R v Landini; R v Camilleri

[2012] NSWDC 229

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Landini; R v Camilleri [2012] NSWDC 229

Hearing dates:

12 October 2012.

Decision date:

02 November 2012

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

Decision:

Mr Landini. For the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon I impose a non-parole period of one year with a head sentence of two years. For the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of amphetamine I set a non-parole period of four and a half years and a head sentence of seven and a half years.

Mr Camilleri .Sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of five and a half years with a head sentence of nine years

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Trafficking - Possess prohibited weapon - Knowingly take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of amphetamine - Supply a large commercial quantity of amphetamine

Cases Cited:

R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247 - Tyler v R [2007] NSWCCA 247; (2007) 173 A Crim R 458

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

The Crown
Henry Charles Landini
Victor John Camilleri

Representation:

Mr S Handley - Offender Landini
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Katsoolis & Co - Offender Landini
Hardinlaw - Offender Camilleri

File Number(s):

2010/408352 2010/408353

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Most offenders appearing for sentence in these courts are young men, some of whom commit crimes regularly until, perhaps because they reach a level of maturity, perhaps because they are tired of the way they are wasting their lives in gaol or perhaps for other reasons they finally give up their lives of crime. The two offenders for sentence in this case are not in that category. Mr Camilleri is fifty-two, while Mr Landini is even older, sixty-eight. Both have lengthy criminal histories and both have spent considerable time in gaol. They appear for sentence today having each pleaded guilty to offences arising from their involvement in serious drug trafficking. Indeed the maximum penalty for the offences to which they have both pleaded guilty is life imprisonment. Mr Landini also appears for an offence of possessing a prohibited weapon. These offences carry standard non-parole periods. I have taken into account the standard non-parole periods as well as the maximum penalties in determining the appropriate sentences. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole periods in any case are to be found in these remarks on sentence.

1. A task force was set up to look into the activities, amongst others, of these two offenders in September 2009. No offences however appear to have been committed until two people acting at the direction of the police, known as AP1 (or authorised participant one) and AP2 (or authorised participant two) approached Camilleri seeking to purchase amphetamine. Over the next few months, 1.345 kilograms of that drug was supplied in a number of separate transactions. AP1 first approached Camilleri in late June 2010. He had a number of other meetings with Camilleri relating to the supply of drugs until, on 10 August 2010, Camilleri supplied AP1 with a sample and discussed the price which would be charged for larger amounts of amphetamine as well as the procedure by which that sale would be conducted.

1. It was Camilleri's practice to limit his physical contact with the drugs. He therefore needed others to do some of the dirty work for him. One of those was Landini, although to describe him as a mere foot soldier would be to underestimate the level of his involvement.

1. It is not of course necessary in these remarks on sentence to describe precisely how the various drug transactions took place. The statement of facts tendered in each offender's case goes into some considerable detail as to who did what and when they did it. It is sufficient in the present circumstances for me to simply note that on 19 August 2010 447.5 grams of amphetamine was supplied for $35,000. On 2 September 2010 449.3 grams of amphetamine was supplied for $45,000. On 17 September 448.7 grams of amphetamine was supplied for $45,000 and both offenders were ultimately arrested on 8 December 2010. They have remained in custody ever since.

1. I found that Camilleri's criminality in these offences was greater than that of Landini. Camilleri's approach appears to have been consistent with the understanding of the usual drug supply hierarchy as discussed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tyler v R [2007] NSWCCA 247; (2007) 173 A Crim R 458 and R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247 where those higher up in the hierarchy limit their contact with the drugs, getting others to do the physical work involved in the acts of supply. Camilleri put a number of people between him and the drugs, in particular of relevance in this case, Landini and another offender whom I sentenced earlier, Christine Franklin. On one occasion, the 2 September supply, Ms Franklin was not involved and it was Landini who carried out the role she had carried out on other occasions. This is consistent with Camilleri being the principal offender in this operation with Landini playing less of a role.

1. But it is important to note that Landini engaged himself in a number of aspects of the transactions which are often performed by principals, including making arrangements with the ultimate supplier Santino Dibella. I accept the Crown's categorisation of the different roles. Camilleri was slightly higher in the drug supply hierarchy than Landini. That is consistent with the Crown's decision to charge Landini with the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of the drug and Mr Camilleri with the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity.

1. I mentioned at the outset of these remarks that neither of these offenders is a young man. Mr Camilleri was raised by his parents in the Newtown area. His father appears to have been a violent man, who used alcohol regularly. He left home at thirteen after being severely beaten by his father. He was in Grade 8 at the time and gave up going to school as well. As a result he has had difficulty with reading and writing for most of his life. Indeed it is only of recent times he has been able to improve his literacy and his numeracy.

1. As I mentioned earlier he has served time in gaol before, including for offences of drug supply. However there is a significant gap in his offending. In 2003 he got a job with a man by the name of Peter Kay. He was conducting a business described as car pawn broking and Mr Camilleri performed a security and general hand role. He was earning money. He bought a house and entered into a mortgage on the understanding that his employer would not only pay him but also meet the mortgage payments. However the business got into trouble in 2009 and by the following year Mr Camilleri's financial position was desperate. He was going backwards in his mortgage payments and things got so bad that the gas and electricity were cut off. He gave evidence that he was particularly concerned at losing the house as it was the only substantial measure of security that he had known in his life. It was in these circumstances that he said that he gave into the temptation to supply drugs for money when he was approached by a man who, unbeknownst to him, was acting at the direction of police.

1. He gave evidence that he was in a relationship with a woman by the name of Jacqueline Briggs. She also gave evidence confirming what Mr Camilleri said. Mr Camilleri appears to have been a good partner and surrogate father to Ms Briggs's son Lazarus, who suffered a significant brain injury in a car crash in 2005. The relationship continues despite Mr Camilleri being incarcerated.

1. Mr Camilleri now expresses his remorse at what he has done to Ms Briggs and Lazarus. He understands that he has only got himself to blame and regrets what he has done. He hopes to better himself in custody, which he has been doing, and open up a chicken shop on his release.

1. It is of course not Mr Camilleri's fault that his naivety was taken advantage of by Peter Kay. The evidence would tend to suggest that Mr Camilleri was getting his life back on track, working in a legitimate occupation and having a happy family life until his financial circumstances became such that he risked losing the only real financial security he had ever known. That of course may explain but scarcely excuses what he did. The offence he committed was seriously criminal.

1. Consistent with his remorse he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. I will therefore discount the sentence I would otherwise have imposed by twenty-five percent to reflect the utilitarian value of his plea.

1. It is important to take account of the significant gap between the offender's, last offence which appears to have been sometime around 1997, and 2010 when he committed this offence. A gap of thirteen years does demonstrate that there is hope for the offender's rehabilitation. I cannot say that his prospects of rehabilitation are good or that he is unlikely to offend in the future. I am confident that the sentence I will shortly impose upon him will act as a significant deterrent. The offender will find his time in custody as a fifty-two year old much different to his time in custody when he was a younger man.

1. As I mentioned before Mr Landini is now sixty-eight. The experience of gaol for him at his age will also be considerable indeed. A significant part of Mr Landini's case on sentence concerned the unfortunate position of his daughter Alexis and his partner, Ms Carmen Toosh. Alexis has a number of difficulties in life, including cerebral palsy. For many years the offender's son Daniel, one of Alexis's brothers, was her major carer, having taken over this role after their mother passed away. However Daniel suffers from polycystic kidney disease and he now requires dialysis. He has thus been forced to relinquish his role of caring for Alexis and so it was the offender and his partner who were to take over. Despite the offender knowing how important it was that he be able to care for his daughter, he committed these offences. It is somewhat unpalatable that the offender asked to have his sentence reduced on the basis that his daughter and partner would benefit from him being free in the community when it was his deliberate misconduct, his deliberate decision to commit these most serious offences, which has led to him being unable to provide that assistance. Nevertheless, consistent with the authorities, I find that the offender is entitled to a modest reduction in the sentence I would otherwise have imposed upon him because of the hardship which will be experienced by his daughter Alexis through the offender's incarceration. That hardship goes beyond what is normally consequent on a father being incarcerated. The evidence was that Alexis is quite a different person when her father is around to care for her.

1. Of course the offender will do his time in custody harder than most. He knows that it is his own criminal offending which has led to his daughter and partner being deprived of the support that he would otherwise offer them. He is now an old man doing time in prison, which is an environment suitable at most for tough young men. On top of that his health is not as good as it was when he was serving prison sentences as a much younger man.

1. The offender was born in Italy but came to Australia with his mother as a young boy. He was raised in Woolloomooloo and has worked in many and varied positions over the years. He has had a drug problem along the way and has abused alcohol from time to time. He served time in gaol, some of it for things which he did not actually do, (Mr Landini being the victim of corrupt police officers exposed by the Police Royal Commission) but plenty of it was for things which he did do. His most recent sentence was imposed in 2001 when he was dealt with for drug supply. He too has expressed his remorse and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity entitling him to a twenty-five percent reduction to reflect the utilitarian value of his plea.

1. I should note also that the offender is to be sentenced for an offence of possessing a prohibited weapon. To say that the details of that offence are sketchy is something of an understatement. All I know is that when he was arrested police discovered a thrust knife or push dagger. This is not otherwise described. There is no suggestion that the weapon was used in any way in the commission of any offence or that it was used by Mr Landini as he involved himself in these acts of drug supply. If the prosecution wants a judge to impose a significant sentence for an offence of this kind, it is incumbent upon them to explain in a bit more detail the criminality of that offence.

1. I note also that another thing found the offender was arrested was a very small quantity of cannabis. His possession of that drug appears on a Form 1. Given the huge disparity between the substantive offence of large commercial drug supply and the matter on the Form 1, I can confidently say that the offender will receive no extra punishment because of the offence on the Form 1.

1. In relation to both offenders I take into account a number of relevant circumstances. It is important to note that these drugs, fortunately, never made it to end users. The drugs were seized by police and will be destroyed. The harm caused by an offence is an important aspect of assessing its gravity and so, because this offence caused less harm than would be the case if the drug reached end users, that circumstance should be reflected in the appropriate sentence. I take into account also that the purity of the drugs was relatively low. It was highly unlikely that the drugs would be further diluted. Offenders who supply quantities of drug with higher purity, other things being equal, commit more serious offences than those who supply drugs of low purity.

1. This offence involved multiple acts of criminality; to state the obvious there was more than one act of supply. The quantity involved was not significantly greater than the minimum which takes the offence into the large commercial quantity range. Many supplies involve much higher quantities of drug and much greater amounts of money. This is not a case where the offenders appear to have voluntarily given up their drug supply activities before they are arrested. To the contrary what appears to have brought to an end their activities was the intervention of police and their arrest and incarceration. On the other hand it appears to have been the involvement of the police which led to the drug supply activities starting in the first place.

1. In both cases I am prepared to make a finding of special circumstances in the offender's favour. Neither of them is young, both have proved they are capable of going for some years without offending and it is in both their interests, as well as the community's that they be given as much assistance as possible upon their release from custody.

1. The sentences I impose are as follows.

1. Mr Landini would you stand up please. For the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon I impose a non-parole period of one year with a head sentence of two years, to date from 8 December 2010. For the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of amphetamine the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of four and a half years and a head sentence of seven and a half years, to date from 8 December 2010. The non-parole period will thus expire on 7 June 2015 which is the first date on which Mr Landini is eligible to be released to parole.

1. Mr Camilleri would you stand up please. Mr Camilleri the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of five and a half years with a head sentence of nine years, to date from 8 December 2010. Mr Camilleri's non-parole period will thus expire on 7 June 2016 which is the earliest date on which Mr Camilleri can be released to parole.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 January 2013