R v Lenton

[2009] NSWDC 332

CITATION:	R v LENTON [2009] NSWDC 332
HEARING DATE(S):	22 May 2009 7 August 2009 30 October 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	30 October 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Ms Lenton is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years to date from 22 May 2008. This means that Ms Lenton is eligible to be released to parole on 21 May 2010.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - Form 1 - Ongoing supply of drugs - Conditional liberty - Participation in Binyani program
LEGISLATION CITED:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
PARTIES:	The Crown Suzanne Luisa Lenton
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 08/11/1184
COUNSEL:	A Radojev - Offender
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Jack Rigg Solicitors - Offender

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Suzanne Lenton appears for sentence today after having pleaded guilty at an early stage to an offence of ongoing supply of drugs. She asks that when I sentence her for that matter I take into account two matters on a Form 1. They related to possession of some drugs and also her possession of items which may have reasonably thought to have been stolen. The substantive matter covers seven separate acts of supply committed on 29 April, two on 5 May, 8 May, 14 May, and two on 22 May, the day she was arrested. In total she supplied somewhere around 4 grams of methylamphetamine to an undercover police officer.

2 He was introduced to her and began purchasing drugs from her in the following circumstances. He would attend at her premises, tell her how much he wanted and then together they would drive to another location where Ms Lenton would obtain the drugs and hand them over to him. On occasion she obtained the drugs from a Mr Eleman a man who I earlier sentenced and a Mr Hall who I also sentenced on an earlier occasion.

3 Ms Lenton performed the role of the intermediary between the supplier and the purchaser. She did not keep any of the drugs that she would supply to the undercover officer in her possession, but would take him to the location where the drugs were, and obtain them from the dealer, facilitating the supply of the drugs and payment for those drugs.

4 She gave evidence that she began to get involved in these criminal activities in order to help Mr Eleman who was going to go to gaol for an offence and who had a disabled son. She wanted to assist him to make some money, because he would not be making any money while he was in custody, so that his family did not suffer as much as they might otherwise. Although it was not Ms Lenton’s desire to make money out of these transactions, she did want Mr Eleman to make some money and she also obtained some drugs herself for free by her involvement in these matters. It was not only of course Mr Eleman whom she approached to supply drugs though. As I have indicated she obtained drugs from others too when Mr Eleman was unable to supply to her.

5 Ms Lenton is now forty years of age. She started using drugs when she was twenty-three. Her drug use escalated significantly after she suffered a miscarriage and the breakdown of a relationship at age twenty-seven and a significant illness, which she contracted a short time later. Drugs then became a problem for her. She says that she was then addicted to them, although she probably was addicted already, it is just that her level of drug use increased.

6 Ms Lenton was raised in a supportive family. She has recently been unemployed. No doubt as a result of her increasing drug use she has found it difficult to obtain a job. She also says that the health problems which she suffered and the miscarriage and the breakdown of her relationship greatly increased her depression, which again would have impacted on her ability to seek and obtain a job.

7 She reports that since going into custody and performing worthwhile work there, firstly, in the library and then in another administrative capacity of some importance, she has regained her confidence and is now once more aware of what she can achieve for herself.

8 A significant aggravating feature of her offence is that she was on conditional liberty at the time she was supplying drugs to the undercover officer. What makes it worse is that she was on conditional liberty for a drug matter. She was on two forms of conditional liberty to be precise, bail and a bond. She was actually reporting daily to police at the same time that she was supplying drugs to the undercover police officer. It is hard to imagine things could get worse as far as this aspect is concerned, but there is another factor to be taken into account as well. She was actually doing the Merit program, a lenient outcome imposed by the magistrate designed to facilitate her rehabilitation. She managed to fool a number of people who thought that she was rehabilitating herself, when in fact all she was doing was taking the opportunity of conditional liberty to commit this serious number of individual acts of supply.

9 Somewhat unusually, even though Ms Lenton had been in custody since 22 May 2008 the day of her arrest, I recently released her from custody on a s 11 bond. The major purpose of that was to allow Ms Lenton to demonstrate, if she could, that her prospects of rehabilitation were good. I have since received an updated pre-sentence report and a report from the Binyani program which attests to Ms Lenton’s participation in rehabilitation and the good work that she had done in that regard. She has also become involved in Narcotics Anonymous and sees that as a positive way of moving forward. I am prepared to find that she has good prospects of rehabilitation. I should add that one of the conditions of the s 11 remand was that she undergo regular urinalysis. There is no evidence that she has used any drugs, and positive evidence to suggest that she has not, over the period of remand.

10 Ms Lenton also reports that since being treated for her depression she has a much more positive outlook on life. She used drugs she says to self medicate to allow herself to get out of bed some days. Since being treated for her depression she no longer feels the need to do so and this is another matter suggesting a likely good outcome for Ms Lenton.

11 There is of course still some way to go and so it would be in Ms Lenton’s benefit, and thus the community’s, for her to be assisted by a longer period of eligibility for parole at the expense of the non-parole period. I thus make a finding of special circumstances.

12 I will also reduce the sentence I would otherwise have imposed by twenty-five per cent to reflect the circumstance of Ms Lenton’s plea and the fact that it was entered at an early opportunity.

13 The fact remains, however, that she committed a serious criminal offence, one which the authorities say requires that there be a substantial component of general deterrence. True it is that even if you add up all her supplies, there was no a huge amount supplied. But s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act is targeted at precisely the sort of conduct which Ms Lenton was engaged in, regular small acts of supply.

14 In her favour I accept from some of the material put before me in the form of transcripts of listening devices, that she was trying to get herself out of being the intermediary between the dealer and the undercover officer, hoping that they could deal directly with each other. That is a matter significantly in her favour.

15 Ms Lenton was not doing this out of any feelings of greed. She was, as is almost invariably the case, a user dealer supporting her own drug habit and as she saw it, assisting Mr Eleman. I have sentenced Mr Eleman, Mr Hall and a Mr Ford as well. Mr Ford was not strictly a co-offender but was at least related, Mr Eleman and Mr Hall were co-offenders. Of course that raises the question of parity and the sentence I impose has to be such that Ms Lenton does not have a justifiable sense of grievance when she compares her sentence with that imposed on the others. It must be remembered that she was on conditional liberty at the time and I have outlined the gravity of the extent of that aggravating feature, which does not apply to either of the other co-offenders, and that she supplied on more occasions. Indeed one of them, I think it was Mr Eleman, was dealt with only for supplying a prohibited drug, not supplying on an ongoing basis. All of those factors of course have to be borne in mind when a comparison is made between Ms Lenton’s sentence and those imposed on Mr Eleman and Mr Hall.

16 I have no doubt that Ms Lenton desires to put her drug use behind her. She impressed in the witness box as a person who was genuine in what she said. In some ways I gather she actually appreciates the intervention of the authorities in arresting her and then sending her to gaol as giving her the opportunity to put what she hopefully will consider in the future as a dark period of her life behind her.

17 There was one matter I should address before I impose sentence. I have decided to date the sentence I will impose upon Ms Lenton from the day of her arrest. I recognise that for some part of that time she was on the s 11 remand and thus not in custody. She was, however, in quasi custody and as a measure of some leniency towards her I will treat that as if it was full-time custody and thus impose sentence to date from the day of her arrest.

18 Ms Lenton is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years to date from 22 May 2008. This means that Ms Lenton is eligible to be released to parole on 21 May 2010.

**********