R v Hunter

[2017] NSWDC 385

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hunter [2017] NSWDC 385
Hearing dates:	12 October 2017; 10 November 2017
Date of orders:	10 November 2017
Decision date:	10 November 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period 2 years with a head sentence of 4 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Form 1 – Supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis – Street level – drug dealer – Participation in a criminal group – Drug possession – Highly unstable early life – Offender under the control of others.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Cassandra Hunter
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Murphy’s Law - Offender
File Number(s):	2016/207751; 2016/217400

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Usually when a Judge sentences an offender for criminal behaviour the Judge begins by referring to the circumstances of the offence, but in this case I will start by referring to the circumstances of the offender, Ms Cassandra Hunter, because it is her background which eloquently explains her offending.

2. She is now 41 years of age. Her parents separated when she was five and her mother immediately disappeared from her life for many years. She was therefore raised by her father and his parents, Ms Hunter’s paternal grandparents. Her father was an electrician who sometimes trained staff overseas and was therefore often absent. Ms Hunter’s grandfather died when she was eight or nine years of age and her grandmother, for whatever reason, became what Ms Hunter described as a “dragon lady” in whose eyes Ms Hunter could never do anything right. In those circumstances she left home at a very young age. She was only twelve. Not surprisingly a psychologist who prepared a report for the benefit of the Court described her life thereafter as highly unstable. She would spend time living on the streets, move back home for short periods, spend time in Juvenile Justice Centres and increasingly she began to spend time at Kings Cross.

3. Her mother briefly re-entered her life when she was about eighteen but the contact had no meaning for Ms Hunter. She is now completely estranged from her.

4. Living on the streets as a young teenager is bad enough but matters went dramatically downhill for Ms Hunter when she met her partner, a man by the name of David Walmsley, one of her co-offenders in the offences I will eventually describe. He is man who had a relationship with Ms Hunter for many years, a man who she at times loved but at times hated. It is undeniable that whatever feelings Ms Hunter had for Mr Walmsley he was a very bad influence upon her. Indeed Ms Hunter was under Mr Walmsley’s control from the moment that she met him.

5. She was sixteen, Mr Walmsley was twenty five years older. She describes that the relationship commenced when he “bought” her. She learned to accept rape from him and other men. In order to survive she had to learn to like being raped. Despite the awful way he treated her she came to be deeply connected to him and depended on him. She began working at his demands as a prostitute.

6. In such circumstances given her awful life and the influence of Mr Walmsley it is not at all surprising that she began to use drugs. Her drug of choice was heroin. Under Mr Walmsley’s influence she moved from being a drug user to a drug supplier which does bring me to the offences for which I must sentence Ms Hunter today.

7. She is to be sentenced for two offences of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis. One offence relates to a thirty day period in June 2016 and another to a shorter period in July 2016, that period ending after Ms Hunter was arrested. She was a street level drug supplier. She received drugs from her supplier up the line, a man by the name of Bruce Taylor. These were transported to her by others, including Phillip Mitchell and Nick Dimos and then using her connections in the sex industry and other connections as well, she supplied relatively small amounts of heroin to her customers. However even though the individual supplies were relatively small she was enthusiastic and industrious in her activities.

8. The count relating to June 2016 relates to twenty two occasions of actual supply on an almost daily basis, in the course of which she supplied a total of 38.5 grams of heroin. The count relating to the period in July relates to eight separate acts of supply in which 15 grams of heroin were supplied by her, again on an almost daily basis. Her drug supply activities continued even after one of the people who transported drugs to her was arrested. It is a matter of aggravation also that she was on bail for part of the second ongoing supply offence.

9. When I sentence her for the first ongoing supply she asks that I take into account a number of other matters on a Form 1. They are also serious matters. There was an offence of supplying cocaine, an offence of participating in a criminal group and contributing to criminal activity and three offences of possessing various drugs, heroin, methylamphetamine and cocaine. There is of course a substantial overlap between the offence of participating in a criminal group and supplying drugs on an ongoing basis, especially when the role of Ms Hunter was as a street level dealer who obtained bulk drugs from people further up the drug supply chain.

10. Consistent with Ms Hunter’s terrible background she has a number of criminal offences on her history but they are relatively minor ones. She has never been to gaol, at least an adult gaol.

11. She gave evidence today that she had been abstinent from drugs since going into custody. She has told similar things to the author of a presentence report and the psychologist. One difficulty in accepting what she says is that on 28 August 2017 there is an offence of possessing drugs on her custodial history. I asked Ms Hunter about that when she gave evidence today. She explained that she was in a cell with two other prisoners and that while drugs may well have been found there they were not hers. She told me that she had attempted to obtain some details about where the drugs were found and demanded, or at least requested that she undergo urinalysis, but her efforts to prove her innocence were unsuccessful.

12. I am going to sentence Ms Hunter on the basis that what she told the psychologist, what she told the author of the presentence report and what she told me in evidence was true. I take into account that contrary to what is often seen in custodial records there is no suggestion that Ms Hunter has failed any urinalysis tests or refused any urinalysis tests. I have noted the offence of possessing drugs on her custodial history but on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that those drugs were not hers. It follows that I will sentence Ms Hunter on the basis that she has not used drugs since she went into custody. That of course bodes well for her future.

13. She has maintained a relationship with her father and her sister, both of whom visit her regularly whilst in custody. She has plans to live with them when she is released from gaol. Mr Wrench however, who appears for Ms Hunter today, concedes that Ms Hunter’s prospects of rehabilitation must be considered as guarded. That is an appropriate concession. Ms Hunter’s addiction to drugs is longstanding and the connection between drug use and offending is well known. If Ms Hunter can stay off the drugs then her life will be very different to the life she has been leading and she is much less likely, indeed I will say highly unlikely, to commit offences in the future. If she relapses upon release and goes back to her old ways of using drugs then it is highly likely that she will commit further offences.

14. Another factor pointing to Ms Hunter’s prospects for rehabilitation is that she no longer associates with her co-offenders who were, she said, her only friends. Of course it is difficult to physically associate with male co-offenders when you are a female prisoner but what I took Ms Hunter to mean is that she had no wish to contact them and had not contacted them. Again that is a factor which suggests that there are prospects for Ms Hunter’s future.

15. Ms Hunter is resolute in her determination not to use drugs again. I will do what I can to assist her in that regard, I will make a finding of special circumstances in her favour. They relate to this being her first time in adult custody, her terribly unfortunate background and her long term drug addiction. I make a finding of special circumstances not particularly as a favour for Ms Hunter but because if she is able to stay off the drugs then the community benefits as well as Ms Hunter.

16. Mr Wrench concedes that partial accumulation is necessary and I will adopt his suggestion that I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment.

17. Were it not for the offence involving ongoing supply in June 2016, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment of three and a half years.

18. For the offence of supply in July 2016 I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment of two years.

19. Instead I impose an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of two years, to date from 18 July 2016 and a head sentence of four years. That means that the non-parole period will expire on 17 July 2018 on which day Ms Hunter is eligible to be released to parole.

20. ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 15 DECEMBER 2017 FOR CONSIDERATION OF A DRUG PROCEEDS ORDER

**********

Decision last updated: 29 January 2018