R v Lanteri
[2006] VSC 225
•7 June 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1420 of 2005
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| MARK ANTHONY LANTERI |
---
JUDGE: | GILLARD J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 June 2006 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 June 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Lanteri | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 225 | |
---
DRUG OFFENCES – Term of imprisonment of 12 months – To be served by Intensive Correction Order.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms D. Peikusis | Office of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) |
| For the Prisoner | Mr A. McKenna | Chiodo and Madafferi |
HIS HONOUR:
Mark Anthony Lanteri, you have pleaded guilty to four serious offences, namely:
(1)that at Melbourne between 8 December 2000 and 27 December 2000, you trafficked in a drug of dependence, namely, 3, 4‑methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA);
(2)that at Melbourne between 8 November 2000 and 15 December 2000, you trafficked in a drug of dependence, namely, methylamphetamine;
(3)that at West Brunswick on 24 August 2001, you had in your possession a drug of dependence, namely, cannabis L; and
(4)that at West Brunswick on 24 August 2001, you had in your possession a drug of dependence, namely, methylamphetamine.
The first two counts carry a maximum sentence of 15 years’ gaol and/or 1,000 penalty units. See s.71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (“the Act”) at the time of the offences.
Count 3 carries a maximum sentence of one year and/or 30 penalty units.[1]
[1]See s.73(1)(b).
Count 4 carries either a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment and/or 30 penalty units, or five years’ maximum imprisonment and/or 400 penalty units, depending on whether s.73(1)(b), or 73(1)(c) of the Act applies. It is the contention of the Crown that you had in your possession methylamphetamine, as alleged in Count 4, and that on the evidence the Court could not be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offence was not committed by you for any purpose relating to trafficking, and accordingly that the penalty is found in s.73(1)(c), namely, a maximum five years’ imprisonment and/or 400 penalty units.
By pleading guilty to all the counts on the presentment, you have admitted the essential elements of the crimes of trafficking and being in possession of drugs of dependence. The maximum penalties prescribed by Parliament show that the offences in Counts 1, 2 and 4 are serious offences. It is now my function to sentence you.
My task is to determine the facts and, applying the principles of sentencing law, to determine, in the exercise of my discretion, what is a proportionate and appropriate sentence in all the circumstances. In relation to the sentencing process, I refer to what the Court of Appeal said in R v Storey,[2] where four members of the Court said:[3]
“Sentencing is not a mechanical process. It requires the exercise of a discretion. There is no single ‘right’ answer which can be determined by the application of principle. Different minds will attribute different weight to various facts in arriving at the ‘instinctive synthesis’ which takes account of the various purposes for which sentences are imposed - just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection of the community - and which pays due regard to the principles of totality, parity, parsimony, and the like.”
[2][1998] 1 VR 259.
[3]At 366.
At the outset, it is necessary for me to determine the relevant facts. The sources are the depositions and the summary prepared by the Crown, which your counsel accepted as a correct statement of the facts. No evidence has been called in this Court by you in respect to the facts constituting the counts. The facts have been supplemented by assertions made on your behalf by counsel from the Bar table, and by three reports from experts and ten character references. In addition, your sister and mother gave evidence as to your general character, your state of mind, your remorse, and your hopes for the future.
The assertions made by counsel on your behalf are matters that the Court does take into account. In R v Storey, the members of the Court of Appeal said: [4]
“Ordinarily, much of what is relied on in sentencing is not the subject of evidence given on the plea. Judges have always relied heavily on what is asserted from the bar table and we see no reason why that practice should not continue ... As we have said, judges can, and commonly do, act in such hearings on matters that are not proved by evidence that would be admissible at trial.”
[4]Supra, at 371.
However, the weight that I attach to the facts stated by the experts and by counsel on your behalf is another matter. Sworn evidence, as a general rule, carries more weight than statements made in reports or from the Bar table.
On the other hand, I do place substantial weight on the reports from a psychologist and a doctor. I have no reason to doubt what you told them and secondly, I note their observations and their opinions. I take them into account.
In carrying out my task, I am bound to find the relevant facts consistent with your plea of guilty, but I am not bound to take the most lenient view of the facts. See R v Cain[5] and R v Hill.[6]
[5][1974] VR 759 at 762.
[6][1979] VR 311 at 312.
However, your plea of guilty, whilst an admission of all the elements of the offence, does not amount to admission of all facts stated in the depositions. See R v Hill.[7] Nevertheless, there has not been any contest of any of the facts in the depositions or in the Crown summary. It is open for me to draw inferences from those facts.
[7]Ibid.
In reaching my conclusions, I accept that matters which are adverse to your interests, and which are not inherent in your plea of guilty, must be established beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if there are circumstances in your favour, it is enough if those circumstances are proven on the balance of probabilities. See R v Cheung;[8] R v Storey;[9] and R v Albricht.[10]
[8](2002) 209 CLR 1.
[9]Supra.
[10](1999) 199 CLR 270.
I have read the depositions. I have carefully read the reports and character references. I accept the evidence of your sister and your mother.
You were born on 16 April 1973 and at the time of the offences, you were aged 27, going on 28 years. You are now aged 33 years. You were born in Melbourne. Your parents separated when you were aged 16 years. Since then, you have had little close contact with your father. He is aware of your involvement with the criminal justice system and has indicated that he is distressed by the family name being splashed over the media.
Your mother is aged in her mid 50s and works as a hairdresser. It is very clear to me that you have a good and close relationship with your mother. Your older sister, who gave evidence, manages a medical clinic and lives at home with your mother. She is also very supportive of you.
You completed your schooling at Fitzroy High, leaving at the end of Year 10 in 1990. During your secondary school years, you played football seriously, and played for Collingwood under 16 and later joined the Hawthorn training squad. However, you lost interest and did not continue seriously playing football.
After your parents separated, you remained with your mother in Clifton Hill and in 1991, the family moved to Bundoora. You lived with your mother over the next ten years.
In 1991, you commenced an apprenticeship as a chef and thereafter you worked in a number of commercial and business kitchens. You continued in employment as a chef.
In 1999, your maternal grandmother, who resided with your mother and who was close to you, died. You were extremely distressed, saddened and disturbed by her death.
In that year, you were working in a restaurant in Boronia, which apparently was owned by Tony Mokbel. You saw him from time to time at the restaurant and got to know him. Eventually you moved to a restaurant – TJ’s, in Sydney Road, Brunswick – as a chef, where you got to know Mokbel. He apparently had an interest in TJ’s and had an office above the restaurant.
You continued to see more of Mokbel and eventually you gave up your employment as a chef. Thereafter you became an associate of Mokbel. I have seen enough of Mokbel to know that he is a very engaging person; friendly, determined and cunning. A man who provides and expects loyalty, and who displayed considerable wealth in an ostentatious manner.
He regularly went to the races, gambled large sums of money, attended the casino, drove expensive cars and lived a high lifestyle.
You observed Mokbel, who displayed these considerable symbols of success, and were impressed by him and anxious to obtain some of these symbols as well. Eventually you agreed to work for him. This was in the middle to latter part of the year 2000. You mixed with Mokbel and this gave you access to a lifestyle and an environment which you hoped would lead to a successful future, including having expensive cars and living in lavish surroundings. You commenced to attend nightclubs and from time to time you used amphetamines.
Mr Ian A. Joblin, a forensic psychologist, who saw you in relation to a prior matter in December 1999, and more recently on 26 May 2006, opined, “He”, that is you:
“ … developed a lifestyle totally contrary to his background, marked by flashy demonstrations of grandiosity. It was anti‑social but to Mr Lanteri at that time, it was exciting and rewarding although it totally contradicted the values with which he had been raised.”
Mr Joblin also noted that you saw Mokbel as a charismatic person, one almost to be admired because of his attitudes and aura of immunity to the mundane trappings of society. You admired Mokbel and you considered his lifestyle extremely attractive.
I have little doubt that Mokbel represented to you a man of wealth, position and influence, and that this attracted you to his way of life. It was in those circumstances that you committed the first two counts on the presentment.
In late 2000, the police were investigating the activities of Mokbel and another. During the course of an investigation, a registered police informer known as SCS4/320 (“Josh”) met with and traded drugs with Mokbel and yourself. Unbeknown to both Mokbel and yourself, you were under surveillance and telephone conversations involving Josh, you and Mokbel were recorded.
Turning to the first count, on 8 December 2000 at approximately 1 p.m., Mokbel met Josh and arranged to supply him with a sample of Ecstasy tablets, which were to be delivered by you to Josh. At approximately 6 p.m. that day, you met Josh at the car park at the rear of TJ’s Restaurant. You had forgotten to bring the sample of tablets and you drove Josh in your car to your residence, where you apparently took possession of some tablets, and later you handed five Ecstasy tablets to Josh.
The tablets were later analysed. Two pink tablets weighed 0.6 grams, with a purity of 4 per cent of methylamphetamine, and the three other tablets weighed 0.9 grams and contained 6 per cent pure methylamphetamine.
On 27 December 2000, the exercise was repeated and on this occasion you handed over six Ecstasy tablets to Josh and, when analysed, three tablets, weighing 0.6 grams, contained MDMA at a purity of 50 per cent, and the other three, weighing 0.7 grams, contained MDMA at a purity of 40 per cent.
In summary, the trafficking in the first count concerned 11 tablets being handed by you to Josh. You handed them over at the request of, and on the instructions of, Mokbel. The evidence asserted from the Bar table was that the value of the tablets was in the order of somewhere between $17 to $50 per tablet. Evidence was also asserted from the Bar table that Mokbel had been recorded as saying that he purchased them for $9 for each tablet.
The circumstances relating to Count 2 occurred earlier. On 8 November 2000, Mokbel agreed to supply Josh with 1000 tickets of LSD and later you, at the request of Mokbel, handed them over to Josh. I have been informed that the value of each ticket was in the order of $3 to $7. The purity of these tickets was in the order of 8 to 10 per cent.
The other part of this trafficking offence occurred on 8 December 2000 and on that occasion, you handed to Josh, at the request of Mokbel, one pound of amphetamine. Later analysis showed a purity of methylamphetamine in the order of 40 per cent. It was asserted from the Bar table that the cost price was in the order of $48,000. The actual sale price on the street may have been greater, depending on whether the amphetamine was cut down and mixed with something else.
On 15 December 2000, Josh attended at the rear of TJ’s Restaurant, met you and handed you $9,000 as part payment for the amphetamine. On that day, you also handed over a package which contained one ounce of amphetamine. It was analysed, and found to have a purity of 70 per cent.
Both the Crown and your counsel contend, and I accept, that these transactions were done by you at the request of Mokbel, who wished to distance himself from the transactions. Your counsel said that you admit receiving something in the order of $5,000 for work done by you at the request of Mokbel.
On 24 August 2001, you were arrested and a search warrant was executed at your home in Culloden Street, West Brunswick. The third count deals with what was found at your home. Six small cannabis plants were found in a trough in the laundry. I have seen the photographs and they, indeed, were small plants. There was also a quantity of dried cannabis, which weighed 3.6 grams. Doing the best I can, the latter was probably worth something in the order of about $40. Neither the Crown or your counsel were able to assist me in relation to the value of the small plants. One might think that at that point, they did not have a great value, but that when grown, they would have a substantial value.
The fourth count relates to packages found in your jacket in the wardrobe in the main bedroom on the same day. The contents of the packages reveal 19.7 grams containing methylamphetamine at a purity of 80 per cent, and 26.6 grams containing methylamphetamine with a purity of 6 per cent. It was asserted that the 19.7 grams had a value in the order of $4,000 and the other amount had a value in the order of $1,000. Evidence shows that $3,500 cash was found in your bedroom, as were a set of scales. It is the contention of the Crown that those facts provide some evidence that you were trafficking in drugs, although you had not been charged with that. This evidence is relevant to whether you have discharged the onus that rests on you under s.73(1)(b), concerning the penalty for conviction on Count 4.
The prosecutor, Ms Piekusis, relied upon the quantity of drugs, the purity of one package, the quantity of cash and the set of scales in respect to the issue. The Crown also relies upon what appears in the report of Mr Joblin in this regard, to which I will refer in a moment.
Your counsel opined that one should infer that the drugs were for your own use, but he did admit that the quantity could have been, depending on how often you used it, a personal supply lasting somewhere between three months to a year. The submission of the Crown is that s.73(1)(b) did not apply because on the total of the evidence, the Court could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence was not committed by you for any purpose relating to trafficking in that drug of dependence. I will return to this question later.
You have a prior involvement in the criminal justice system. You appeared at the County Court at Melbourne on 14 December 1999, on counts of burglary, arson, attempted burglary (3 counts), possession of an article with the purpose of damaging property, and damaging property. You pleaded guilty. The learned County Court Judge found that the matters were proven, and the charges were adjourned to 2 December 2004, to be of good behaviour in the meantime. This form of sentence is authorised by s.75 of the Sentencing Act 1991. It is an essential condition of such a sentence that you be of good behaviour during the period of the adjournment.
At your plea in the County Court, a report of Mr Joblin was placed before the Court. The learned County Court Judge obviously placed weight upon that report. Mr Joblin opined that your prognosis was good. I have read that report, which was tendered in evidence in the present plea.
A disturbing feature about the events which I have just stated, is what occurred thereafter, and it would appear that you did not learn from that brush with the criminal justice system. Within a matter of one year after that sentence, you were committing offences at the request of Mokbel. In addition, there is another disturbing feature about your conduct. In the period from about August to November 2000, Mokbel was engaged in attempting to import into this county, using the services of others, a quantity of cocaine. On 12 November 2000, four persons, one of whom you had met, were arrested in relation to that criminal enterprise. You were also questioned by the police at about this time. I have no doubt at all that you were aware that a person who was associated with Mokbel had been charged with a serious drug offence. You would have known this in November 2000. Yet when you were arrested on 21 August 2001, which happens to be the date when Mokbel was also arrested, you had in your possession the methylamphetamine at your home. The disturbing aspect is that you do not appear to have learned from your further involvement and from the fact that Mokbel’s associate had been arrested. On the other hand, I do accept that it may have been somewhat difficult for you to have extricated yourself from Mokbel and his influence.
I now turn to the question of whether s.73(1)(b) or (1)(c) applies in respect to the fourth count. Section 73(1)(b) will only apply if you satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the offence was not committed by you for any purpose relating to trafficking in methylamphetamine. Whilst your counsel asserted from the Bar table that it was for your own use, no further evidence was placed before the Court to prove the application of s.73(1)(b). The onus is on you, on the balance of probabilities.
In addition to the matters identified by the Crown as being relevant, and to which I have already referred, on p.4 of Mr Joblin’s report dated 30 May 2006 appears the following:
“I note that amphetamine was also found. Mr Lanteri reported that this had been given to him as payment in the past. He reported that he had also used amphetamine at times, but obviously not in the quantity found by the police.”
The question is whether you persuade me that the offence was not committed for any purpose relating to trafficking, and I am of the view that you have failed to do this. The quantity, the purity, the presence of scales and the statement in the report lead to an inference of trafficking, and you have not placed any evidence before the Court to refute that inference.
In the end, the onus is on you, and even though it is on the balance of probabilities, you have not discharged it. Accordingly the maximum penalty, in my view, for the fourth count is that found in s.73(1)(c), namely, maximum imprisonment of five years and/or 400 penalty units.
I do, of course, accept that you have been charged with possession and not trafficking. You will be sentenced for possession and the penalties are prescribed by s.73(1)(c).
In reaching that conclusion, I have not relied upon s.73(2). However, the necessary prerequisites of that sub-section have been established. You have not been charged with trafficking in relation to the fourth count. There is no binding authority dealing with the question of whether the Crown can rely upon the prima facie evidentiary provision in s.73(2) on the question of the appropriate maximum sentence in the circumstances.
Section 73(1)(b) enables a prisoner to prove that it applies in respect to his possession, and hence the maximum penalties are prescribed by the sub-section. There is nothing in the Act which limits the general application of s.73(2) to a charge of trafficking.
In my opinion, it is arguable on its wording and, secondly, because it is part of s.73, that the provision does apply to sentencing in relation to possession.
Both your counsel and the Crown submit that it does not apply to sentencing. There is no doubt it has been relied on in the past in respect of a charge of trafficking. In the circumstances, since I am satisfied that you have not discharged the onus on the evidence before the Court, it is unnecessary for me to consider whether s.73(2) can be used by the Crown on the question of sentencing for possession.
I refer to the observations made by Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ in R v Pantorno,[11] which suggest that the sub‑section may be relied upon by the Crown in the sentencing process.
[11](1989) 166 CLR 466 at 478.
I am required to determine the facts and apply the relevant principles of law, and to determine, in the exercise of my discretion, what is a proportionate and appropriate sentence in the circumstances.
The sentencing principles are found in the common law and in statutes, in particular, in this State, the Sentencing Act 1991. Taking into account the principles of sentencing, the relevant statutory provisions, the maximum sentences prescribed for the offences by the statute, and all other relevant circumstances, both aggravating and mitigating: “[T]he task of a sentencing judge is to pass such sentence as in all the circumstances relating to the offence and to the offender is that which he regards as an appropriate sentence.” See R v Young.[12]
[12][1990] VR 951 at 954.
As the Full Court in that case said:[13] “The purposes of punishment are manifold.” And hence: “[T]he task of the sentencing judge has never been regarded as capable of being confined, without injustice, within rigid formulae.”[14]
[13]At 955.
[14]Ibid.
The High Court summarized the principles in R v Veen (No.2).[15] There, the Court emphasized that sentencing was not a purely logical exercise. It emphasized the difficulty in giving weight to each of the purposes of punishment, and that the purposes overlap and sometimes the guide posts to the sentence point in different directions.
[15](1998) 164 CLR 456 at 476.
In the end, the punishment must fit the crime. The sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. As the High Court said in Hoare v R:[16]
“[A] basic principle of sentencing law is that a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances.”
[16](1989) 167 CLR 348 at 354.
The starting point in the sentencing exercise is consideration and appraisal of the gravity of the offence. The seriousness of the crime is measured first by the maximum penalty imposed by the law and, secondly, by the circumstances. The sentence must serve not only as a sufficient deterrent to the prisoner, but to others who are of a like mind, and, further, must provide protection for the public.
One of the fundamental purposes of punishment is to protect society. Retribution is important and, in addition, the Court considers matters personal to the prisoner - his character, his history, his conduct, his probable future, his remorse, if any, and, in particular, his prospects of rehabilitation. Any mitigating factors concerning the offence are of importance.
Statute has, to some extent, overtaken the common law and the Sentencing Act sets out the guidelines that enumerate relevant matters that must be taken into account when a sentencing judge performs the task. Section 5(1) sets out the purposes for which sentences may be imposed and it is noted that the purposes are, “the only purposes for which sentences may be imposed”. The guidelines are expressed in the alternative.
To some extent, the purposes are potentially conflicting and the Legislature has not nominated any particular purpose as being the paramount one. Further, the guidelines are silent as to how the Court should apply them, but clearly, the Court must consider the relevant purposes and weigh them in a manner which will do justice in the circumstances.
Having observed that the basic principle is that stated by the High Court, namely, the principle of proportionality, the sentence should never exceed that which is appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime, considered in the light of the objective circumstances.
Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act lists the matters to which the Court must have regard. Guided by these principles, the Court considers and weighs all relevant circumstances, including both aggravating and mitigating factors, and pronounces a sentence which is the result of the instinctive synthesis of these matters. That is the appropriate sentence. That does not mean that the process of reasoning is one of guesswork, but indicates the complex process involved in sentencing by which, after considering all the relevant matters, the Court arrives at an appropriate sentence.
It is not permissible in this State to reveal the reasoning involved in the two stage approach in the determination of the sentence, namely to determine the undiscounted term of the imprisonment, announce it and then take into account mitigating factors to arrive at the proper and appropriate sentence and to disclose the amount of the discount.[17]
[17] See R v. Nagy [1991] 1 VR at p.637.
The starting point is the gravity of the offences committed by you. The legislation prescribing the maximum penalty indicates the severity and seriousness of the criminal conduct. The first two counts are concerned with a breach of s.71(1)(b) of the Act, as it was at the time of the commission of the offence. The Legislature fixed as a maximum penalty 15 years maximum and/or 1000 penalty units for trafficking in a drug of dependence.
That maximum sentence is specified irrespective of the quantity of the drug in question. The section as it then was provides for a more serious penalty where the trafficking is in respect of a quantity not less than a commercial quantity.
On any view, in the year 2000 the Legislature viewed trafficking as a serious offence. Your level of criminality of course depends upon the particular circumstances of the offending. As a general proposition, the larger the quantity of drugs and the greater the offender’s role in the criminal offence, the higher will be the level of criminality.
Count 3 is concerned with possession of cannabis. In the scheme of things, this is considered to be a less grave offence than trafficking. By reason of s.73(1)(b), the maximum penalty was one year imprisonment and/or 30 penalty units. On the other hand, Count 4 is considered a more serious offence, carrying a maximum penalty of five years and/or 400 penalty units. Your level of criminality will depend to a large degree upon the quantity and your participation in the criminal activity.
In fixing the appropriate sentence, a court is obliged not only to apply the principles of deterrence, but, on behalf of the community, is obliged also to clearly denounce your criminal conduct. I do not think that the question of specific deterrence looms large in this sentencing exercise. You have demonstrated in the past that you do not learn from your involvement in the criminal justice system, but that involvement occurred some five years ago. You are now a wiser, more mature and remorseful person.
I do not say the specific deterrence factor is completely irrelevant, but it does not loom large in this sentencing exercise. But having said that, the sentence must send a clear message to those who are like minded. General deterrence is important. Gullible, greedy persons are very tempted by trafficking in drugs because of the financial returns, and a clear message must be sent that trafficking in drugs is not acceptable in our community.
The havoc wreaked by excessive drug consumption does not have to be stated. It is obvious. It destroys lives and causes criminal conduct and misery. Those who traffic in the drugs can make large sums of money. When caught, they must be punished.
The sentencing process requires the Court to take into account matters personal to you in any mitigating factors. The first mitigating factor is your plea of guilty. You reserved your plea of guilty. You reserved your plea at the committal in February 2005 but there had been discussions involving the authorities at the time, and it was anticipated that you would plead guilty to the four charges. This was known early in the year 2005. I take that into account as a mitigating factor.
In Cameron v R,[18] Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ said:[19]
“It is well established that the fact that an accused person has pleaded guilty is a matter properly to be taken into account in mitigation of his or her sentence. In Siganto v R it was said: ‘[A] plea of guilty is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation, first, because it is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender, and second, on the pragmatic ground that the community is spared the expense of a contested trial. The extent of the mitigation may vary depending on the circumstances of the case’. It should at once be noted that remorse is not necessarily the only subjective matter revealed by a plea of guilty. A plea may also indicate acceptance of responsibility and willingness to facilitate the course of justice.”[20]
[18] (2002) 209 CLR 339.
[19] at 343.
[20] See at p.343.
See also the observations of McHugh J[21] and Kirby J.[22] I accept that you indicated, through your lawyers, that you would plead guilty in early 2005. I further accept that your plea does provide some evidence of remorse and I note that the practical result is the avoidance of the expense of a trial.
[21] at 350-2.
[22] at 358-9.
In addition to your plea of guilty, I am quite satisfied that there is evidence of remorse. In this regard, I accept the evidence of your mother and sister, the evidence in some of the character reports and, in particular, a report of a general practitioner, Dr Sandars. I am satisfied that both the plea of guilty and the further evidence of remorse justify a substantial discount in the sentencing process.
The other matter of significance in this sentencing exercise is the delay in bringing this matter to a conclusion. I accept that none of the delay can be laid at your door. I am satisfied that the delay in bringing this proceeding to court in itself represented a sentence. There is ample evidence from a number of sources, including in particular the report of Dr Sandars, who was able to observe you over a number of years, that the delay had a significant adverse effect upon your mental well being and your way of life. You have, in effect, been left dangling for a period of nearly five years, during which time you have had to mark time and have not been able to move your life forward because of the uncertainties brought about by the inordinate delay. Delay is a matter that must be taken into account in the sentencing process, and it does work in your favour. See R v Todd;[23] R v Cain;[24] and R v Miceli.[25]
[23] (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-20.
[24] [1974] VR 759 at 767.
[25] [1998] 4 VR 588 at 591.
Whilst due regard must be paid to the fact that you were not in custody and were free, therefore, to carry on your life, regard must be had to the fact that the delay created uncertainty, stress, and anxiety. You were left in a state of uncertainty for a period of some five years, knowing not what your fate may be. In my opinion, in the sentencing exercise you are entitled to a substantial discount of your sentence because of the inordinate delay. Of course, the delay does not have to be inordinate but if it is, as indeed it is in this case, then it justifies a more lenient approach to sentence.
The latest report of Mr Joblin concludes as follows:
“It seems that in 2000 he thought he had found a reference and identity that would allow him to participate in an ostentatious lifestyle, again in contrast to his apparently humble upbringing. There seems to be evidence that after he was bailed he was able to recognise the wrongness and inappropriateness of what he had been doing. He experienced a psychological reaction including anxiety and distress and he is being treated for that by his medical practitioner.
At the time of my interview with him he was obviously seriously concerned about his Supreme Court appearance. He reported, however, that he has a supportive relationship. He has a job and hopes to be able to return to the hospitality industry. He was emphatic that he will have no further dealings with the police, or the criminal justice system, just as he indicated in 1999. In my opinion, at that time he had returned to the more appropriate values of his upbringing. It is interesting to note, however, the impact of the charisma of Mr Mokbel on Mr Lanteri which overrode those values and resulted in his becoming involved in this somewhat salacious environment until he was again able to recognise the inappropriateness of what he had been doing.
There is no doubt Mr Lanteri is remorseful and self-deprecating. He berated himself and is intropunitive.”
My observations, including all the evidence before the Court, lead to the conclusion that what Mr Joblin said is a fair summary of the situation. I have already stated that I accept the evidence of your mother and sister as to your anxiety and distress and, more importantly, your remorse. You have formed a good relationship. Your partner is aged 29 and holds a senior managerial position in a large corporation. She has provided a report which I have read. I note that it is your joint hope that you will marry and have children. You do have good prospects for employment with your training as a chef, and I have noted that you have had a variety of jobs since being bailed after arrest. You were bailed some 22 days after you were arrested. I am quite satisfied that there is ample evidence of your remorse.
In addition to the reference provided by your partner, there were nine other references, all of which I note, and all of which are very impressive. I am satisfied that you are distressed by the predicament in which you find yourself. A general practitioner, Dr Miranda Sandars, provided a report dated 26 May 2006. It is a very impressive report. She states that she has been seeing you regularly since early 2002 and is aware of the serious charges you are facing. What has impressed me is that you have seen her on a regular basis, one to two times a month, over the last four years for supportive counselling. She has noted the effect of the delay upon your life. She states:
“I have been following his psychological reaction to this unfolding saga closely - he has been trying very hard to keep on going with his life, but this is very difficult given the circumstances. Prospects for stable ongoing work, relationships and social interactions, as well as his relationships within his family have all been deeply disrupted. He has had to look hard at himself, his actions and his future. It has been pleasing that he has so constructively used the opportunity to confidentially express worries and fears and periods of very poor coping.”
The doctor went on to state that it was clear to her that you have been suffering from a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, not to mention your concerns about things happening in the Melbourne Underworld scene. She also notes your sense of guilt and shame and the way it is affecting your family, particularly your mother, and further notes that you have placed a very heavy burden upon your mother over a fairly long period of her life.
I place particular weight upon what the doctor said when she wrote:
“I have been impressed with the way in which, over a long and difficult time, this man has matured. When we first met he was still somewhat brash and inclined to perhaps a little of the late adolescent swagger, but his behaviour and interactions have always been respectful and appropriate. Over recent years I have seen none of that youth, and instead a more responsible and remorseful adult, who acknowledges with regret what he has done and the impact it has had on himself, his mental health and his prospects. But he has much greater regrets about how he has made his family suffer.”
It is now nearly five years since you committed the offences. The criminal proceeding has hung over your head now for that period of time. The delay in bringing the matter on before the Court has not come about by anything you have done. The initial delays in the progress of the criminal prosecution were due to the problems experienced by Victoria Police in respect of the former drug squad, and the corrupt behaviour of some members of that squad.
More recently, the delay has come about because of the proceeding against Mokbel, which took precedence over this proceeding against you. It has been very apparent to me that steps were taken by Mokbel to delay the Commonwealth proceeding. This has had a disturbing and prejudicial effect upon you.
I have no doubt at all that you have suffered substantially as a result of having this proceeding hanging over your head for such an excessive and inordinate time. It is a factor that I place great weight on in this sentencing exercise.
I now turn to sentencing you on each count. The first count involved trafficking on two occasions in a total of 11 tablets of ecstasy. Five of the tablets contained less than 10 per cent purity. You handed over the tablets to Josh, at the request of Mokbel. In my opinion, although trafficking is a serious offence, your involvement at the request of Mokbel, and the quantity of the drugs, lead to the conclusion that this is an extremely minor offence. And when one adds to that the mitigating factors, in particular the delay, in my opinion, the appropriate sentence is a fine. I fine you the sum of $1000.
The second count is more serious. That is so because of the quantity of the trafficked drugs, namely 1000 tickets of LSD and one pound of amphetamines, which you, at the request of Mokbel, gave to Josh during November and December 2000.
The purity of the pound of amphetamines is of the order of 40 per cent, and the amount involved was substantial. Your level of criminality in this particular charge is far greater than the first count. Again, you committed this offence at the request of Mokbel and, I have little doubt, under his influence.
One can add to this the mitigating factors which justify a substantial discount. On the other hand, the fact that it was at the request of Mokbel does not exonerate you.
The courier or “leg man” is as essential to trafficking as the principal person managing and operating the enterprise, providing the finance and the drugs. Without having the gullible assistant, the principal in the enterprise may find some difficulty in carrying out the illegal activity.
Your level of criminality is not minor in this instance. However, taking into account the mitigating factors which justify a substantial discount, in my opinion, the appropriate sentence is six months’ imprisonment.
The third count in the scheme of things is not of a grave nature. You have pleaded guilty to being in possession of six small cannabis plants and dried cannabis weighing 3.6 grams. The latter, at the most, would not be worth much and is minor, and the former’s worth would depend very much upon the market place.
The level of criminality is not high. The penalty prescribed by Parliament is not heavy. Again, giving effect to the substantial mitigating factors, I think the most appropriate sentence is a fine. I fine you $1000.
Count 4, in my opinion, is the more serious criminal activity. Even though the maximum is not as high as in Counts 1 and 2, you have not persuaded me that you possessed the substantial quantity of methylamphetamines for a purpose not relating to trafficking. The Legislature has made it clear that that is a relatively serious offence, by imposing a maximum period of imprisonment of five years.
Your level of criminality in regard to this matter is high. There was no suggestion that you were in possession of the drugs by reason of anything Mokbel had done. You were the principal in the commission of this offence.
The offence is aggravated by the fact that you ignored the leniency showed by the County Court and did not learn from the arrest of an associate, Mokbel, the year before. On the other hand, I must take into account the mitigating factors and, bearing in mind that the maximum penalty is five years, in my opinion, the appropriate sentence is six months’ imprisonment.
I now turn to the question of the total period of imprisonment, which involves questions of cumulation and concurrency. The statutory rule prescribed by s.16(1) of the Sentencing Act results in multiple terms of imprisonment being served concurrently. This general statutory rule is subject to the Court directing otherwise.
The Sentencing Act does not set out the principles which guide a court as to whether a particular sentence should be served cumulatively, although it is well recognized that the Court has the widest discretion. Section 16(1) gives effect to the common law presumption in favour of concurrency. On the other hand, the section does specify certain exceptions to that general rule and those do not apply here.
A factor that bears upon the issue is whether a number of offences have arisen out of the same circumstances. If so, the presumption of concurrency is the general rule. Although that is the general rule, there are of course exceptions, depending on the circumstances.
On the other hand, as a general proposition, cumulation or part thereof applies where it can be seen that the offending conduct occurs in two or more separate incidents. One has to approach the issue with care. It is inappropriate to cumulate sentences where this may result in a totally crushing sentence, thereby breaching the totality principle. I refer to what McHugh J said in Postiglione v The Queen.[26]
[26][1997] 189 CLR 295 at p.307.
Whilst the Court may be dealing with a number of unconnected offences which may justify cumulation, it is a matter of discretion and it is important to avoid a crushing sentence and to give effect to the principle of totality. I refer also to what Crockett J said in Nguyen,[27] and to the observations of Ormiston JA in both R v Lomax[28] and Grabovac.[29]
[27]Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 24 October 1991.
[28][1991] 1 VR 551 at p.563.
[29][1997] 92 A Crim R 258 at p.270.
In my view, Count 4 is an offence unconnected with Count 2. For reasons that I have already stated, I view that as the most serious of your criminal conduct, although it carries a lesser maximum than that imposed in respect to Count 2. However, Count 2 is also a serious offence. In my view, the sentence on Count 2 should be served cumulatively with that on Count 4. This results in a total effective sentence of one year’s imprisonment.
The sentencing options open to a court are set out in s.7 of the Sentencing Act. My decision is that you should serve a term of imprisonment. However, the term of imprisonment may be served by a form of penalty which does not involve you actually being incarcerated in a prison. If this is imposed, you would discharge your sentence of imprisonment by service in the community, under fairly close supervision.
Actual incarceration in a prison is withheld upon certain conditions. Your counsel suggested a community-based order, but this is not an order that you serve a term of imprisonment. Section 7(1)(b) permits the Court to record a conviction and order that you serve a term of imprisonment by way of intensive correction in the community.
An Intensive Correction Order is dealt with by sub-division 2 of part 3 of the said Act. Such an order can only be made if this Court is of the opinion that you, the offender, should serve a term of imprisonment of not more than one year. See s.19(1). The period of the order is the period of the imprisonment imposed. See s.19(6).
The order can only be made if certain prerequisites are satisfied. First, a pre-sentence report must have been received. See s.19(1)(b). Secondly, the Court cannot make the order unless it imposes a sentence of imprisonment of not more than one year. See s.19(1). Thirdly, the Court can only make the order if you agree to comply with it. See s.19(2).
The Court should not make such an order if the sentence of imprisonment by itself would not be appropriate in all the circumstances. I am satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances.
Further, as you have pleaded guilty to more than one offence, the Court may only make the order if the aggregate period of imprisonment imposed in respect of it does not exceed one year. See s.19(4). That prerequisite has also been satisfied.
It should be understood by you that such an order must be taken to be a sentence of imprisonment for the purposes of all enactments, except any enactment providing for the disqualification or loss of office or forfeiture or suspension of pensions or other benefits. See s.19(5). And of course, it is also recognised that a court may impose a fine.
Such an order is subject to what are described as core conditions. See s.20. Mr Lanteri, you must understand, if this order is eventually made, what effect it will have upon you. Some of the conditions are indeed demanding and intrude into your life, and will do so for the period of imprisonment, which will be 12 months.
Before considering the question of your agreement to comply with any such order, it is necessary for you to be aware of some of the core conditions. The core conditions, amongst others, require you to report to or receive visits from a Community Corrections Officer at least twice each week for the period of the order. You are required to attend at a specified Community Corrections Centre, or as otherwise directed, for 12 hours during each week of the 12 months’ period, for the purpose of performing unpaid community work for not less than eight hours. You are required to spend the balance of those 12 hours per week undergoing counselling, as directed by the Regional Manager. You are not permitted to leave the State without permission. You must inform an official if you seek to change your address or employment, and you must obey all lawful instructions and directions of the Community Corrections Officers.
I should also point out that if the pre-sentence report recommends that the Court should attach a special condition to the order, then such a condition may be specified. See s.21(1). Another matter that I underline, Mr Lanteri, is this: that if you breach an order, assuming that I make it, then there is every probability that you will be committed to prison for the term of the imprisonment or portion thereof.
It follows that before this Court can complete this sentencing process, it will be necessary to obtain a pre-sentence report. In order for this to be done, it will be necessary to stand the proceeding down until the report is received. I am somewhat hopeful that that can be done in the next 48 hours and we will do everything to achieve that.
The second matter is your agreement to comply with the order, if one is to be made. It is premature to seek any response to that issue at this stage. Indeed, you may disagree with some aspect of the pre-sentence report when the Court receives it. However, I do require your solicitor to discuss with you the effect of any order, if made, with particular reference to the core conditions and, more importantly, the obligations that rest upon you if the order is made.
An Intensive Correction Order seeks to meet the objects of sentencing. There is no doubt that it is a form of penalty in that it will intrude into your life for the next 12 months. It will require you to provide your services to the community on an unpaid basis, and further will constantly remind you over the next 12 months of the evils of criminal conduct. It will be an appropriate adjunct to your rehabilitation and a constant reminder to you to never again involve yourself in criminal conduct.
You are remorseful and have promised not to offend again. Do not let yourself down and do not let down your family, your partner, and your friends. Some may think I have been lenient in the period of this imprisonment and the proposed Intensive Correction Order. I have been heavily influenced by your conduct over the last four and a half years and, in particular, by the report of Dr Sandars, the support that your mother and sisters have given you, your remorse and the inordinate delay. I think you deserve a chance, but do not let the Court down.
I understand that an Officer of Corrections is located in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court building and accordingly I direct that this matter be stood down to enable a pre-sentence report to be prepared without delay. I also require your solicitor to explain to you the core conditions of such an order, which include an obligation to give up 12 hours each week in order to discharge your obligations under the Act and under the order.
I will ask my Associate to make contact with the Corrections Officer at the Magistrates’ Court so that the Officer can come over and, I hope, provide a pre‑sentence report fairly quickly. I have prepared for the assistance of the Officer a copy of the summary of the facts as prepared by the Crown, the statement of facts which was sent up earlier, the two reports of Mr Joblin and the report of Dr Sandars, together with the character reference reports. I can also provide a copy of the depositions. I must say, I did not find them very helpful. Mr Raimondo, have got a set down there?
MR RAIMONDO: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: You have not; all right. Well I will hand over mine, but I did not find them very helpful. Have you got another copy of the summary of facts prepared? Because I have written all over mine and rather than provide that to the Officer, if you could give us a copy of that? All right. Well, Mr Chiodo, you will liaise with my Associate.
MR CHIODO: I will, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And let us see if we can move things quickly to achieve what we seek to achieve. You should explain to your client that this is for the next 12 months. I assume it will be something less than 12 months because I will have to make the declaration that he served, what, at least - - -
MR CHIODO: 28 days today, with Your Honour’s discretion.
HIS HONOUR: 28 days today, so that should come off, I would have thought. Is that your understanding, Mr Raimondo?
MR RAIMONDO: My understanding is, Your Honour, that in relation to pre-sentence detention, it doesn’t apply if Your Honour is imposing the Intensive Correction Order.
HIS HONOUR: So it would be 12 months? Even though I will make the declaration because I think I - - -
MR RAIMONDO: No, you then can’t make the declaration.
HIS HONOUR: I can’t make the declaration?
MR RAIMONDO: No. Section 18(2), paragraph (BA).
HIS HONOUR: All right, well, then - - -
MR RAIMONDO: It says that s.18 doesn’t apply.
HIS HONOUR: Sorry. Section?
MR RAIMONDO: 18(2), paragraph (BA) of the Sentencing Act.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, you’re quite right. All right, well, it is a full period of 12 months, Mr Chiodo.
MR CHIODO: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And if you’d explain that to your client; tell him that he will find it intrusive. In fact, all weekends he will have to make himself available to do this work and receive the counselling.
MR CHIODO: My experience at the Magistrates’ Court is that sometimes they can hear - that the assessment can take place almost within two or three hours - - -
HIS HONOUR: Well I’m rather hopeful that can be done.
MR CHIODO: Or I say it could be possible today, or tomorrow.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well I’ll be in Chambers today. I am starting a cause tomorrow, but I will give precedence to this.
MR CHIODO: Thank you, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: So if we can get the report as soon as possible. I will hand to my Associate the bundle of documents and I will make the depositions available. You can indicate to the Officer that I didn’t find them very helpful. The summary had been agreed by both sides and - - -
MR RAIMONDO: I would think it suffices to give the summary, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I beg your pardon?
MR RAIMONDO: I think it suffices to give the summary.
HIS HONOUR: Give the summary; yes.
MR RAIMONDO: That’s so, the depositions - - -
HIS HONOUR: All right. Well I’ll stand the matter down. I will be available to return to Court at any time, Mr Chiodo and Mr Raimondo. Let’s move with speed; let’s achieve this and, as I say, it is important that you explain to him, Mr Chiodo, the core conditions.
MR CHIODO: Yes, I will, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And so that he is well informed when I ask him does he agree; assuming the pre-sentence report is not opposed to it and, of course, I’ve also got to explain a number of other matters to him about variation and breach. It should bring home to him that if he does breach the order the probabilities are very high that he will go to prison. All right, well, I’ll just adjourn the Court. I will just stand down, I think.
(Short adjournment.)
HIS HONOUR: You may be seated, Mr Lanteri. First of all, the Court has received a pre-sentence report from Ms Sita Antolini, who is from the Court Services Unit with the Magistrates’ Court Correctional Services.
I do, on behalf of the Court, thank her for her prompt response to the request. I know that she had to prepare the report very quickly and with limited resources, because some members of the Unit were not present today, and the Unit was under considerable pressure.
Before I can formally make the Intensive Correction Order, it is necessary, Mr Lanteri, that I inform you of a number of matters and draw your attention to a number of matters.
I understand that Ms Sita Antolini has explained a number of aspects of an Intensive Correction Order to you so that you have an understanding of what it is all about. However, the first thing I must do is to tell you what the purpose and effect of an Intensive Correction Order is. And the purposes are, first, to impose a form of punishment and, secondly, to provide support for your rehabilitation.
The main punishment feature of an Intensive Correction Order is the requirement that you provide 12 hours service per week to be spent either in unpaid community work and/or attending counselling. I have little doubt that over the next 12 months you will get sick of this, Mr Lanteri, but you are required to do that and it will be a constant reminder to you of your indiscretions and your involvement in the criminal system.
It is this requirement, together with other requirements for supervision and ancillary restrictions, that provide the punitive quality of an Intensive Correction Order.
The other purpose of an Intensive Correction Order is that it will, I hope, further your rehabilitation through treatment and programs. And, of course, it does have the other very beneficial effect that your rehabilitation will not be impeded by having to actually serve a term of imprisonment in a prison.
So, that is the purpose and effect of an Intensive Correction Order. It is not a slap on the wrist. You have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months, and you will serve that by carrying out this correction order.
Now, the next matter I must bring to your attention is that if you fail, without reasonable cause, to comply with the order, then certain consequences may flow.
If the order is breached in any way, the Court may impose a fine and must either vary the order or confirm it or cancel it, and if one was to cancel it, you would be sent to prison for the portion of the term of imprisonment that remains.
So I draw your attention to the fact that if you were to breach the order, and especially by a serious breach, the probabilities are indeed high that you would be sent to prison.
Thirdly, I must tell you that the order may be varied for good cause. It may be varied on an application by you, or indeed the Director of Public Prosecutions or some prescribed officer, and it may be varied if the circumstances - your circumstances - should materially change and, as a result, you cannot comply with any condition of the order. It may also be varied if there is some error made or if you are unwilling to comply with the order. As I say, if it ends up that the order is varied to the point of being cancelled, then there is every prospect that you would be sent to prison, so make sure that that does not happen.
Finally, I must tell you what the core conditions are. They have been explained to you and I will now go through them. Could I have the order please, a copy of the order? Thank you. The conditions are as follows:
· You not commit another offence that is punishable by imprisonment;
· You must report to the Community Corrections Centre as specified within two clear working days after today, and that centre is the Carlton Community Correctional Services at Argyle Place, South Carlton. So you must report there within the next two days;
· You must report to, and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed at least twice per week during the period of this order;
· You must attend at a Community Corrections Centre or other location as directed for 12 hours each week, to undertake unpaid community work for not less than eight hours and, if directed by the Regional Manager, to undergo counselling or treatment for any problem you may have;
· You must notify the Community Corrections Officer within two clear working days if you change your address or your job;
· You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission from the Community Corrections Officer; and
· You must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of Community Corrections Officers.
Having had that all explained to you, Mr Lanteri, do you consent to this order being made?
PRISONER: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: In those circumstances, I will make the orders and I will read them out. I will hand down to the counsel representing the parties a copy of the orders so you can follow this through. You can return it - don’t mark it because I will eventually sign it.
It is addressed to you, Mr Lanteri and it is noted that this Court has convicted you and ordered as follows:
(1)That Mark Anthony Lanteri is convicted of the offence that at Melbourne between 8 December 2000 and 27 December 2000, he trafficked in a drug of dependency, namely 3,4 methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA), and that he be fined the sum of $1000;
(2)That Mark Anthony Lanteri is convicted of the offence that at Melbourne between 8 November 2000 and 15 December
2000, he trafficked in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, and that he be sentenced to a period of six months’ imprisonment;
(3)That Mark Anthony Lanteri is convicted of the offence that at West Brunswick on 24 August 2001 he had in his possession a drug of dependence, namely cannabis L, and that he be fined the sum of $1000;
(4)That Mark Anthony Lanteri is convicted of the offence that at West Brunswick on 24 August 2001 he had in his possession a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, and that he be sentenced to a period of six months’ imprisonment;
(5)That the sentence in respect to Count 2 be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed in Count 4, making a total effective sentence of 12 months;
(6)That Mark Anthony Lanteri, having consented, serve the imprisonment by way of intensive correction in the community pursuant to s.19 of the Sentencing Act 1991;
(7)The intensive correction order is subject to the conditions prescribed by s.20(1) of the said Act.
You are sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months which, with your consent, will be served by way of intensive correction in the community. While undertaking this Intensive Correction Order, you must:
(1)Not commit another offence that is punishable by imprisonment;
(2)Report to a Community Corrections Centre as specified within two clear working days after the coming into force of the order;
(3)Report to and receive visits from the Community Corrections Officer as directed at least twice per week during the period of the order;
(4)Attend at a Community Corrections Centre or other location as directed for 12 hours each week to undertake unpaid community work for not less than eight hours and if directed by the Regional Manager to undergo counselling, or treatment, for a specified psychological, psychiatric, drug or alcohol problem;
(5)Notify a Community Corrections Officer within two clear working days if you change your address, or job;
(6)Not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from a Community Corrections Officer; and
(7)Obey all lawful instructions from and directions of Community Corrections Officers.
This order will commence this day, 7 June 2006. You must attend the Carlton Community Correctional Services at 11-15 Argyle Place, South Carlton, before 4 p.m. within two clear working days of the commencement of this order. On the basis that you accept it, Mr Lanteri, you are to sign the order. Would you arrange for the order to be signed by Mr Lanteri?
MR CHIODO: Your Honour, before the order is handed to the client, could we seek a stay of three months and that’s in relation to the payment of the fines?
HIS HONOUR: Yes. I will add that to another order, Mr Chiodo.
MR CHIODO: Yes, thank you.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Ask the accused. All right, would you hand back all of them because we had better sign five copies, I think.
Now, whilst that is being done, I will direct that the exhibits which were tendered in evidence during the proceeding remain on the file. They comprise the two reports of Mr Joblin and the report of Dr Miranda Sandars, together with the ten character references. They should remain on the file. I will also mark as a separate exhibit when it arrives the original pre-sentence report prepared this day by Sita Antolini. What are we up to? So you have done four, all right. Well, I will mark as Exhibit 5 the pre-sentence report dated this day, 7 June 2006.
Mr Raimondo, I will hand back the photographs that were handed up in the course of the plea and I will now sign the orders.
I will further order, and this will be in a separate order, that the payment of the fines totaling $2,000 be stayed until 7 September 2006.
MR RAIMONDO: As Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR: Now, Mr Lanteri, you have been given a chance. Do not blow it, alright? And I think you have got plenty of support and I am sure now that hereafter you will realize that getting yourself involved in the criminal justice system gets you nowhere.
---
7
3
0