R v Laratta

[2017] NSWDC 227

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Laratta [2017] NSWDC 227
Hearing dates:	8 June 2017
Date of orders:	08 June 2017
Decision date:	08 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2½ years and a head sentence of 5 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Knowingly take part in the supply of more that the large commercial quantity – 1.4 butanediol – Knowingly take part in the supply of methylamphetamine – “user courier”
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Jason Robert Laratta
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Metro Lawyers – The offender
File Number(s):	2016/243598

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: There are many people like Jason Laratta in the community, people who are of underlying good character but whose lives have been ruined by drugs. Drug addicts often become, for the time that they are addicted at least, terrible people. Mr Laratta even stole from his family to fund his addiction. And then in order to get a mere two grams of free methylamphetamine, he committed an offence which sees him liable to imprisonment for life with a standard non-parole period of 15 years. His offending is serious precisely because of the effects that drugs have on drug addicts, the effects which I have just described. His actions perpetrated the harm drugs cause to society and its members.

2. The offender agreed with others to travel from Melbourne to Queensland picking up some drugs along the way and planning to deliver them to someone. However he drew attention to himself, firstly by the way he acted when he was stopped on the Hume Highway in the Southern Highlands on 11 August 2016, and then by smoking drugs in the car in which he was travelling on 12 August 2016 in an area near Kempsey. Police approached him and eventually, with his consent, searched the car that he was driving. They found not only some cannabis but more importantly, in regard to sentences that I have to impose upon him, a significant quantity of 1.4 butanediol and a smaller quantity of methylamphetamine. He was interviewed at the scene of his arrest and then participated in a electronically recorded interview. He told police that he had been asked to do what he was in the process of doing. He hired a car in order to do that. He borrowed $9000 so that he could pay for the drugs he was to pick up. He was directed what to do by someone who communicated with him by telephone. Of course he was stopped before he could carry out his plans.

3. He now faces sentences for the knowingly taking part in the supply of more than the large commercial quantity of that drug, 1.4 butanediol, and an offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of 24.6 grams of methylamphetamine.

4. As I mentioned the first offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years. The second offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. I have taken into account both the maximum penalties and the standard non-parole period in formulating the sentences to impose in this matter. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period appear in these remarks on sentence.

5. I should indicate that consistent with what Mr Laratta told police, upon his arrest, he has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity so the sentence I will eventually announce is 25% less than it would otherwise have been.

6. Mr Laratta was brought up in Melbourne where he lived with his parents and siblings. He has had an unremarkable upbringing with one huge exception. He is a person who has battled drug addiction over many years. He is also a person who has had a fragile emotional state at times. At one stage his sister, Vanessa, who gave evidence before me today, feared so much for his personal safety that she forced him to stay on the telephone to Lifeline Australia. Mr Laratta knows full well the effects of drugs upon him. It is a matter of concern therefore that he was prepared to involve himself in such serious criminal behaviour knowing the consequences of drug supply on drug addicts.

7. It appears that since going into custody Mr Laratta has not used drugs. There are certainly no suggestions of that on his custodial history and his sister spoke about the significant physical improvement she noticed in her brother.

8. Over the years he has made at least four attempts at rehabilitation which have, as is sadly commonly the case, initially been successful but have to date always resulted in Mr Laratta relapsing.

9. As to his future, the offender’s sister is confident that her brother has now hit rock bottom. He has been in custody for approaching a year. He recognises that he only has himself to blame for where he is and that if he wishes to avoid going back into gaol upon his release he has to ensure that this time his rehabilitation is permanent.

10. He has done his time in custody harder than might otherwise be the case for two particular reasons. Firstly as I mentioned his family lives in Melbourne. Although he can have telephone contact with them, of course, face to face contact is more difficult. Not too much can be made of this (which means that this factor should not be given greater weight than it deserves) because it was the offender’s decision to travel interstate.

11. The second thing that it will mean is he does his time in custody harder than what otherwise would be the case concerns his mother’s ill health. She was diagnosed with bowel cancer and recent scans have indicated concerns that the cancer has spread to other parts of her body. She is undergoing treatment but the prognosis is uncertain. I have no doubt that Mr Laratta greatly misses the opportunity to be with his mother at this most difficult time in her life.

12. The offender does have a criminal history. I have mentioned the fact that he stole from his father and there are drug possession offences on his criminal history as well. But there is nothing remotely approaching the seriousness of the offences for which I must now sentence him. This is his first time in custody.

13. The offender said many things to police which, if they were true, would be capable of amounting to assistance to the authorities. Unfortunately I simply do not know if they were true or not. There has been no evidence put before me by way of an affidavit from police, as is usually the case, as to the value of what Mr Laratta told them. No evidence was given by the offender himself in which he asserted that what he said was true. In any case what he said was unlikely to have been of much assistance given the general nature of what he said and his claim to have deleted the relevant material on his mobile phone.

14. The Crown accept that Mr Laratta’s role was as a courier, indeed a mere courier it would seem. But of course he was playing an essential role in a drug supply operation. Drugs need to be transported from place to place, sometimes that is but a short distance and at other times, as in this case, it is a significant distance. But drug supply operations would not exist without couriers such as Mr Laratta. He may not have been a principal in the enterprise but he was certainly an essential part of it.

15. What was motivating him was clearly some free drugs, a very modest amount indeed. We often describe drug suppliers as “user dealers”, in this case Mr Laratta performed the role of a “user courier”.

16. In objective terms this offence is below the middle of the range for objective seriousness. Two particular factors entitle me to make that finding, firstly the quantity involved, it was not substantially above the four kilogram cut off which turned a commercial quantity into a large commercial quantity. And the second factor is of course something I have already mentioned repeatedly, that Mr Laratta was a mere courier.

17. There are good prospects that this will be an isolated act of supply in the offender’s life. The sentence that I impose upon him will itself be a significant deterrent to him conducting himself in such a way in the future. It will also be a significant impetus to the offender engaging in further rehabilitation, with his family’s support, his family having made inquiries as to rehabilitation facilities. He is lucky to retain their support because they will clearly assist him upon his release from custody to put his life back on track. If that happens as I began these remarks on sentence, he is a man of underlying good character who should be able to put the terrible effects of drug addiction behind him.

18. Ultimately however he has to be punished for what he has done. It is a serious matter to carry a large commercial quantity of drugs from one place to another. It is a serious matter to engage in such behaviour over a considerable period of time without reflecting on the seriousness of it and abandoning what was planned.

19. I have chosen a sentence which I believe is the lowest sentence which reflects the objective gravity of the offender’s conduct. There are clearly special circumstances in this case. Mr Laratta will need considerable assistance to overcome his problems with drugs upon his release from custody. I have extended his eligibility for parole at the expense of his non-parole period, accordingly. Of course this is not only done as a favour to Mr Laratta, if he can rehabilitate himself then not only does he benefit, not only does his family benefit, but the community benefits as well.    The connection between drug use and criminal offending is well known.

20. Given the length of a sentence that I will impose for the large commercial supply matter, I will impose a sentence which is effectively concurrent for the methylamphetamine matter. This was in effect one act of supply covering two different drugs.

21. I will impose an aggregate sentence. Had I not done so I would have imposed the following sentences, for the large commercial quantity matter a non-parole period of two and a half year with a head sentence of five years. The supply methylamphetamine matter six months imprisonment.

22. The aggregate sentence I impose is as follows: A non-parole period of two and a half years to have commenced on 12 August 2016 and a head sentence of five years. This means that Mr Laratta is eligible to be released to parole on 11 February 2019.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 August 2017