

196. In respect of the offence of take part in the supply of prohibited drug, 282 grams, the indicative sentence is a three year non-parole period with a balance of term of two years, that is, a sentence of five years with a three year non-parole period.

197. In respect of the further offence of take part in the supply of prohibited drug, 279.29 grams, the indicative non-parole period is again three years with a further balance of term of two years, that is, a total indicative sentence of five years with a three year non-parole period.

198. It will be obvious from that, that I have found special circumstances, it being the offender’s first time in custody, and also on the basis of the significant term that she will serve, the need for an extended period on parole to take into account the need for counselling and/or treatment in respect of her drug addiction and to assist her in returning to a lawful life in the community.

199. Having indicated the indicative sentences, the aggregate sentence will commence from 1 July 2015 when she went into custody. The non-parole period is five years and the balance of term is two years. The non-parole period having commenced on 1 July 2015, she will be first eligible for parole on 30 June 2020, and the balance of term of two years will expire on 30 June 2022.

200. It will be evident in relation to the sentence that I have reduced the statutory relationship of the non-parole period to the full term by some three months to provide for a full two years of supervision, should she be released at the earliest time on parole. In my view, two years of parole is a significant period of parole to effect rehabilitation, and to assist her in returning to a lawful life in the community. I recommend when released on parole that she be subject to a requirement to participate in drug rehabilitation and/or counselling or treatment for that purpose, as well as recommending that she be subject to random urinalysis during the period of parole.

201. Ms Sibbritt, I take it you would understand by now, from what I have said to the others, that you will be first eligible to be released on parole on or about 30 June 2020. That will depend on your performance while in custody and you will then be subject to a further two years, or whatever balance remains of the parole period, subject to supervision by Community Corrections. If in breach of any of the conditions imposed upon you in parole you will no doubt end up being returned to custody for such balance.

202. I should indicate of course that I have, in reaching the sentence, taken into account not only special circumstances but also the principle of totality.

203. I then turn to Mr Field, who is before the Court for sentence in respect of a total of six offences, together with one offence on a Form 1, and I again, as indicated, will proceed by way of an aggregate sentence. The first offence was accessory after the fact to a serious indictable offence, being manufacture a prohibited drug. The same comments that I have made in respect of Ms Sibbritt are relevant to Mr Field in relation to the actual commission of that offence, and I have again noted that the plea was entered two days after the trial was due to start. In those circumstances, a utility discount of 10% is appropriate, and in respect of Mr Field, the indicative sentence for that offence is 20 months imprisonment, that is, two months more than I provided in respect of Ms Sibbritt.

204. In respect of the second offence of supply prohibited drug, being more than a commercial quantity, 385.1 grams, again the utility discount allowed is 10%, in view of the late nature of the plea, and the indicative sentence is a three year non-parole period with a balance of term of two years, meaning a total term of five years with a three year non-parole period.

205. In relation to the ex officio offence of manufacture prohibited drug, 24.61 grams of methylamphetamine, the plea having been entered at the earliest time, the utility discount allowed is 25%, and the indicative sentence is one of two years, a fixed term.

206. In respect of the further offence of supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis on 5, 12 and 19 May 2015 in a total quantity of 259.97 grams of methylamphetamine, the plea was entered at the earliest opportunity. The utility discount allowed is 25%. I note that the offence of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis was originally introduced in particular to deal with persons who sold drugs on a regular basis in the street in small quantities, being singular grams or points of grams. The offending on this occasion in each case involved a quantity on three occasions of more than 80 grams, and is for that reason alone a more significant offence than might otherwise be reflected by the statistics, on each occasion involving a payment of some $18,000.

207. The plea of guilty, if I did not say it, was entered at the earliest opportunity, that is, on 2 March 2016 in the Local Court, and I allow a utility discount of 25%. The indicative sentence is a six years fixed term of imprisonment. In sentencing him for that offence, I have also taken into account the Form 1 matter involving a minor quantity of 0.61 grams of methylamphetamine.

208. In relation to the further offence of supply prohibited drug more than the commercial quantity, 279.29 grams of methylamphetamine, the plea having been entered at the earliest opportunity, the utility discount is 25% and the indicative sentence is five years with a three year non-parole period.

209. I have again in respect of Mr Field found special circumstances on the basis of need for an extended period of supervision on parole to deal with his drug addiction.

210. I also take into account the principle of totality, and with regard to Mr Field; that principle also takes into account the five months non‑parole period in respect of the revoked s 12 bond. While the sentence will commence on the expiry of the five months non-parole period for the revoked s 12 bond, I have, however, taken it into account in setting the above by way of referring myself to the total term of imprisonment involved, and the total non‑parole period represented by the parole period to be imposed for these offences, and the aggregate sentence, and the five months I have referred to.

211. Accordingly, in respect of Mr Field, the non-parole period is six years commencing on 1 December 2015. He will be first eligible for parole on 30 November 2021. The balance of term is two years and six months. Accordingly, the total sentence is a term of imprisonment of eight years and six months with a non-parole period of six years. I have, off the top of my head, I think reduced the non-parole period to reflect special circumstances and totality by approximately some four and a half months from the statutory relationship.

Mr Field, I take it you don’t need me to explain that you will be released on parole on or about 30 November 2021, depending on your conduct while in custody, and you will then be subject to parole for the balance of the term, whatever that may be. Again, I recommend that you be required, when released on parole, to participate in counselling and/or treatment for the abuse of prohibited drugs and subjected to urinalysis. Thank you, please take a seat.

This has been, as evident, a complex process. There may be some individual matters that I have omitted to refer to in dealing with the complexity of this matter. I propose to annex to my reasons, when they become available, a schedule of the charges*, maximum penalties, whether the offender was on conditional liberty and some reference to criminal history, as well as the timing of the pleas, the utility discount and the time in custody, as well as the indicative sentences and the actual sentence for the assistance of counsel, having found it impossible to deal with this matter without having created such a schedule.

So I’ll hand down six copies. That might assist you in deciding whether for your individual clients parity has or has not been achieved, rather than having to weave your way through the reasons on sentence when they become available, and it may assist the Court of Criminal Appeal in the future.

BARR: Thank you for sitting late. Before your Honour rises and if your Honour might, there is one very brief matter outstanding, which is a claim for compensation which I have consent orders in relation to.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Isn’t it also necessary to make an order for the destruction of any drugs and/or equipment?

BARR: I’d ask formally for that order to be made.

HIS HONOUR: I make an order for the destruction of the drugs and the forfeiture or destruction of any equipment obtained by the authorities in the investigation of these matters, noting of course that it may be necessary for some of the equipment and drugs to be retained until such time as other co‑offenders such as Mr Poniris and Mr Levar might be dealt with.

BARR: Your Honour, I have consent orders in relation to a claim for compensation by EIG Insurance in relation to the damage to the Coogee flat concerning Ms Sibbritt and Mr Field.

WALTERS: Your Honour, for the record, I appear for Mr Field. There is consent to the terms handed up by the learned Crown.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.

HALL: May it please your Honour, the same is the case for Ms Sibbritt.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.

212. I order that pursuant to s 97(1), the sum of $105,927.43 be directly paid out of the property of the respondent defendants Joshua Field and Kristy Sibbritt to EIG Insurance Limited by way of compensation for loss sustained through one of the offences for which the respondents have been convicted. The liability under this direction may not be enforced so as to exceed a total of $105,927.43.

WALTERS: Your Honour, I appreciate it’s been a long morning, but in relation to Mr Field, there is one issue regarding the commencement date of the sentence. Should that be left to another date after I raise it with the learned Crown?

HIS HONOUR: No.

WALTERS: That relates to your remarks in relation to the sentence your Honour imposed, and your Honour revoked the s 12 bond. Initially when your Honour remarked, your Honour indicated that your Honour sentenced Mr Field to ten months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five months from 15 May 2015 to 14 October 2015, bearing in mind he went into custody in respect of the matters for which your Honour sentenced him on 1 July 2015. Mr Rowe of counsel who appeared informed me that what your Honour did is your Honour took into account the period of custody he’s served in relation to that offence of keychain pistol in effectively backdating that sentence, which your Honour can of course do pursuant to s 47 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. A criminal record would confirm what your Honour’s sentence was in relation to the s 12 bond, so on my calculations that sentence that your Honour has imposed today of a non-parole period of six years would commence on 15 October 2015 to reflect the period he’s been in custody for these matters for which your Honour sentenced him. I’ve raised that with my friend’s instructing solicitor just by way of a note, I didn’t want to interrupt the proceedings.

BARR: As I understand that’s the note that the Crown has also in relation to that commencement--

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I must confess that I realised as I was delivering the sentence some problem, but I thought I had it resolved in my mind that it was the later date. But you are no doubt correct. These are your orders, Mr Crown, let me just return them. In respect of the s 12 bond the five months non‑parole period expired on 14 October 2015?

WALTERS: That's right, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So the sentence in respect of this matter should commence on 15 October 2015.

WALTERS: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And he would then be eligible for parole on 14 October 2021 and the total term will expire is it 14 March 2024, two years six months later?

WALTERS: I think it’s April, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: April?

WALTERS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, sorry, April. All right, I correct what I said in respect of Mr Field and you should correct your schedule and I’ll correct the schedule to be attached to the reasons.

213. The sentence with a non-parole period of six years in respect of Mr Field commenced on 15 October 2015. He will be first eligible for parole on 14 October 2021. The balance of term is two years and six months. The total term of the sentence is eight years and six months expiring on 14 April 2024.

*See attached Schedule of Charges and Sentences.

Field & Sibbritt Schedule (26.5 KB, docx)

**********

Amendments

20 April 2017 - Change made to title of attached Schedule.

Decision last updated: 20 April 2017