R v Harpur

[2013] NSWDC 245

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Harpur [2013] NSWDC 245
Hearing dates:	26 September 2013.
Decision date:	26 September 2013
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment - Partially accumulated - For the offence of supplying cocaine sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 9 months.- For the offence of supplying methylamphetamine, taking into account matters on the Form 1, set a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 6 months and a head sentence of 18 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form 1 - Supply cocaine - Supply methylamphetamine - Prohibited weapon - Knuckleduster - Taser
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Timothy Harpur
Representation:	Mr M Ainsworth - Offender Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2012/345185

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Those of us who deal with drug supply offences on a regular basis are familiar with the significant sums of money which can be made by those who are willing to supply drugs to others. That provides something of a temptation to those who are willing to deal in drugs for their own financial gain. People are prepared to make money by causing misery to others through supplying them with harmful, addictive and destructive drugs.

1. We have an example of this before the Court today. Timothy Harpur is a drug supplier. He is in that category of drug supply traditionally regarded as one of the most serious. He does not use drugs. He does not appear as a desperate individual wracked by addiction. He appears before the Court today as someone who has got involved in drug supply activities purely for the money that he could get.

1. In October 2012 police were monitoring telephone calls and SMS messages on a telephone service used by the offender. They were aware of SMS communications whereby the offender agreed to meet with a John Tan on 5 November 2012. Police watched as a transaction took place whereby the offender supplied Mr Tan with 141.2 grams of methylamphetamine and Mr Tan gave the offender in response $38,000.

1. Both Mr Tan and the offender were arrested soon after the transaction took place. Mr Tan was found to have in his possession five separate bags of methylamphetamine with quite a high purity, 80% in fact. The offender was found to have in his possession the purchase price $38,000 in cash.

1. Police then searched the offender's car and they found other drugs, in particular seven individual clear plastic bags containing cocaine. There was 18.2 grams of that drug with a purity of 70.5%.

1. Police then went to the offender's premises and found two prohibited weapons, a knuckleduster and a Taser. The offender had permits for neither weapon.

1. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to two offences of supplying a prohibited drug, one relating to the methylamphetamine and one relating to the cocaine.

1. There was something of a technical problem in relation to one of the Court Attendance Notices and so he was arraigned in this Court on the supply methylamphetamine matter but it remains the case that he had pleaded guilty to that offence at the earliest opportunity. The sentences that I will impose upon him are thus 25% less than they would otherwise have been.

1. As well as those matters, he also asked me to take into account when I sentence him for the methylamphetamine matter, three other offences, one is an offence of possessing the $38,000 I have mentioned. Given the circumstances of this offence it would be double counting were I to add any significant punishment to the offender because of that matter but the other two offences to be taken into account are not in the same category.

1. He has also asked that I take into account the offences of possessing the knuckleduster and Taser without a permit. They are nasty weapons whose only real purpose can be to inflict significant injury upon other people. I will take those matters into account when I sentence him for the supply methylamphetamine matter.

1. The offender is almost 30 years of age and has no previous criminal history. It is somewhat remarkable that he would commence a criminal career with such a significant couple of offences as these. When I say, 'commence a criminal career' I do not intend in any way suggest that he will continue to commit crimes. It is my hope that the significant punishment which I will inflict upon him in a short time will act as a significant deterrent to him in order to persuade him that next time he wants to make some money he chooses a less lucrative but more law abiding means of doing so.

1. There is no suggestion that Mr Harpur was in financial difficulties, no suggestion that he was behind in his rent or any other form of financial embarrassment that might lead to him giving into the temptation to make money in the way he has. Indeed, he appears to have been successful in his chosen career as a personal trainer. A number of references tendered to court today speak highly of him. He has clients as a personal trainer who regard him highly and who are aware of the charges that he now faces, and the likely penalty that must be imposed.

1. Notwithstanding those matters, each of the referees indicates a willingness to support Mr Harpur on his release from custody and to resume his services as a personal trainer.

1. There is nothing in Mr Harpur's background which would suggest a predisposition to committing offences of this kind, and like many others who appear for sentence in this Court he has no real excuse as to why he would have done what he did.

1. He has clearly been involved with sport and physical fitness for a large part of his life. To him health and fitness are important, as is hard work. As well as working as a self-employed fitness trainer, he occasionally contracts as a commercial carpet layer.

1. He works as a hire car driver every second weekend and as a boxing trainer as well. There is, therefore, much that Mr Harpur is entitled to be proud of as regards his lifestyle and his character. What he is certainly not entitled to be proud of is the way he chose to make some extra money.

1. He chose to deal in a substance which does cause harm to a large number of people, and he was prepared to make money at the expense of those. Fortunately because of police intervention the drugs that would otherwise have made there way on to the streets and into the bodies of drug users was seized by police so they were never actually distributed.

1. Mr Harpur has had some drug use himself in the past but consistent with his desire to keep fit he ceased all drug use over five years ago and rarely even drinks alcohol.

1. It is conceded that a fulltime custodial sentence is required. Mr Ainsworth asks that I make a finding of special circumstances in the offender's favour. It is no longer the case, if it ever was, that simply being sent to gaol for the first time amounts to a special circumstance but considering the offender's prior good character, considering the substantial bank of good character on which he is entitled to rely committing his first offences at almost 30 years of age, I am satisfied that the minimum period that the offender must serve in order to reflect the objective gravity of his offending in the circumstances in which it was committed is such that a finding of special circumstances can be made in the offender's favour.

1. There were two drugs involved, one actually supplied, and one clearly in the offender's possession for the purpose of later supply.

1. I will impose sentences which are partially accumulative to reflect the fact that there is extra criminality involved in the two offences. The sentences I impose are as follows;

1. For the offence of supplying cocaine, I set a fixed term of imprisonment of nine months to date from 26 September 2013, that is today. That is a fixed term because of the sentence I will now impose on the other matter.

1. For the offence of supplying methylamphetamine taking into account the matters on the Form 1, I set a term of imprisonment consisting of a nonparole period of six months and a head sentence of 18 months to date from 26 March 2014. The nonparole period will thus expire on 25 September next year, 2014 on which day the offender is to be released on parole.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 January 2015