R v Hoang

[2024] NSWDC 621

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Hoang [2024] NSWDC 621

Hearing dates:

13 September 2024,
18 September 2024,
8 November 2024

Date of orders:

22 November 2024

Decision date:

22 November 2024

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

King SC DCJ

Decision:

Indicative Sentences:

Count 1 (SEQ 1) + FORM 1 x 2 (SEQ 003, 004): 10 years, 6 months with NPP of 7 years.

Count 2 (SEQ 008): 4 years with NPP of 2 and a half years.

Count 3 (SEQ 006): 3 years.

Aggregate Sentence

Convicted on each count.

Special circumstances found – 1st time in custody and the offender is sentenced to substantial period of imprisonment, the need for significant period of supervision to encourage rehabilitation and return to a law-abiding life in the community.

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years to commence on 8 December 2022 and to expire on 7 December 2030, upon which date he will become eligible for release to parole, and a balance of term of 4 years to commence on 8 December 2030 and to expire on 7 December 2034.

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentencing - knowingly take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug + Form 1 offences of recklessly deal with proceeds of crime & supply prohibited drug - supply not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, MDMA - supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, cocaine – objective seriousness – significant, trusted role of offender, whether claim of duress credible – specific and general deterrence - subjective matters

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985

Cases Cited:

AbbasvR (2013) 231 A Crim R 413

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex
Hoang, Dennis

Representation:

Counsel:
Crown: Mr M Coates, ODPP
Defence: Ms S Goodwin

Solicitors:
Crown: Ms E Lyte, ODPP
Defence: Mr J Harb, Australian Criminal Defence

File Number(s):

2022/00371065

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Dennis Hoang appears for sentence in relation to a number of offences. There is one offence of knowingly take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, namely 22.5 kilograms of methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty provided for that offence is life imprisonment and there is a relevant standard non-parole period of 15 years.

2. In addition, when being sentenced in respect of that matter, he asks the Court to take into account two further offences contained on a Form 1, pursuant to s 32 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. That is: one offence contrary to s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act, being recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime, more than $5000, the amount being $29,408 found at his residence during the execution of the search warrant on 8 December 2022.

3. The second Form 1 offence is an offence of supply a prohibited drug, being more than an indictable quantity and less than a commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 relating to 64 grams of methylamphetamine also found at 97 Hughes Road, Cabramatta, during the search of 8 December 2022.

4. The second offence for which he is to be sentenced is supply not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 141.09 grams of 3,4,methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and there is also a standard non-parole period relevant to such an offence of ten years’ imprisonment.

5. The third offence for which he is to be sentenced is supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 156.55 grams of cocaine. The maximum penalty provided in relation to such an offence is 15 years’ imprisonment but there is no relevant standard non-parole period.

6. He entered his pleas of guilty at the committal proceedings and is accordingly entitled to a reduction of 25% on sentence for the utility of the plea. Such a discount will be applied.

7. I note, in relation to the two Form 1 matters to be taken into account when dealing with the knowingly take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug offence, that, if dealt with separately, the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime has a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment, and the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, 64 grams of methylamphetamine, has a maximum penalty of 15 years available.

8. The facts are agreed and are as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. At about 4am on 8 December 2022, the offender, Dennis Hoang and his mother, Anh Tran (now deceased) and his sister, Sheila Hoang, with her young daughter, Portia Hoang, travelled north in a black Toyota RAV4. At about 8.45am the car was pulled over by Highway Patrol officers near Port Macquarie. A search of the vehicle located a quantity of drugs, namely several kilograms of methylamphetamine, in the boot. Members of the Raptor Squad then executed a search warrant at the offender’s home premises in Hughes Road, Cabramatta, where further drugs, cash and drug supply paraphernalia were located.

2. The Crown case is that Dennis Hoang was the principal of the operation, but Sheila Hoang and Anh Tran knew of Dennis’s operation and actively assisted him in the supply.

3. The offender, Dennis Hoang, admits to his own culpability in the offences. He does not agree that Sheila Hoang or Anh Tran had any knowledge of or involvement in the operation. He also disputes their knowledge of or involvement in the offences. It is not necessary for me, in dealing with this matter, to make any determination about the role or possible role of either Anh Tran or Sheila Hoang.

Count 1: Knowingly take part in the supply of methylamphetamine, large commercial quantity - 22.5 kilograms

Date: 7 December 2022

1. On 7 December 2022, the offender, Dennis Hoang, and Anh Tran and Sheila Hoang, were captured on CCTV leaving and entering their house in Hughes Road, Cabramatta throughout the day. Various unknown visitors also attended the house. At 3.29pm, the offender was captured on CCTV footage carrying a bulging unzipped Woolworths freezer bag to the car along with a black duffel bag. The Woolworths freezer bag contained 5 kilograms of methylamphetamine, made up of five heat-sealed bags containing 1 kilogram of methylamphetamine in each. These bags were labelled 18, 91, 41, 17 and 23. As the offender carried the bags to the car, he was followed by Tran. The offender placed the bags in the boot of the RAV4. The agreed facts contained a photo of him walking from the front door down to the RAV4, carrying the bags.

2. At 4.20pm, Anh Tran assisted the offender by taking some fishing rods and a fabric bag from the car. They had a conversation and confirmed that they would leave at about 4am the following morning.

3. At 5.56pm Sheila Hoang was captured on the doorbell CCTV footage holding a Sunbeam branded box which said, “Food Saver.” The Food Saver bags were the same brand and size bags as the bags that contained the methylamphetamine when the RAV4 was stopped and searched the following day. The facts contained a photo of Sheila Hoang holding the box labelled “Food Saver.”

4. Sheila opened the car boot of the RAV4 and looked inside and said something. Sheila and a person not captured on camera have a conversation for a few minutes.

Date: 8 December 2022

5. At 3.33am on 8 December 2022, Sheila Hoang was captured on the doorbell footage entering the Hughes Street, Cabramatta, premises. At that time, the offender was also captured on camera, leaving the house carrying an Aldi reusable plastic shopping bag, bulging at the sides. The Aldi bag contained bags of methylamphetamine in heat-sealed plastic bags. Sheila and Anh followed behind the offender to the car. Anh Tran and Sheila went back and forth from the car to inside the house.

6. At 3.47am the offender carried a soft black fabric suitcase to the car. Sheila was heard on the footage saying “Lift it up high to shove it in.” When the car was stopped and searched, the suitcase contained packets of methylamphetamine sealed in 1-kilogram heat-sealed packages. Anh Tran told the police it was her suitcase.

Detection on Highway

7. At about 8.45am on 8 December 2022, Sheila Hoang was driving the RAV4 with her young daughter in the back seat with Anh Tran. The offender was in the front passenger seat. The vehicle was pulled over by the police for an unspecified traffic infringement.

8. Sheila Hoang got out of the driver’s seat and Anh Tran got out of the rear driver’s side passenger seat. The police officer held up his police badge and warrant card and said, “Ladies can you please hop back in the car for a sec while I speak to you.” They got back into the car and wound down the windows. The officer asked to see Sheila Hoang’s licence and she produced it.

Search of Toyota RAV4

9. The officer observed the offender typing on his mobile phone extremely fast and his hands were trembling. The officer asked where they were going. Sheila said they were driving to Brisbane but only for one night. At this point, the officer said, “I believe the vehicle might contain prohibited drugs and the vehicle is going to be subject to a search today.”

10. An additional police car arrived with another officer who walked around to the boot and opened it. Inside the boot was a Woolworths brand shopping bag which was unzipped, and the top flap was folded up. The sides of the bag were misshapen and overflowing with large freezer bags and vacuum-sealed bags of a white crystalline substance, namely methylamphetamine. Police noted that the five heat-sealed bags were labelled as follows in blue marker, in each case, 1 kilogram, followed by a number -18, -91, - 41, -17 and ‑23.

11. The blue marker used to write these labels was found in Dennis Hoang’s room during a search warrant executed later that afternoon.

12. Sheila Hoang and Anh Tran were arrested and cautioned. One of the officers states that Sheila Hoang asked, “What’s in the car? What did you find?” The officer replied “I believe there is a large quantity of drugs. What can you tell me about it?” Sheila Hoang said, “I don’t know. I don’t know.”

13. The officer states that Sheila said that she had taken the day off work and the group were travelling to Brisbane for some shopping before travelling back. Sheila declined to elaborate on why she needed to travel all the way to Brisbane to go shopping.

14. At 9.14am an officer pulled out a soft black fabric Anko brand suitcase. The officer asked “Whose bag is this one? Is this your bag?” talking to Tran. Tran replied, “Yes, it’s mine.” The officer asked, “Sorry?” And Tran repeated, “It’s mine.”

15. The soft black fabric bag was unzipped and under a grey towel a large amount of crystalline substance was found. This was later determined to be 15 kilograms of methylamphetamine - not stated in the facts, but as I understand it, again, in 1-kilogram vacuum heat-sealed bags.

16. The bag was seized and placed in an exhibit bag. A further bag was located with two watches, some currency and identification cards which were also seized.

17. The RAV4 was seized and towed to the Port Macquarie Police Station. All were taken into custody and read their rights, presumably with the exception of Portia. They advised they wished to speak to a legal representative, and they declined to participate in an ERISP, as was their right.

18. A further search of the RAV4 uncovered cash in what was considered to be a sophisticated electronically operated hidden compartment within the vehicle. I note that the facts do not contain a photograph of the compartment (although it is asserted that there was insufficient room in the compartment to have contained any significant quantity of the methylamphetamine.)

19. The substances have since been forensically examined by FASS and the purity of the methylamphetamine was determined as falling between 78% and 79.5% in purity. There was a total of 23 1-kilogram bags. Five had a purity of 79.5%. Thirteen had a purity of 78% and a further five had a purity of 79%.

Cabramatta Premises

Form 1- recklessly deal with proceeds of crime more than $5000

Form 1- supply prohibited drug methylamphetamine - indictable quantity

Count 2: supply prohibited drug (3,4,methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine) - commercial quantity

Count 3: supply prohibited drug cocaine more than indictable quantity less than the commercial quantity

20. As a result of the drugs found by the police in the RAV4, police executed a search warrant at the Hughes Road, Cabramatta, premises.

Bedroom 3 - The offender’s bedroom

21. In Bedroom 3 belonging to the offender, Dennis Hoang, police found resealable bags and 1.25 grams of methylamphetamine in a resealable bag as well as freezer bags, Hercules zip lock bags and food safety gloves. Police also found a freezer bag containing 4.25 grams of cocaine.

22. Police located a blue marker on a desk. The blue marker had been used to write “1 kilogram” as well as the numbers on the bags of methylamphetamine found inside the Woolworths freezer bag inside the RAV4.

23. Police also located in that room:

• a homemade bong,

• $1500 cash in $100 notes underneath a computer in an envelope,

• a brown paper bag with 82 MDMA tablets and $2,200 comprised of $50 notes,

• a plastic resealable bag with a small quantity of cannabis,

• multiple sets of digital scales,

• Food Saver packages were also located behind the headboard,

• an open vacuum sealer machine,

• a Lidix branded money counter,

• three bags of white powder, suspected of being cocaine.

24. On a couch in the offender’s bedroom was a tag for a four-piece Anko (Kmart) soft case luggage set, which was the brand of the bag that contained the 15 kilos of methylamphetamine located in the RAV4.

9. [There is a photo contained in the facts of two Hercules branded plastic bags, each with numerals written in the top righthand corner, one of 996 and one bearing, in the designated label section, NO1 (5) and one, where it cannot be determined but appears to be likely to be 3 or 13 (4).]

25. A plastic bag tied at the top was located and contained 13 large resealable freezer plastic bags that were labelled and numbered as I have just referred to. The resealable freezer bags contained crystal residue.

26. Police dismantled the couch and found a hidden hydraulic compartment in the base. At the time of the search there was nothing contained in the compartment.

27. Also in Bedroom 3, a black backpack was located, containing:

• Three resealable bags of cocaine weighing 108 grams.

• Three further resealable bags with a crystalline white substance weighing 154 grams.

• Some further crystalline substance weighing 26 grams.

• A resealable zip lock bag with cannabis.

Inside the main compartment of the backpack were two bundles of currency containing $20,000, predominantly in $100 notes.

Kitchen

28. In the kitchen bin, police found resealable bags with labels and weights similar to those found in the offender’s bedroom. Police also found disposable gloves and used zip lock bags with crystal residue.

Totals

29. The drugs were weighed without packaging and the following totals were seized:

• Count 1 - 22.5 kilograms of methylamphetamine from the RAV4.

• Form 1 - Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime - $29,480 cash.

• Form 1 - Supply prohibited drug 64 grams of methylamphetamine, being an addition of various amounts located.

• Count 2 - 141.09 grams of 3,4,methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine.

• Count 3 - 156.55 grams of cocaine.

10. It is necessary in relation to any offence to refer to its objective seriousness. The methylamphetamine referred to Count 1 of 22.5 kilograms in individual 1-kilogram vacuum-sealed bags was being transported to Queensland from Cabramatta. This amount, that is 22.5 kilograms, was clearly meant to represent a total amount of 23 kilograms, according to its labelling. It constitutes a large commercial quantity of that prohibited drug. A large commercial quantity, according to sch 2 of the legislation, is half a kilogram or 500 grams. The amount being transported to Queensland was 45 times the large commercial quantity threshold. There is of course no upper limit to a large commercial quantity, but 22.5 kilograms is a very substantial quantity. It was also of high quality, being in each case between 78% and 79.5% in purity.

11. The car transporting the drugs was fitted with a sophisticated electronically operated secret compartment. The actual nature or size of the compartment is not referred to in the agreed facts, or how it was electronically operated. I will simply deal with it on the basis that it was a concealed compartment incapable of containing 22.5 kilograms of prohibited drug.

12. The offender, on his own evidence and from the agreed facts, was responsible for weighing, packaging, labelling and transporting the large commercial quantity to Queensland from Cabramatta. He had clearly stored the items at his home for some indefinite period before transporting them and dealing with them as suggested. The facts revealed that at his home he had a number of other particular drugs, which is only relevant to the circumstances in which he carried out this operation.

13. He had weighed and individually packaged the methylamphetamine into one-kilogram amounts, although on his evidence he was instructed to package them into amounts of not less than 996 grams per bag. Each of the amounts was packaged in a food saver bag and heat-sealed. He had labelled them with a blue marker pen which was located in the room referred to as his bedroom. Located at the house were food saver bags and a vacuum-sealer machine as well as multiple sets of digital scales. Some 13 empty resealable freezer plastic bags containing a crystal residue were labelled and numbered in a similar fashion. In the kitchen, police also located further used zip lock bags with a crystal residue.

14. I will refer in more detail to the role of the offender later in these reasons, but it is clear that he at least played a significant role in the distribution of the large commercial quantity of drugs and was clearly very trusted in that position. In my view, this offence falls above the midrange of objective seriousness for offences of this nature, the quantity being some 45 times more than the threshold. That is not the sole determinant of the objective seriousness of an offence, but it is clearly highly relevant.

15. As to Count 2, supply 3, 4-methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine (MDMA), more than a commercial quantity, when the offender’s residence was searched, they located 141.09 grams of MDMA. This is just over the commercial quantity for MDMA, which is 125 grams. The MDMA was in the form of 82 individual tablets, ready for sale. The purity established from a random sample of the tablets was 22.5 percent. They were located in the house with paraphernalia associated with the packaging and supply of prohibited drugs, and also located in the bag containing the 82 MDMA tablets was $2,200 in 50-dollar notes. A further $20,000 was also located in the offender’s bedroom. I find that the offence of supply commercial quantity of MDMA falls just below the midrange of objective seriousness for this offence.

COUNT 3 - SUPPLY COCAINE - INDICTABLE QUANTITY

16. During the search, police also located 156.55 grams of cocaine. The indictable quantity for cocaine is 5 grams. A commercial quantity is 250 grams. Accordingly, 156.55 grams is more than 31 times the indictable quantity, although it is 100 grams less than the large commercial quantity. That is, it falls just above the midpoint between the indictable and commercial quantities. There is no evidence as to the purity of the cocaine. Also located in the house were items for weighing and packaging drugs, previously referred to as digital scales, plastic resealable bags, vacuum sealer machine, a quantity of cash and indeed other indicia of drug supply such as a money-counting machine.

17. In my view, the objective seriousness of this offence is at the midrange of objective seriousness for such an offence. I accept that, in the circumstances, the offender must have been not simply storing drugs at his house or a courier but an integral part in a chain of supply for a large quantity of different drugs. On his own evidence, he had been involved in the preparation of the drugs for distribution, that is the methylamphetamine, having weighed, packaged and labelled it. His participation is evidenced by the substantial nature of the individual drugs, the size and extent of the operation by the location of empty plastic resealable bags with crystal residue, the scales and the presence at his residence of the 141.09 grams of MDMA constituting 82 tablets, the indictable quantity of cocaine, namely 156.55 grams relevant to Count 3, the cash being more than $23,000 in his bedroom, the money-counting machine and multiple sets of digital scales as well as plastic bags and a vacuum-sealer machine and the 13 plastic resealable bags that were labelled and numbered, with crystal residue in them, and the additional freezer bags with crystal residue located in the kitchen bin.

16. It is not possible to say on the evidence that the offender was the principal of the drug operation, but he was clearly a major player in the distribution network. He clearly played an active, trusted, senior and significant role in respect of the methylamphetamine that was located in the car, and from the indicia of supply located in his house, and the packaging of the methylamphetamine. His role clearly included the packaging and distribution of the drugs. Clearly it was a planned operation, however, all drug supply distribution operations are planned, and it cannot be said in relation to this matter that the level of planning exceeded what one would ordinarily expect in respect of an operation of this size.

17. I accept that the drugs were not actually disseminated into the community but that is only because of the fortuitous intervention of the police in stopping the motor vehicle which caused also the search of the house.

18. In relation to this matter there is a statutory aggravating feature or factor contrary to s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, that is that the offences were committed while the offender was on conditional liberty, having been made subject to a Community Corrections Order for possessing a prohibited drug, which commenced on 3 August 2021 and expired on 2 February 2023.

19. I will return later to his criminal history. On sentence, the offender gave evidence, and in short, by way of summary, his evidence was that he was, in transporting the drugs to Queensland, operating under duress, and had some of the property at his residence also as a result of such duress.

20. In short, he said that he had been utilising a drug dealer for his own use of prohibited drugs for a period of approximately 18 months, who he had never seen or met and had only communicated with through an app; that in the last six months before the offending he had run up a considerable debt in relation to the supply of drugs, being approximately some $18,000, which he said was in relation to supply to him of cannabis, ice, methylamphetamine and cocaine, and that during this period he had not been working. (Referred to in the psychological report tendered on his behalf from Chafic Awit , psychologist, as to his employment history.)

21. The offender at the time of the offending was some approximately 30 years and three months of age. Since turning 18, he had only worked for some two weeks at Oporto’s and “since that time his life had been wasted using illicit substances and doing stupid things.” It is difficult to see or understand how in the ordinary events of the drug trade he was able to pay for his own use of drugs prior to running up this huge debt to a drug dealer. Drug dealers are not known generally for their willingness to supply drugs on credit, and certainly not to significant sums of money.

22. In my view, it is most unlikely that a drug dealer that he has never seen or met would allow him over a six-month period as a person with no legitimate income and in particular in the last six months of that period to run up such a substantial debt as $18,000.

23. Even more remarkable is that as part of his duress claim he states that because he had the $18,000 debt the dealer contacted him, and they came to an arrangement whereby to work off the debt the offender would carry out a task on behalf of the dealer.

24. I also note in relation to Centrelink that he was not on benefits while running up the debt. As a result of the $18,000 debt the dealer proposed an arrangement for him to work it off, “look all you have to do is just hold some things for me and we’ll slowly work it out later on.” He claims his response was that he would be open to that.

25. He said that a couple of days after the dealer had said that to him, he was contacted from some random telephone number by a person saying that he was the driver and then making an arrangement to meet the offender that afternoon in Longfield Street, Cabramatta, near the bowling club. He agreed to meet him. He said that once he arrived in Longfield Street, he received a further message telling him to park behind a red Honda and to get out, then go to the back boot, open it, and remove the contents of the boot, being a black bag or a black duffel bag and a brown box, and take them back to his car.

26. He said that he was aware that it was probably going to be something along the line of drugs as a possibility, but he did what he was told: opened the boot, took the items back to his car and returned home.

27. After he had returned home, he opened the box and located inside it a money-counter machine. He also noted that in the black bag there was ice, MDMA, tablets and cash, as well as cannabis. As a result of having all of these drugs available to him to supposedly hold on behalf of the dealer, he decided to have what he referred to as a little bender or party with it, and commenced using the drugs over a number of days, which he referred to as being about three days.

28. His dealer then messaged him, saying that he would need to get back the material that he supplied to him to hold, and he informed the dealer, “I’m sorry man, like not all the drugs are all there, not all the stuff is all there, I ended up using some of it.”

29. He referred to the dealer as becoming angry and threatening him and saying things to him such as “You fucked up. You’re going to have to fucking fix this. I will get back in touch with you in a few days. Don’t you fucking dare touch the stuff. Don’t think about it.” And the offender said “Okay, sorry man, I’m sorry about it.”

30. It defies common sense that a drug dealer who was owed an $18,000 debt would entrust the offender with drugs and money in the circumstances where he knew he was not reliable at paying his debt for drugs.

31. However, he received a knock on the door about two days after the dealer had threatened him and when he opened it, he observed two men he described as being of Asian appearance, tattooed, “big debt collector-looking guys.” As to why he thought they looked like debt collector guys, he said, “Cause then I don’t know anyone like that otherwise, and I was just wondering who are these guys, like what are they here for, you know, so I asked who they were and what are they here for? Who are you guys?” And they said, “Listen, we’re mates of the guy that you owe money to, you’re going to fucking fix this up that you owe, that you fucked up on.” I said, “I’m sorry, man.” I said “I’m very sorry, I’ll try and do what I can, you know. Like, I’ll slowly fix it up if I can.” He said, “No, here’s what’s going to happen. We’re going to give you a phone now and you’re going to have to - and when we message you, you answer. You answer on the phone, and don’t think about going to the police. We know where you live now, you know.” “Cause at the end of the day I’ve never had them come to my house, had anyone come to my house--"

32. He later received a message on the phone that had been provided to him, again saying that he had fucked up and he was going to have to fix it up and “You’re going to have to do a drive for us now and don’t think about fucking going to the police. Don’t think about going to the police, we know where you live now, don’t try and play games with us here.”

33. He interpreted that as him being required to deliver some drugs and said that they also told him that he would have to drive interstate to do so. They informed him that they would contact him a couple of days later and he did get a message a couple of days later on the phone that had been provided indicating that he had been added into a group chat called “pickup” in the application, a group in respect of which there were already two or three other people registered or belonging.

34. He was told “You’re going to have to be ready to, you’re going to have to drive to Edensor Park and be ready.” He said, “Okay, no worries.” He was given an address near Edensor Park Plaza and told to drive there and wait there until further instructions through the Messaging App, so he went there and ten minutes later he got a message and a picture of an electrical box on the street. And he was told, “Look, go to this address and go behind the electrical box and pick up a bag and bring it back to your car,” which he did, and then drove back to his home. He thought that it would contain drugs or cash, so he opened it. He found that it was a lot of ice in there and then started to wonder, “What have I got myself into? I didn’t sign up for this, you know, and I messaged the guy like, “What is this? Like, how long am I holding this for?”” And the response was, “You’re going to have to do this drive, you fucked up, this is the only way to fucking fix it. Do you want your family to be safe or not?” and later he heard from them that he would have to drive to Toowong in Queensland and wait there for further instructions.

35. He said he was fearful for his family, and said to the persons through the Messaging App, “Okay, no worries, please don’t do anything, don’t do anything to my family.” He said he became scared for his family as to what these persons might do to them if he left them at home. He said he was afraid to leave his mother at home because, “They could easily just take my family and then hold them as hostages for ransom or anything,” in circumstances where he had agreed to travel to Toowong, taking the materials with him.

36. As a result of his fears for his family, he asked his mother to accompany him to Queensland, telling her that it was because he had to go to a funeral of someone he had once known. His mother was apparently happy to go from Cabramatta to Toowong for the purpose of shopping, and so that he could attend the funeral, and agreed to go with him. But because she did not feel particularly well, she suggested that his sister should also travel with them, and so he agreed to adopt that course. He was also concerned that because he uses drugs if he was stopped on the way to Queensland, it might be apparent that he was affected by drugs and that might result in the car being searched.

37. As to the 23 kilos of methylamphetamine, before departing for Queensland he said he got a call or message instructing him, after he collected the bag from the vicinity of the electrical box, to re-bag and remeasure the methylamphetamine into different bags. He was given instructions to go out and buy vacuum sealing bags, and to remeasure all the bags and later re-bag them and vacuum-seal them and mark them and label them. The weight was to be between 996 to 998 grams per bag. He said he used the scales to do this and did reweigh, re-bag and label the bags, all as a result of the duress that had been applied and his fears for his family that they might be affected while he was complying with the instructions.

38. It absolutely defies common sense that a drug dealer who had the experience, according to the offender, of having the offender utilise for his own personal use the drugs that he was supposed to be holding for the dealer in the circumstances where he already had an $18,000 debt - in my view, it defies common sense to suggest that a dealer in those circumstances would supply a further 23 kilos of a prohibited drug and then ask the offender to deal with it in such a way as the offender could readily dilute it, or as is usually referred to in the drug slang as “jump” on it, to acquire a significant quantity of drugs for himself from what he was to supply.

39. It also makes no sense that the drugs, having been supplied in pre-numbered kilogram bags, needed to be reweighed and numbered. All he had to do was to place the bag as he alleges it was supplied to him onto a set of weights to determine whether it was within cooee of the one-kilogram weight. To take the course that he suggested he was told to take was entirely unnecessary. This was possibly an attempt to explain the many empty bags with a crystalline residue located during the search of his family premises.

40. In trying to explain the money, he said that he had asked the “guys” “How am I going to pay for all the expenses and the fuel and all that?”, and that they told him to take $6,000 out of the - using his words, or their words, “6K out of the papers.” He said he believed they referred to the money that was inside the bag, being the black bag that he had originally picked up with the brown box containing the money-counter. He said he took $6,000 out and that he guessed that there would have been approximately 20 to $30,000 in there.

41. In order to get the vacuum-sealed bags, he indicated that he contacted his sister at work and asked her to buy some on her way home, without telling her anything about why he wanted them.

42. According to him, he repackaged the drugs in his room, which was immediately adjacent to the kitchen, and appears from the evidence to have once been a loungeroom with a sliding door. After she had brought the bags, he would occasionally, or did, ask her to pass a couple of them to him so he could carry out his work in repackaging the drugs in his bedroom.

43. The empty bags with residue were explained by his suggesting that he had to repackage everything, that the leftover bags with residue were the result of the repackaging and he had intended to throw those into the garbage bag and dispose of them but forgot to do so.

44. As to the hidden compartment in the motor vehicle, he said the car was owned by his mother, that she had bought it through Gumtree, and he had absolutely no knowledge of it having a secret compartment.

45. As to the secret compartment in the lounge in his bedroom, he said that he had bought that some eight months before, again through Gumtree, and that he was not aware that it had a hidden compartment, although when it was sold to him the seller had provided an electronic fob, a picture of which is Exhibit 2, which has four buttons numbered one through to four.

46. His explanation for the fob was that the seller had given him the remote at the time he purchased the lounge, and that he did not ask the seller why he was getting the remote with the lounge, and that he did not have any idea as to what the remote was for.

“I thought it was to recline or something but then I didn’t - there was no recline on it, so I didn’t--

Did you test to see if it reclined when you purchased it?

No.”

49. The remote was not located in his bedroom but on a peg in the kitchen, which was just outside the sliding door to the room he used as a bedroom.

50. As to the $1,500 under the computer and the $2,200 in the bag with the MDMA and the $20,000 being in bundles, when asked why the money was split up that way, he said, “I’m not sure, it was given to me like that”.

51. At one stage during his evidence, I asked him:

“Mr Hoang, when you commenced the journey to Queensland - Toowong, or wherever, did you take your mother and your sister and your sister’s daughter with you in order to make it look as though you were going on a family outing, in case you were pulled up along the way carrying the drugs?”

He did not answer that question, but responded:

“I lied to them, telling them that I had to go to a funeral.

Q. But was that the purpose of taking them with you - in case you were pulled up?

A. No, well yes, technically, yes, your Honour.

Q. Yes. All right.

A. But I lied to them.”

52. In re-examination he was given another opportunity to refer to the excuse he had given before for taking them, that he was scared that at the end of the day something might happen to them. I note of course that the family member he intended to take with him was his mother; his sister did not become an issue until his mother said she was ill and suggested his sister also be taken, and presumably his sister’s daughter was only taken because her mother was one of the persons going. He did not make any effort to take his brother with him, who was also another person that might have been threatened, and who also lived at the house, apparently, as there was evidence during the hearing of a search of the brother’s bedroom. I note from material supplied this morning, just becoming part of Exhibit 1, that his brother was apparently in and out of the house on relevant occasions.

53. I found the offender’s explanation for his participation in this offending as being the result of duress to be entirely implausible and unbelievable. I do not accept that the offender was being truthful. I accept that he was doing his best to diminish his role and seniority in relation to this particular operation as well as trying to ensure that he wrote his mother and sister out of the script as much as possible, knowing at the time that he was giving evidence that they were still awaiting trial.

54. In short, the offender has failed to convince me on the balance of probabilities that any of his particular story is true as to why he committed these offences. I accept on the evidence before me he is at the minimum a very senior player and trusted in a serious drug distribution network, and that his moral culpability is high.

55. He has been involved in the drug trade for a number of years. All of this offending was surrounded by significant indicia of drug offending, and he was not some dupe who had been asked to simply transfer some unknown goods in a bag from point A to point B. I have already referred to the fact that the statutory aggravating factor of being on conditional liberty applies and indicated that I would return to his criminal history.

56. The offender was 30 years and three months of age at the time of the offending. He is now some 32 years and two months of age. Before the Court in respect of subjective matters is his criminal history, a New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Conviction, Sentence and Appeals Report as of September 2024, and supplied on his behalf, other than his evidence on sentence, is the report of Chafic Awit, psychologist, dated 2 September 2024, and in addition the report of Neil Ballardie, psychologist, dated 11 May 2021.

57. In addition, there is a certificate of completion of the Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle Program dated 3 May 2024, indicating that he had completed that program, a Certificate II in Hospitality dated 3 October 2023, together with a Record of Results, a Statement of Attainment in Printing, dated 1 December 2023 together with a document indicating the results of the various units, a Statement of Attainment in relation to a barista course conducted by TAFE dated 13 December 2023, together with a document being the academic record in respect of the courses, a letter from the Reverend Gerard McCarthy, dated 3 May 2024 - Reverend McCarthy provides chaplaincy services as a prison chaplain and professional counsellor at the Hunter Correctional Centre, Cessnock - indicating that the offender was, at the time of the letter of 3 May 2024, currently working in the food preparation unit and demonstrating a good work ethic and attention to detail as well as being well-mannered and – he presumably means “respected” rather than “respectful” – “by his peers”.

58. There is also a document from the Corrective Services NSW, being a letter of attendance, indicating that between December 2003 and February 2004, he has attended six separate sessions of the Remand Addictions Program. That letter of attendance is dated 26 July 2024. Lastly, there is a Centrelink report in relation to his mother, Anh Tran, one of the passengers in the motor vehicle that was stopped, indicating that she had been diagnosed as suffering from metastatic pancreatic cancer and was under the care of a Dr Secombe, being a palliative care specialist. I have been informed today from the bar table and accept as true that she has unfortunately, passed away before today. Subjective matters are drawn from that material.

59. In addition to my rejection of the offender’s evidence as defying common sense, there are a number of other matters of significance in relation to the material before me. First of all, I will refer to his previous criminal history.

52. Although there are offences on his record of driving motor vehicle while suspended or disqualified, they are in my view of no real relevance in relation to this sentencing exercise. However, what is relevant is that on 13 July 2016 at the Fairfield Local Court, he was dealt with for an offence committed on 10 June 2016 of possess prohibited drug. He received the benefit of a s 10 bond. However, for whatever reason, he breached the bond because he was called up on 21 December 2016 at the Liverpool Local Court, and the s 10 bond was replaced with a fine of $300. The call-up was probably as a result of the offences that I am about to refer to.

53. On 21 December 2016, he was before the Liverpool Local Court in relation to three offences, being offences committed on 14 August 2016, being in each case, possess prohibited drug. In relation to each of those offences, he received a bond pursuant to s 9 with a 12-month supervision period by the NSW Probation Service for counselling, educational development or drug alcohol rehabilitation in each case.

54. However, within the one-year period of the bond which would have expired on 20 December 2017, he was charged again for offences committed on 27 February 2016 for which he was dealt with on 13 April 2017 at the Downing Centre District Court. The charges were: supply a prohibited drug, possess a prohibited drug, supply a prohibited drug being more than indictable quantity, not cannabis. In relation to the first two that I refer to, that being the supply and possess, he had the benefit of them being taken into account on a Form 1 when being dealt with for the supply a prohibited drug more than indictable quantity. He received an Intensive Correction Order of 15 months, commencing on 13 April 2017 and to expire on 12 July 2018.

55. He was back before the courts again for offences committed on 14 March 2020. Those were dealt with on 3 August 2021 at the Sutherland Local Court. They were offences of possess prohibited drug, possess prohibited drug, possess prohibited drug, possess prohibited drug and goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen. Two of the possess prohibited drugs were taken into account on a Form 1, although it is not indicated to which other offence they were attached, but presumably, one or other of the possess prohibited drug offences. He received a Community Correction Order of 18 months, commencing on 3 August 2021 and concluding on 2 February 2023, and was required to undertake drug and alcohol programs and to continue psychological treatment to focus on rehabilitation and supervision as supervised by Community Corrections.

56. In addition, there was a further offence of goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, not motor vehicle, in respect of which he was fined $500.

57. As can be seen, the offender has a history of being involved in the possession and supply of prohibited drugs. Accordingly, the leniency provided to first-time offenders cannot be provided to him.

58. I note that two psychological reports are provided. The report of Mr Awit of 2 September 2024 was provided specifically in relation to this offending. The report of Mr Ballardie, dated 11 May 2021, was obviously supplied for the purposes of the earlier offences that I have just referred to.

59. There are some significant divergence between the two reports. Mr Ballardie in 2021 diagnosed him as having a major Depressive Disorder, a generalised Anxiety Disorder and Drug Abuse Disorder at the time of the offending relevant to that report, and he expressed an opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, there was a causal connection between external stressors and exacerbation of his mental conditions, ongoing substance use and his offending. His summary indicates;

“His comments indicate he has taken responsibility for his actions, and I have provided a rationale why I consider there would be a low to moderate likelihood of him reoffending, if he were to follow through on the mental health treatment plan I have prepared. I intend further treatment of him and have made a future appointment with him.”

68. There appears to be little by way of evidence of any ongoing treatment provided by Mr Ballardie, or of any particularly effective supervision by Community Corrections, or indeed the requirement to obtain treatment at any time that he has been subject to supervision by Community Corrections.

69. Mr Awit diagnosed the offender as currently suffering from a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder and a Substance Use Disorder (in sustained remission) and that these were a probable diagnosis at the time of offending.

70. I note the history provided by the offender to each of those psychologists has some significant differences. In respect of Mr Ballardie, there was no diagnosis of PTSD and I note that the basis for this, as contained in the report of Mr Awit, appears to be the offender reporting to him that between the age of 11 and 12 he was on a single occasion sexually abused by a now deceased priest, when he felt the priest penetrate his anus a few times with a finger: a matter that he had not told anyone about before speaking to Mr Awit, with the exception of recently telling his mother and instructing solicitors to commence a civil claim. That was not something he had reported to Mr Ballardie at all.

71. He also referred, in speaking to Mr Awit, to the impact caused by the death of two of his friends before he had turned 18: that when he was 16, one of his friends, being 16 years of age, had been shot in the chest and died, and that another friend had died from a heart attack, which he doubted because he believed his friend had been experimenting with drugs.

72. In addition, he claimed to have had two distressing occasions when driving motor vehicles: that is, when he was 17, he was driving on his L plates and when the vehicle slowed to a stop on a hill, he heard a “big bang” and “saw a guy close by shot to the head in front of him”, and in addition, on another unrelated occasion, he had observed three men chasing down another man, at a time when the offender was young. The three men were carrying machetes and caught up to the victim and commenced to hack at him, in front of Mr Huang. He could not recall his age at the time, but stated that the image stayed with him, and “he feels that he is the way that he is (turned out the way he has) because of what has happened to him, what he has witnessed and what he has experienced.”

73. I note that despite his consultations with Mr Ballardie for the purpose of the report, for court purposes, there was no mention in Mr Ballardie’s report of either of these particular alleged incidents having been reported to him – so, that is, neither the offending by the priest nor the circumstances of witnessing events of violence were referred to in Mr Ballardie’s report.

74. There is also a significant difference, being an uplift in his favour in relation to his reporting of his exposure to drugs. To Mr Ballardie, he had said that he started drinking alcohol at the age of 16. To Mr Awit, he said he commenced at the age of 13. To Mr Ballardie, he said he started using cannabis at 17, and quickly went to consuming daily. To Mr Awit, he said that he started using cannabis at 14 and quickly went to daily.

75. In relation to MDMA, he informed Mr Ballardie that he started at 18 and had it about once every two years with friends at parties. To Mr Awit, he said he started at 15 and it was once a week until his early twenties.

76. In relation to cocaine, he informed Mr Ballardie that he started using it at about 18, having it occasionally with friends and resulting in feeling paranoid. To Mr Awit, he said it started at 16 years of age, once a fortnight, and in his early twenties, every second day to mid-twenties until arrest, when he was using it daily.

77. The only commonality was between what he said about his commencement of use of ice. To Mr Ballardie, he said he commenced at 18 and consumed it almost daily. To Mr Awit, he said he was 18 or 19 and continued using until his arrest, when he was using it daily. That is, he has significantly diminished or lowered his age in relation to the commencement of the consumption of various drugs from what he informed Mr Ballardie. I have no doubt that he has done this in order to increase the degree to which it might be said that his development has been adversely affected by his use of prohibited drugs.

78. As to his evidence that he was assaulted by a priest, now deceased, his reason for not referring to the sexual abuse to Mr Ballardie was that it had not come up in their conversation, and it was only after he was in custody and speaking with other persons in custody who referred to themselves as having been sexually assaulted in their youth that it occurred to him that he should raise it.

79. Another matter of concern in relation to the extent to which his evidence can be relied on or dismissed was in relation to the process of weighing and re-bagging the individual bags and labelling them. He said:

“Q. Sorry, what were you supposed to label it?

A. One in one kilo and then just like individual number bags.

Q. Did you label them one kilo?

A. Yes, I did, your Honour.

Q. Is that all you wrote on them?

A. Yeah, I wrote - they told me to write number, number, like just they told me to write number 1 to 23 or something like that.

Q. A number of bags were labelled 18, 91, 41, 17 and 23.

A. Yeah.

Q. Why were they labelled with those numbers?

A. So, each individual - I think they just told me to - like each individual bag, so each individual kilo or something like that.

Q. So, you wrote 18, 91, 41, 17 and 23, did you?

A. Your Honour, I don’t know where that 91 is. I thought that’s--

Q. Let’s forget the 91 for a moment. You wrote 18, 41, 17 and 23, did you?

A. 41, your Honour? No.

Q. Sorry?

A. No, I’m pretty sure I wrote 1 to 23 on each of them.

Q. So, you wrote 1 to 23 on a number of bags?

A. Yes.

Q. Each one you had reweighed to be approximately one kilo?

A. Yes. Yes, your Honour.

Q. And you also wrote one kilo on the bag, did you?

A. I don’t remember.”

80. Unfortunately, not produced by the Crown were pictures of any of the other bags that were located amongst the 23 being transported to Queensland, but the fact that two bags were labelled 41 and 91 as referred to in the agreed facts is entirely inconsistent with the offender’s assertion that he reweighed and repackaged each of the one kilo bags he was supplied with, writing the numbers 1 to 23 on them.

81. I note that I fail to understand why, in the preparation of this matter, the Crown elected in the agreed facts to only provide five of the numbers written on any of the 23 bags. A simple photo of the 23 bags would have been more informative than the facts.

82. As to his past history, which I feel I can accept, the offender apparently attended Sacred Heart, Cabramatta, from kindergarten to Year 4, then Patrician Brothers in Fairfield from Year 4 to Year 6, then attended Year 7 to halfway through Year 10 at the Patrician Brothers High School, Fairfield.

83. He apparently found it hard to make friends and was bullied in both primary and high school because he was overweight. He received some tutoring after school and achieved above average grades and was first in class in mathematics but did not enjoy sports and was not always able to concentrate at school but was never disruptive in class.

84. He apparently scored in the 80s for the Higher School Certificate. He then attended the University of Western Sydney to study a Bachelor of Arts to major in psychology but dropped out after the first year.

85. He informed Mr Awit that after his two weeks of work at Oporto’s after leaving school at 18, “his life has been wasted, abusing illicit substances and doing stupid things”. He has apparently had some five relationships that he refers to as being “toxic” between the ages of 20 and 29, claiming that he has always struggled with self-esteem issues because of his weight and a feeling of inadequacy in relation to females, of being unable to engage in sexual relationships unless under the influence of an illicit substance.

86. I have no difficulty in accepting that the offender has over the years been anxious and depressed. It is of course a significant cause of persons turning to the use of prohibited drugs as a form of self-medication. Unfortunately, the end result is that it does not improve the anxiety or depression: it merely alleviates it for the time when the drug is having an impact.

87. What in general happens is that these users become more depressed and anxious because they have involved themselves in an illegal activity which causes them to have ongoing concerns every day about whether they might be arrested, where they will get their next drug supply from, where they will get the money to pay for it from, and all of these factors go to significantly undermine the possibility that someone who suffers from anxiety and depression will ever be rid of it unless they cease using prohibited drugs and obtain appropriate psychological assistance.

88. The offender has at least made some effort to improve his quality of life while in custody by participating in appropriate programs, and that is something in his favour, however in the circumstances of his past criminal record and the seriousness of his offending on this occasion it is impossible to conclude that there is a good prospect of rehabilitation or a low prospect of reoffending.

89. He did, in his evidence in chief, refer to being remorseful. He said, looking back:

“I feel so much remorse and ashamed, regret on myself. I don’t know what to - I think very - I’m disgusted with myself, Miss.

Q. And you know other people could have ended up like you because of what you did?

A. Yes, Miss.

Q. You did - you get that, don’t you.

A. Yes, I do, Miss. I take full accountability for my actions.

Q. Is there anything else you want to tell the Court about this offence? About these offences, I should say, or about what you’ve done?

A. I’d like to sincerely apologise to the Court, to the community, to everyone, even to your Honour, for what I’ve done. I know I couldn’t change anything, but I know for sure that I could change myself and that’s a start to beginning where I just want to stay out of the drug life now and I realise that I have to work on myself more before I get into anything with anyone.”

90. While the offender has expressed remorse, in view of my opinion that his evidence on sentence has little or no credibility, I decline to accept that evidence as being evidence of genuine remorse rather than trite statements that he would anticipate from his past experience might assist him in achieving a lesser sentence than would otherwise be imposed.

91. He was asked in cross-examination this question:

“Q. Does it seem logical to you after you’ve ripped him off to then leave the drugs with you?

A. No, it doesn’t seem logical, but I just don’t - I didn’t know what to do from then on. He just told me to wait for a few days, they’re going to come back to me.”

92. The significance of that is that even the offender cannot see his explanation as being a logical one.

93. His initial evidence on sentence was that all the communications were through his mobile phone, and he had taken various photos, which he had sent to those who were giving him instructions. It therefore appeared that there would be a record on his mobile phone of those matters which would have assisted in demonstrating the issue of non-exculpatory duress, or at least assisted in doing so.

94. He accepted initially that the phone that he was using would have evidenced such matters, however after his evidence had finished on 13 September 2024, I indicated that I was reluctant to deal with this on the information that was currently before me because:

“It should be available from his evidence, from the mobile phone that was taken from him when he was arrested because he said that was how he communicated with those were exerting duress on him and otherwise, as well as taking photos that he sent to them.”

95. I indicated that I had found his evidence both unreliable and unbelievable, but that if his evidence in relation to non-exculpatory duress was in fact true then it would have the effect of substantially ameliorating his sentence, and for that reason I raised the mobile phone, indicating that I did not want to impose a lengthy term of imprisonment if there was in fact material that might assist him in getting a lesser sentence, and I offered to delay the sentencing so that that possibility could be pursued.

96. Initially it was pursued by his counsel, Ms Goodwin, having a conference with him in Court, before then returning and seeking to adduce further evidence. The further evidence resulted in him indicating that the phone that he had been supposedly supplied with was an encrypted device with encrypted applications on it such as Signal and Threema and that the phone needed a password to be accessed and that the messages sent to this encrypted device with encrypted apps, would in fact delete after about 30 minutes and that the phone would also auto-burn and self-destruct. I think he was referring to the messages rather than the phone itself in those circumstances.

97. He said that when another person is using Threema, if the other person in the chat deletes the message, it also deletes it off the other phone. He also indicated in relation to the visits by the two men he described as large Asians covered in tattoos, I forget the rest of the description, but looking like debt collectors or something of that nature, that he thought the doorbell CCTV footage was wiped every two days, therefore that would not be able to confirm what he said about the two men arriving at the house and making the threats.

98. He also said, in relation to Threema, that it has a built-in timer. So once the message was sent it would be automatically deleted after a designated period of time.

99. The phone was still in the possession of the police and on 18 September 2024 he supplied two passwords. I was informed by way of a statement today from Detective Senior Constable Ledbrook that an attempt to use each of the two passwords supplied on the telephone had resulted in the phone not being capable of being accessed.

100. CCTV footage for relevant dates was also in fact actually available from the door camera, and that has been perused in the intervening period and a number of screen shots taken from it. In short, the effect is that there is no evidence at any relevant time of two persons meeting the description given by the offender in his evidence attending his premises in the days before he left on the trip with his mother and sister and niece.

101. If he was acting under duress, it is a shame that he elected not to provide an ERISP to the police or to then allow them to access his mobile phone when material was still, at least some of it, potentially available. What it means is that he has now come before the Court with a story that cannot be confirmed in any way, and which is inherently unlikely and inconsistent with common sense.

102. I note that Mr Awit in his psychological report has stated under “Conclusions and Recommendations”: “Mr Hoang has expressed both remorse and regret in relation to the offences.” He does not detail how it is that he expressed remorse and regret.

103. The offender has pleaded guilty to the offences before the Court, but a plea of guilty is not in itself necessarily evidence of remorse or contrition. It was a plea of guilty in the face of an overwhelming Crown case. As I have said, as a result of my opinion of the quality of his evidence, I am unable to accept that he is genuinely remorseful or contrite rather than simply sorry that he has been caught out in such a significant way and is facing what he would appreciate is a no doubt significant penalty.

104. I will take into account in relation to the individual offences the nature of the offence charged, the maximum penalty provided, and as a guideline the standard non-parole period where one is provided in respect of the individual offence.

95. I note that I have as yet not referred to the fact that he was raised by his mother in circumstances where, shortly after he was born, his father was no longer present, and he has had no or little contact with him in his life. I accept that his depression and anxiety will make his time in custody a little harder than it would otherwise have been, and I note that Mr Ballardie’s reference when dealing with him for the earlier offences said that his risk of reoffending should be considered low to moderate. That was obviously not accurate because the offender has gone on to commit more serious offences, including the breach of his bond shortly thereafter or some time thereafter, but going on to commit these offences and others subsequent to the report of Mr Ballardie.

96. The offences contained on the Form 1 do not increase the objective gravity of the principal offence, however they must be taken into account as indicating an additional need for deterrence and retribution for the offence charged; Abbas v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413 at 22.

97. I am sentencing only for the principal offence, taking the Form 1 matters into account with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the particular offence, but not to the degree that the penalty is increased beyond what would otherwise be governed by the principle of totality.

98. In relation to this offender, in view of his history and the significance of this offending, I take specific deterrence as an important matter to be reflected in the sentence. In addition, drug dealing is a serious problem in the community. It has serious repercussions for those who use them and for those who are preyed upon because others use them. Accordingly, general deterrence is also a significant matter to take into account.

99. I note in particular that methylamphetamine is now rife in the community and over the time that I have been on the bench it has gravitated to every level of society and location, city, country town, village or outpost. It has had significantly adverse effects on the community, and I note not previously referred to is that the 22.5 kilograms of methylamphetamine even when sold on a wholesale basis by the kilogram would have a value in the millions of dollars, even though no evidence has been placed before me as to its value.

100. I have been involved in this court and enough other matters to know the approximate value of drugs, and 22.5 kilos of methylamphetamine sold on a kilogram basis is of course multiple millions of dollars in value. In my view, it is always a matter that should be referred to by the Crown in sentencing matters of this nature. Unfortunately, it has not been referred to.

101. I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence. Accordingly, I am required to provide an indicative sentence together with, where there is a standard non-parole period, an indicative non-parole period. I have taken all of the matters that I have referred to into account. I have provided a 25% discount in relation to each offence.

102. In relation to Count 1, I have taken into account the two matters contained on the Form 1 and I will take into account that this was, in effect, one sequence of offending spread between Cabramatta and Port Macquarie on the one occasion, although separated by distance and by the nature of the individual offences.

103. As to Count 1, the indicative sentence for the offence of being knowingly concerned in the supply of a large commercial quantity, 22.5 kilograms of methylamphetamine, and taking into account the two Form 1 matters, is to a non‑parole period of seven years, with a total term of 10 years, six months. That is, an indicative parole period of three years, six months.

104. In relation to Count 2, being the offence of supply 141.09 grams of 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine, being not less than a commercial quantity, the indicative sentence is a term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of two and a half years.

105. In relation to Count 3, being supply of prohibited drug, being 156.55 grams of cocaine, being more than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity, the indicative sentence is three years’ imprisonment and as there is no standard non-parole period there is no need to indicate an indicative non-parole period.

106. It will be evident from the non-parole periods that I have referred to that I have found special circumstances. This is the offender’s first time in custody. The period of time by way of the aggregate sentence will be a significant one and I believe that if it is to assist him in rehabilitation and becoming a law-abiding citizen it will be necessary to have a significant period of supervision.

107. Accordingly, the aggregate sentence will be 12 years with a non-parole period of eight years commencing on the date he went into custody, being 8 December 2022. He will be first eligible for parole on 7 December 2030.

108. The balance of term is four years, and the full term of the sentence will expire on 7 December 2034.

109. As you will see from that, the non-parole period is essentially 66% of the total term, having reduced it from the statutory relationship of 75%.

GOODWIN: May it please the Court.

HIS HONOUR: Is there anything I missed, or anything that I should correct?

COATES: Nothing from the Crown, your Honour.

GOODWIN: Not on behalf of the offender, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. I will adjourn.

**********

Decision last updated: 23 January 2025