R v Hanson

[2007] NSWDC 95

CITATION:	R v HANSON [2007] NSWDC 95
HEARING DATE(S):	23 March 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:	23 March 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	23 March 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	See paragraph [15]
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis
PARTIES:	Crown Judith Faye Hanson
FILE NUMBER(S):	07/11/0023
SOLICITORS:	NSW DPP Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Judith Hanson appears for sentence today for an offence of supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis. The prohibited drug was cocaine. She supplied that drug to an undercover police officer on a number of occasions. On 10 August 2006 she supplied .07 grams of cocaine. On 18 August she supplied two separate quantities .15 of a gram and .16 of a gram of heroin. On 6 September she supplied .1 of a gram of cocaine. The quantities that she supplied to the undercover officer totalled thus .32 grams of cocaine and .16 grams of heroin.

2 What makes this offence serious of course is the ongoing nature of the criminality. The legislature responded to people who were, as Ms Hanson did, regularly supplying drugs by creating the offence of supplying them on an ongoing basis and by its maximum penalty indicated that it should be dealt with as seriously as those who supply on a single occasion much larger quantities of drugs.

3 This offence came about when Ms Hanson, who was dabbling in cocaine use at the time, invited a Mr Keating to move into her home. He was a drug supplier and he used the home that he shared with Ms Hanson as the base for his drug supply activities. Eventually Mr Keating left, but his customers would still come around knocking on the door and trying to get drugs. The offender decided that she would supply them. In that sense she took over Mr Keating’s business. She says that she did so in order to get her own drugs for free. By this stage she wasn’t merely dabbling in cocaine use but had a significant habit. By supplying drugs to others she was able to get drugs for her own use, this is not a case of a person profiting in the sense of making large sums of money by any means from what she did.

4 Ms Hanson, more than most, should have realised just how wrong her criminal behaviour was. She has had three significant relationships in her life. Two of those ended when her partner died through drug overdose. That Ms Hanson would, in those circumstances, get involved in supplying drugs to others is therefore surprising. It suggests a significant need to impose a sentence on Ms Hanson that will personally deter her from committing offences of this kind in the future. If she is prepared to supply drugs to people after experiencing first hand, on two occasions, the consequences of drug use, then something else needs to be done to persuade her not to indulge in similar offence in the future; and that something else will be the imposition of a sentence of some severity in order to deter Ms Hanson herself. A significant sentence is also required to deter others apart from Ms Hanson who may be tempted to say to themselves “I will get my own drugs for free by supplying to others”.

5 The objective criminality of an offence is a fundamental matter in determining the appropriate sentence and a favourable subjective case cannot be allowed to overwhelm the need to impose a sentence which reflects the objective gravity of someone’s conduct.

6 Ms Hanson does present to me in a favourable light. She is, depending on which document you look at, either fifty-four, fifty-five or fifty-six. I do not mean to suggest that she is telling lies about her birth date. Various people have calculated her age differently. I will accept Ms Hanson’s calculation because she should know best, she says she is fifty-five.

7 She has a significant criminal history, but for a number of years in more recent times she has remained offence free. In that time she got a job working as a barmaid in a hotel. She lost that job when the hotel was sold. She hopes to return to that work, doing courses whilst in custody which will assist her in regaining that employment. She has done her responsible service of alcohol and a similar course relating to gambling whilst in custody, qualifications which are necessary if she is to be employed in a similar role in the future.

8 Ms Hanson also impresses me as a clever and sensible woman. There is much that is good about Ms Hanson. She has experienced many hardships in her life. I have referred on a couple of occasions to the death of two of her partners. To a third partner she had a daughter who is profoundly disabled. The stress of caring for her disabled daughter clearly had consequences in terms of her relationship with her then partner. Ms Hanson appears to have been a drug user for many years with occasional periods of abstinence. It is her desire to leave custody drug free and to that end she has been reducing her methadone dose.

9 She pleaded guilty at an early stage and so I will discount the sentence I would otherwise impose by twenty-five percent to reflect that fact. She has also expressed her remorse. In a letter to me she realises that she says that now she is thinking clearly and rationally, she realises that she has put the lives of many others at risk by her criminal behaviour.

10 There are special circumstances in this case. They relate to the need for Ms Hanson to be supervised. The fact that she has on an earlier occasions had, for her, lengthy periods without offending suggests that there is hope for the future, especially if she is supervised by the Probation and Parole Service. She has, I am satisfied, good prospects of rehabilitation.

11 Ms Hanson also has some health problems, in particular, she is suffering from the consequences of an injury to her back. That will mean that she spends her time in custody harder than would otherwise be the case. Those who have spoken to her of more recent times consider that she is co-operative and cordial. Earlier, when supervised by the Probation and Parole Service, it seems that she was not so, but now she seems to recognise that at her age if she wants to spend a significant period of her life in the future out of gaol she needs to change her ways.

12 Another aspect I should have referred to when talking about the offender spending her time in custody harder than would otherwise be the case concerns the fact that both her parents are now ill and she wishes to spend as much time with them as she can in the future.

13 I return to something which controls the sentence I can impose in this case and that is the objective gravity of the offender’s conduct. Ongoing supply of drugs, even small quantities of drugs, is a very serious matter. The community is rightfully concerned about those who supply to street level users. Not the least of these concerns is that those who use drugs almost invariably need to commit offences to obtain them. The consequences of a person such as Ms Hanson, supplying drugs on a regular basis extend far beyond the consequences to the individual purchasers of those drugs. The community is rightfully concerned about the extent of the drug trade and the role of people such as Ms Hanson in it.

14 Despite all the favourable subjective features, and I was quite impressed by Ms Hanson, it remains my duty to impose a sentence which reflects the objective gravity of her conduct and that is what I will now do.

15 Ms Hanson went into custody on 27 September 2006 and so the sentence will commence on that day. She is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years. I set a non parole period of eighteen months. It will expire on 26 March 2008 on which day Ms Hanson is to be released to parole. I dismiss the back up charges.

**********