R v Greenwood

[2018] NSWDC 499

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Greenwood [2018] NSWDC 499
Hearing dates:	11 May 2018
Date of orders:	11 May 2018
Decision date:	11 May 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months a non-parole period of 11 months. Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment with an aggregate non-parole period of three years.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act — suspended sentence — sentence of imprisonment SENTENCING — firearms offences — aggregate sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Muldrock and The Queen (2011) 249 CLR 120
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Matthew David Greenwood (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Coroneos (Offender)   Solicitors: G Ellis (Crown)
File Number(s):	2014/00055676; 2016/00207581

SENTENCE

1. The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to those pleas to the following offences.

2. The first offence is that on 8 July 2016 at Hobartville, he manufactured a prohibited drug, being methylamphetamine. That is an offence under s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), and has a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000. There is no applicable standard non‑parole period.

3. The second offence is that between 13 June 2016 and 8 July 2016 at Richmond, the offender on three or more separate occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days, supplied a prohibited drug other than cannabis, for financial or material reward. That is an offence under s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, and has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000 and again there is no applicable standard non‑parole period.

4. There is a third offence, that on 8 July 2016 at Hobartville, the offender possessed a prohibited weapon, being a butterfly knife without being authorised to do so by a permit. That is an offence under s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW). It has a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and there is a standard non‑parole period of five years.

5. There is a further offence, that on 9 July 2016 at Hobartville, the offender possessed a pistol, being a Walther PPK self‑loading pistol, not being authorised to do so by a licence or a permit. That is an offence under s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). It has a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and there is an applicable standard non‑parole period of four years’ imprisonment

6. There are three offences, that on 8 July 2016 at Hobartville, the offender possessed a prohibited firearm, not being authorised to do so by a permit or licence. The firearms concerned are, a shortened .22 calibre Squires Bingham rifle, a shortened 12 gauge Bellamber Ibigen double‑barrel shotgun, and a .68 calibre Spyder paintball gun. Each of those offences is an offence under s 7(1) of the Firearms Act, and there is an applicable standard non‑parole period of four years.

7. There are two offences, that between 8 and 9 July 2016 at Hobartville, the offender possessed a firearm not being authorised to do so by a permit or licence. The firearms concerned are a .222 Remington calibre Winchester repeat bolt action rifle, and an imitation revolver. They are both offences under s 7A(1) of the Firearms Act. They each have a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and there is no applicable standard non‑parole period.

8. There are three offences to be taken into account when sentencing the offender on the ongoing supply offence. Those offences are on a Form 1. They are: possession of equipment to administer a prohibited drug, being a pipe, an offence of supply of prohibited drug being 453 grams of cannabis, and an offence of possess ammunition being 202 shotgun cartridges and cartridges of various calibres.

9. In taking those offences into account, I have had regard to the guideline judgment concerning Form 1 matters. I consider that they should have a limited impact on the sentence that I am to impose on the ongoing supply count.

Facts of the offending

10. I turn then to the facts. Between 9 June 2016 and 8 July that year, police were intercepting the offender’s phone. Whilst intercepting his mobile phone services, police obtained evidence which I identified that Stephen Pembrous and this offender, were involved in the manufacture of prohibited drugs, namely, methylamphetamine, from this offender’s home in Hobartville. The co‑offender’s primary role - and it will become apparent that I sentenced the co‑offender previously - was to obtain the precursor material for use in the manufacture process, and that this offender’s primary role was to provide the premises for the place of manufacture of the drug and to manufacture the drug.

11. It is agreed between the parties that the joint criminal enterprise for the manufacture, produced a quantity exceeding 5 grams but less than 250 grams of methylamphetamine. The precise quantity would appear to be unknown. The telephone intercepts indicate that the co‑offender and this offender were both actively involved in the manufacture of the drug.

12. On 8 July 2016, a clandestine laboratory for drug manufacture was located in the kitchen of the premises at Hobartville. The crime scene warrant and search warrant were executed and a number of items consistent with the manufacture of the relevant drug was seized.

13. On 10 July 2016, a mobile phone was located in Hereford Street, Hobartville by a member of the public and handed into police. A search of the phone, identified an open Facebook profile in the name of the co‑offender and text conversations between this offender and that co‑offender. This offender was arrested at the premises. He was in possession of an ice pipe used to smoke methylamphetamine. That is one of the offences on the Form 1.

14. On 28 June 2016 at 6.21am, the offender sent a text message to a person using a particular mobile phone service, indicating that he was in possession of one pound of cannabis and further text messages were exchanged on 30 June that year, indicating that he had supplied the cannabis and that too is an offence on the Form 1.

15. On 20 July 2016 between times particularised in the facts, this offender exchanged a number of text messages with a person using another telephone service. This offender arranged to supply that person with methylamphetamine in return for a payment of $400.

16. On 20 June 2016, this offender exchanged a number of text messages with a person using another telephone service. He arranged to supply that person with 1.75 grams of methylamphetamine in return for a payment of $400. At about 8.54 that evening, the drug was supplied.

17. On 27 June 2016, this offender again exchanged a number of text messages with a person using the same telecommunication service for the last supply. He offered to supply that person with 0.4 grams of cocaine and 0.3 grams of methylamphetamine.

18. On 2 July 2016, this offender exchanged a number of text messages with a person using another telephone service, and agreed to supply 0.1 gram of methylamphetamine.

19. On 4 July 2016, this offender exchanged a number of text messages with a person using yet another telephone service. He agreed to supply 0.5 grams of methylamphetamine for a payment of $180. The supply occurred at about 5.38pm.

20. The facts then detail a number of other similar supplies which I will not read onto the record.

21. On 8 July, the offender’s premises were searched and the police located a number of firearms, a weapon, and a quantity of ammunition which were the subject of the charges. There was the butterfly knife which is particularised in the charge. There was an imitation Walther PPK self‑loading pistol which was an imitation firearm, particularised in one of the charges. They located a shortened .22 long calibre Squires Bingham model 20 self‑loading rifle. The rifle was not in working order. It did not have a stock trigger and trigger guard, bolt handle, recoil spring assembly, or detachable box magazine. It was a prohibited firearm, however. The police located the shortened shotgun, particularised in one of the charges. They also located the paintball gun, particularised in one of the charges. It did not have a hoprill magazine or grip plates but otherwise was in working order. It too is a prohibited firearm. They located the Winchester repeating bolt action rifle with a telescopic site, which is particularised in one of the charges, and there was an imitation revolver, which is particularised in one of the charges. The police found some ammunition which was set out in the facts which is one of the offences on the Form 1.

Assessment of objective seriousness

22. I turn then to my assessment of the objective seriousness of the individual offences. In terms of the manufacture a prohibited drug offence, as I said when I sentenced the co‑offender, there was clearly some planning in the offence as there always is when a prohibitive drug is manufactured. The planning was not above that inherent in the nature of the offence. The quantity of drug manufactured is a relevant factor to consider in assessing objective seriousness for such an offence but it is not determinative. Here, as I say, the facts do not allow me to make any meaningful determination as to the quantity of drug produced, given the facts simply record that the parties agree that somewhere between 5 and 250 grams was produced.

23. Another significant factor in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence is the role of the offender. This offender’s primary role was to provide the premises for the manufacturing process and to be actively involved in the process.

24. The offence clearly involved a joint criminal enterprise.

25. When sentencing the co-offender I found that this offender was a little more involved than the co-offender, and no submission was put that that finding was in error.

26. It is clear from all the material before me that the offender engaged in the offence for financial gain and to fund and support his own drug habit. While in relation to this offence it is strictly not necessary to compare it with a notional midrange offence, I consider that the offence is considerably below the midrange level of objective seriousness.

27. In relation to the ongoing supply offence, such an offence is generally considered to be more serious than a supply. The quantity of drug is a relevant matter to consider, however the section is directed to repetition, system and organisation of the supply, and those factors are relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. Again, the offence was clearly engaged in for financial gain. The amount supplied was approximately 7.35 grams of methylamphetamine and .4 of a gram of cocaine. They are not particularly significant amounts. There were nine separate supply transactions. I do not consider there was anything particularly sophisticated about the manner of supply. I consider the offence to be well below the midrange level of objective seriousness, noting that it is not strictly necessary to compare the offence to a notional midrange offence.

28. Common to all of the possess weapon and firearms offences, the items were located in what I understand to be a semirural environment.

29. I have no evidence as to the reason why the offender possessed them, although he gave an explanation to the author of the psychological report that he had agreed to store property, by which I take it he meant the firearms and the weapon, and that the firearms were owned by a “powerful” member of an unnamed motorcycle gang who had threatened him and his family.

30. The offender gave no evidence in the sentence proceedings so I approach that explanation with some caution.

31. Of course the weapon and the firearms were possessed at premises where the offender was engaged in an illegal activity being the manufacturing of a prohibited drug. The possess prohibited weapon offence, being a butterfly knife, concerned a prohibited weapon which I can infer was capable of inflicting an injury although it is not as serious as some of the other items which under the relevant legislation are prohibited weapons. I assess the objective seriousness of this offence as being below the midrange level.

32. The possess pistol offence being a Walther PPK self‑loading pistol involved an imitation firearm. As the firearm was an imitation I find the objective seriousness is below the midrange.

33. The possess prohibited firearm offence concerning a shortened .22 calibre Squires Bingham rifle was not in working order and did not have a number of essential working components. While the possession of a shortened firearm is always a matter of very great concern the fact that the firearm was not in working order has an impact upon my assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. I consider the objective seriousness is towards the lower end of the range.

34. The possess prohibited firearm offence being a shortened 12 gauge Bellamber Ibigen double barrel shotgun is a particularly serious offence. It has been observed in R v Harris that there is no legitimate purpose for possessing a sawn‑off shotgun. Shotgun cartridges were also found at the offender’s premises. I assess the objective seriousness of this offence as falling within the midrange. The possess prohibited firearm offence which concerned a Spyder paintball gun which did not have a hop or a magazine I consider as towards the very bottom of the range of objective seriousness. There is no evidence the firearm could fire anything other than paintballs and it was effectively not in working order.

35. The possession of a firearm without authority offence concerning the .222 Remington Winchester model 70 repeating bolt action rifle with telescopic sight I consider is an offence which is a little below the midrange level of objective seriousness. I note the weapon was in working order, there were telescopic sights and ammunition for that weapon was found at the offender’s premises.

36. The possess firearm without authority offence concerning the imitation revolver I consider is towards the lower end of objective seriousness giving an imitation firearm was involved.

Offender’s subjective case

37. I turn then to the offender’s subjective case.

38. The offender is 32 years of age and was 30 years of age as at the date of the offences.

39. He has a limited but relevant criminal history.

40. On 6 November 2015 he was sentenced in this court for an offence that on 21 February 2014 he supplied a prohibited drug which was not cannabis. He received an 18 months suspended sentence for that offence which dated from 6 November 2015 and expired on 5 May 2017.

41. The offences that I am to sentence him for breach that suspended sentence. That is an aggravating factor as the offences were all committed while on conditional liberty. It will be necessary to deal with the breach of the suspended sentence before I sentence the offender on the current offences, and I will return to it in due course.

42. The offender was also convicted of an offence of possess prohibited drug on 23 July 2015. That offence which occurred on 24 March 2015 was also in breach of the suspended sentence however I note no action was then taken on the breach.

43. In terms of his custodial record he incurred three drug related infringements up to 15 January 2017 within the gaol system but has not incurred any since then.

44. There is a presentence report. That report records that on 17 August 2017 he was assaulted whilst in custody and sustained a fractured jaw which required surgery. Post that injury it is recorded that he had a diagnosis of post‑traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.

45. In terms of the offender’s background, the presentence report records him describing a childhood involving emotional turmoil as a result of the sudden death of his father when he was nine years of age. This was followed a few years later by the suicide of a brother to whom he was close. He shared a birthday with that brother and was the person who found his brother who had hung himself. He reported that he is close to his family who were present during the sentence proceedings and are present today in support of him.

46. Upon his eventual release from custody he intends to return to live with his mother, stepfather and younger sister.

47. 47    After completing the Higher School Certificate in 2002 the offender completed TAFE qualifications in security and risk management, and planned to become a police officer until injuries he sustained in a motorcycle accident forced him to withdraw from the Diploma of Policing in 2008.

48. In terms of his employment, the presentence report records that he was self-employed having conducted his own transport company since 2012 following five years working as a painter for his brother-in-law.

49. In relation to the issue of his illicit drug use, the presentence report records he began experimenting with various drugs when he was around 15 years of age. He told the author of the presentence report that his substance abuse commenced in 2008 after his motorcycle accident. This led to long-term use of methylamphetamine and alcohol abuse. He indicated to the author of the presentence report that he was prepared to undertake residential rehabilitation. Whilst in custody he has received antidepressant medication and has had contact with a psychologist.

50. In terms of the offences, he told the author of the report that he had agreed to store property for a third party in return for drugs and he would then sell small amounts. He claimed that the firearms were owned, as I say, by a powerful member of an unknown motorcycle gang who had been threatening him and his family. Absent evidence from the offender so that the assertions could be tested, I give that explanation little weight.

51. He was assessed as having a low to medium risk of reoffending.

52. There are three reports before me by Acting Professor Stephen Woods, a forensic psychologist. The reports are dated 3 November 2016, 6 December 2017 and 28 March 2018. The psychologist had previously prepared reports concerning the offender in 2014 and 2015 which would seem to have been prepared in relation to his previous sentence. The report dated 3 November 2016 was prepared for use on a bail application a little over a month after the offender had been assaulted within the gaol system. The psychologist had access to a number of Corrective Services records concerning that assault and the treatment the offender had received. The psychologist considered that the assault had aggravated pre-existing symptoms of post‑traumatic stress disorder, those symptoms were said to be derived from trauma he suffered as a consequence of finding his brother’s body when he was 15. The psychologist also considered the offender had unresolved grief in relation to the passing of both his father and his brother. He also recorded that the offender was in pain from injuries he suffered in a prior motorcycle accident. The family background set out in that report is essentially consistent with that in the presentence report.

53. In terms of his mental state as at the time he was then seen by the psychologist, it was noted that he was oriented as to time, place and purpose of the assessment, although he was observed to be hyper vigilant. He was also observed to be suffering very severe chronic pain and clinically severe levels of depression.

54. In the report of 6 December 2017 the psychologist expressed the opinion that the fact of the assault the offender suffered in gaol has continued to aggravate his pre-existing post‑traumatic stress disorder.

55. On examination his mental state was said to be similar to that in the earlier report, although it was noted that he displayed a restricted range of emotions with flat affect. The psychologist also considered that the offender had clinically severe levels of depression and anxiety. While perhaps beyond the psychologist’s area of expertise, he recorded that the offender’s broken jaw from the assault has not been surgically corrected and the offender suffers from high cholesterol.

37. The psychologist expressed the opinion that the offender met the diagnostic criteria of the following mental health disorders, post‑traumatic stress disorder, persistent complex bereavement disorder, persistent depressive disorder with melancholy features, major depressive episodes, polysubstance use disorder in early stage of remission.

38. The psychologist also expressed the opinion that, given the offender’s history of drug use, it is necessary to be cautious in terms of considering his clinical progress and risk of reoffending.

39. There is a further report by the psychologist which is dated 28 March 2018. It appears little had changed by the time that report was prepared. The psychologist expressed the opinion that the offender’s presentation was such that he had a chronic major depressive disorder with comorbid stress disorder and somatic symptom disorder.

40. The offender is recorded as telling the psychologist that he had continued to abstain from drug use while in custody.

41. Turning then to the relevance of the evidence of the offender’s mental health to this sentence. The evidence does not, in my opinion, establish any causal connection between the offender’s mental health conditions and his offending. There is no reduction therefore in his moral culpability as a consequence of his mental health. I do, however, consider that his mental health means that he will find, and has found, his time in custody to be much more arduous than inmates who do not suffer those mental health problems. I also note, and accept, that in that regard he is still suffering pain from his broken jaw. I consider there should be a limited reduction in the need to express general deterrence in the sentence due to his mental health conditions.

42. There are also before me two family testimonial in relation to the offender.

43. One is from his brother which provides confirmation of the offender’s background as revealed in the pre-sentence report and psychologist’s report. It is clear from his brother’s letter that the offender’s family remains supportive of him. The brother’s letter records expressions of remorse for his offending by the offender. The letter also details the offender’s resolve concerning engaging in rehabilitation.

44. There is also a document under the hand of the offender’s mother.

45. The offender’s background, in particular, the tragic early death of his father and the finding of his brother’s body and the motor cycle accident he suffered, are there confirmed. The mother’s document is additional evidence of the family support the offender has. The offender’s mother also sets out that the offender has left his “past disreputable contacts behind” and is prepared to engage in rehabilitation.

46. I have mentioned the offender did not give evidence before me but insofar as his background is concerned what is contained in the pre-sentence report and the psychological reports is confirmed in the documents under the hand of his brother and his mother. I see no reason not to accept what he told the authors of the reports about his background.

47. In my opinion the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation. His criminal record is limited. The subjective material before me suggests that he has commenced his rehabilitation while in custody and his committed to it. He has very considerable family support. While I consider he has good prospects of rehabilitation I am not able to make a finding that he is unlikely to reoffend because he committed these offences while on a suspended sentence.

Sentence

67. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court and is entitled to a 25% discount of his sentence as a consequence of the plea of guilty for its utilitarian value and I will allow him that discount.

68. In relation to the remorse, there is his early plea of guilty and statements of remorse to the report writers and to his family members. I am satisfied in these circumstances that there is genuine evidence of remorse.

69. I am satisfied on the evidence, as I say, the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation and has commenced his rehabilitation although it is not yet complete. He has not incurred any drug infringements within the prison system since January last year and based on the contents of the reports that are before me he has commenced his rehabilitation while in custody.

70. I note also this is his first sentence to full-time custody although alone that does not justify a finding of special circumstances. His prospects of rehabilitation will be assisted in my opinion if he has a longer period on parole than that provided by the statutory ratio.

71. There is a limited parity issue in relation to this sentencing. On 10 November last year I sentenced the co-offender for a similar offence in relation to the manufacture that is the subject of the charge here. While the facts presented at that sentence were a little different to those presented here, the roles attributed to each offender are the same as is the uncertainty concerning the quantity actually manufactured.

72. When sentencing the co-offender I observed that they each had participated in a joint criminal enterprise but this offender was a little more involved than the co-offender. That finding is consistent with the facts presented here. When sentencing Mr Pembrous I had regard to a supply count on a Form 1 which related to 1.75 grams of methylamphetamine.

73. In terms of his subjective case, Mr Pembrous had what I described as a “reasonably extensive criminal record” and had served terms of imprisonment in the past. He had also been given opportunities to engage in rehabilitation. The co-offender did not plead guilty in the Local Court but on arraignment and I allowed a 20% discount. I found there was some remorse but noted the offence was committed while on Supreme Court bail which was an aggravating factor.

74. The co-offender had a lengthy history of abusing illegal drugs. I also found he only had guarded prospects of rehabilitation. I imposed in relation to the co-offender a sentence of two years and four months with a non-parole period of one year and four months. I have had regard to that sentence when considering the appropriate sentence here on the manufacture offence.

75. I note the offender has been in custody since his arrest on 8 July 2016. I will effectively backdate the sentence to that date but factoring in the need to resentence on the suspended sentence. Given the number of offences and the different type of offending it is appropriate there be a level of accumulation of the sentences. I must be careful, however, to ensure that I do not impose a crushing sentence. I have had regard to the objectives of sentencing referred to in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act which include the need to impose adequate punishment, general and specific deterrence, protection of the community, denouncing the offender’s conduct, recognising the harm done to the victim and the community and rehabilitation of the offender.

76. In terms of the manufacturing of prohibited drug offence and the ongoing supply offences the manufacture and ultimate supply of prohibited drugs including methylamphetamine is destroying lives, families and the very fabric of our community. General deterrence must feature in any sentence for such an offence in order to deter others from committing such an offence. Sentences must be imposed of sufficient severity to deter this offender and others.

77. I have already noted that he is not a suitable vehicle for the full expression of general deterrence due to his mental health. Given the offender committed the drug offences while on a suspended sentence for a drug offence, the sentence must contain a level of personal deterrence.

78. In relation to the possess firearm offences, in the late 1990s a shocking event occurred in Tasmania which resulted in all the governments in Australia introducing new laws addressing the penalties for those who possessed prohibited firearms or firearms that they are not authorised to possess. Firearms are inherently dangerous and the community looks to the Courts to impose significant sentences upon those who possess illegal firearms or firearms without proper authority. General deterrence must feature significantly when sentencing for such offences.

79. The only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment having considered s 5 of that legislation. The maximum penalties and where applicable the standards non-parole periods, have been taken into account as legislative guideposts as explained by the High Court in Muldrock and The Queen (2011) 249 CLR 120.

80. When the matter was last before me it was adjourned as the offender wished an opportunity to meet with the police with a view to obtaining material relevant to s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. This afternoon a document under the hand of a relevant police officer was tendered to me. While its content is consistent with the offender’s remorse and contrition I do not consider that its content justifies any further reduction in the discount of his sentence on top of the discount he will receive for his early plea of guilty. It was late in coming and provided nothing that was new as far as the authorities were concerned.

81. I mentioned earlier that the current offences were committed while the offender was serving a suspended sentence. No submission was advanced that it is not appropriate that I first revoke the suspended sentence and impose a sentence of imprisonment in relation to that matter. The offence to which the suspended sentence related was an offence that on 21 February 2014 at Leichhardt the offender supplied a prohibited drug being 22.7 grams of methylamphetamine. I should indicate that while the facts, the offender’s record and the subjective material that was before Judge Tupman at the time the suspended sentence was imposed are before me, her Honour’s remarks on sentence are not. I also record that Judge Tupman is aware of the fact that I am dealing with the suspended sentence she imposed when sentencing this offender on the other offences.

82. The facts indicate the offender was found in possession of the drug by the police along with other indications the possession was for the purpose of supply. The drug concerned had a purity of 66.5%. The card offences occurred between seven and eight months into the term of the suspended sentence imposed by her Honour. The suspended sentence was one of 18 months. I revoke the suspended sentence. I impose a sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 11 months and a balance of term of seven months. The sentence commenced on 8 July 2016 and expired on 7 January 2018.

83. In relation to the offences which constitute the breaches of the suspended sentence I propose to utilise the aggregate sentencing provisions.

84. Mr Greenwood you are convicted of each offence to which you have pleaded guilty. I will first indicate the indicative sentences and where there is a standard non-parole period I will indicate an indicative non-parole period. You will hear the final sentence at the end when I have recorded the indicative sentences.

85. In relation to the manufacture prohibited drug offence being Court Attendance Notice number 1, there is an indicative sentence of two years imprisonment. In relation to the ongoing supply a prohibited drug offence recorded in Court Attendance Notice number 21, having regard to the matters on the Form 1, there is an indicative sentence of two years imprisonment. In relation to the possess prohibited weapon offence, sequence 7, there is an indicative sentence of one year and one month with an indicative non-parole period of eight months.

86. In relation to the possess an unauthorised pistol offence being Court Attendance Notice number 22, there is an indicative sentence of two years and three months with an indicative non-parole period of one year and four months. In relation to the possess prohibited firearm offence being a shortened .22 calibre Squires Bingham self-loading rifle there is an indicative sentence of one year and one month with an indicative non-parole period of eight months.

87. In relation to the possess prohibited firearm being a shortened 12 gauge shotgun Court Attendance Notice number 24, there is an indicative sentence of three years and nine months with an indicative non-parole period of two years and three months. In relation to the possess prohibited firearm being a paintball gun, court attendance notice number 25, there is an indicative sentence of one month imprisonment. In relation to the possession of a firearm without being authorised to do so being a .222 calibre Winchester rifle Court Attendance Notice number 26, there is an indicative sentence of one year and six months. In relation to the possession of a firearm without being authorised to do so being an imitation revolver court attendance notice number 27, there is an indicative sentence of one year.

88. I impose an aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment with an aggregate non-parole period of three years. The sentence commences on 8 October 2016 and expires on 7 October 2021. The non-parole period expires on 7 October 2019. There is, therefore, taking into account the level of accumulation on the sentence imposed for the breach of the s 12 bond a total sentence of five years and three months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and three months. The first date that you are eligible for parole is 7 October 2019. Whether you are released to parole then is a matter for the State Parole Authority. No doubt it will take account of how you behave in gaol in determining the appropriate date to release you to parole.

Orders

89. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months a non-parole period of 11 months.

90. Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment with an aggregate non-parole period of three years.

91. Drugs are to be destroyed.

**********

Decision last updated: 06 May 2019