R v Hunt

[2017] NSWDC 96

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hunt [2017] NSWDC 96
Hearing dates:	10 March 2017
Date of orders:	10 March 2017
Decision date:	10 March 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is referred for assessment as to her suitability to serve her sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Form 1 – Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug – Possession of a prohibited drug – Supply prohibited drug
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Chale Hunt
Representation:	Counsel: Mr W Tuckey - Offender   Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Bannisters Lawyers - Offender
File Number(s):	2015/141124

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Some time ago Ms Chale Hunt appeared before me having pleaded guilty at an early stage to an offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, that charge relating to 28 grams of methylamphetamine. She also asks that when I sentence her for that matter I take into account six offences on a Form 1, also drug related matters: two charges of possession; two other charges of knowing taking part in the supply of prohibited drugs; and two supply prohibited drug matters.

2. When Ms Hunt first appeared before me she was a person who showed some promise of being able to rehabilitate herself. Accordingly, I adjourned the matter so that she could demonstrate rehabilitation rather than just promise it.

3. Things did not progress entirely in Ms Hunt’s favour. She continued to use drugs, which is of course the most important aspect of her rehabilitation. However, I exercised more patience than perhaps I should have, eventually allowing Ms Hunt to enter the William Booth House rehabilitation program. It was expected that she would do about nine months there but she left after three months. She did the right thing however, she immediately contacted her lawyer. She contacted the Probation and Parole Service and appeared today when the matter was brought forward for sentence because of her early departure from William Booth House.

4. One thing needs to be noted, however, there is no suggestion that Ms Hunt has used illegal drugs since entering William Booth House in late October 2016. Indeed whilst there she was subject to random drug and alcohol testing with all results proving negative. When she was interviewed by the Probation and Parole Service for the preparation of an updated presentence report she was also subject to a drug test which returned negative results for illicit substances. A further test was carried out a fortnight later which also produced a negative result. It thus does appear that my patience has been rewarded and that Ms Hunt has now given up drugs.

5. When she first appeared before me she said that her children were her life. This was a reference to the circumstance that three of her four children have been taken from her and put into the custody of others. She was upset about this. (Her fourth child is old enough that he can make decisions for himself.) She wished to get her children back, and it was in that context she said, as I might repeat, her children are her life. When she was using drugs that was just not true. Drugs were her life and her children suffered accordingly. She appears now to have realised the accuracy of what I just said. Of course there is no guarantee that Ms Hunt will maintain a drug free lifestyle but there are promising signs there.

6. Ultimately, however, Ms Hunt has to be sentenced for what she did which was to involve herself in the drug supply activities of another person to the extent that she put people in contact with him and on occasion supplied drugs for him. Her activities were identified by the authorities when they began investigating the supply activities of a man named Hadi Shalak. Ms Hunt was an associate of Mr Shalak and a street level supplier of methylamphetamine. She was supplied drugs by Shalak and would onsell the drugs in smaller amounts. Her activities seem to have been primarily related to assisting Mr Shalak. At first Ms Hunt attempted to minimise the criminality involved in her misconduct, saying that all she did was make a phone call. She now recognises that she was wrong to attempt to minimise her illegal activities in that way. She was aiding Mr Shalak to supply drugs. When she was arrested she had drugs in her possession which she intended to supply. She was quite involved in the drug trade.

7. Users of drugs, as Ms Hunt now well knows and recognises, become the sort of people who would prefer drugs to their children. Users of drugs become the sort of people who think nothing of lying and cheating. Users of drugs have to fund their addiction somehow and when legitimate sources of income dry up they often turn to crime. And users of drugs suffer the health effects of drugs themselves, Ms Hunt’s criminal activities were thus serious indeed, causing harm both to the people she was supplying and the wider community. It is for that reason that a significant level of punishment needs to be imposed upon her.

8. For many years the Court of Criminal Appeal has made it clear that those who are trafficking in drugs to a substantial degree should go to full-time gaol unless there are exceptional circumstances. There is one area of uncertainty as regards to that rule, that is, whether that rule needs to be modified now that an intensive correction order is a sentencing option but I do not need to enter into that debate at this stage because I am not satisfied that Ms Hunt was trafficking to a substantial degree. That means, that I need not find that there are exceptional circumstance before I impose a sentence of other than full-time custody on her.

9. A custodial sentence is required but given the length of the sentence that I have determined is likely to be imposed, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 and her early plea of guilty, I am satisfied that it is likely to be two years or less.

10. Accordingly, I refer Ms Hunt for the preparation of a report as to whether she is suitable to have her sentence of imprisonment served by means of an intensive corrections order imposed upon her. I will adjourn the matter to 10 o’clock on 12 May.

11. Now Ms Hunt, do you know the expression ‘you’re not out of the woods yet’? You know what I mean by that. You’re not out of the woods yet. I’ve decided that you deserve to have a custodial sentence impose upon you but if you’re suitable you won’t actually go to gaol, you’ll serve that sentence in another way. But if you’re not suitable then you’ll go to gaol. People are going to come and see you and they are going to assess whether you’re suitable, and one of the things they’re going to do is drug test you, so you know what’s going to happen, don’t you, if you fail the drug test. And then even after, even if you do succeed there, while you’re on this intensive corrections order, if I do impose it, you’re going to be regularly drug tested, and again, if you fail a drug test you’re going to go to gaol. And on top of that its scarcely going to help you with your relationship with your children. I’m sure you understand that now. Maybe you didn’t in the past but I’m sure you do now.

12. I will delete the reporting condition whist she is on bail.

**********

Decision last updated: 08 May 2017