R v Meis and Bloom

[2021] NSWDC 166

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Meis and Bloom [2021] NSWDC 166

Hearing dates:

19/10/20, 29/1/21, 12/2/21

Date of orders:

12/2/21

Decision date:

12 February 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bourke SC DCJ

Decision:

Re Meis:

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 3 months with a NPP of 1 year 8 months (12/2/21-11/10/22). I find special circumstances.

The indicative sentences are:

Count 1 Manufacture – (after 25 percent discount) 2 years.

Count 2 Supply – (after 25 percent discount) 2 years 7 months.

Seq 3 Possess Iodine – (after 5 percent discount) 11 months.

Seq 4 Possess Hypophosphorous acid – (after 5 percent discount) 11 months

I direct that a copy of the report of Harold Hanlon dated 15/12/20 be sent to Corrective Services, Community Corrections, and Justice Health.

Seq 5 and 6 are withdrawn and dismissed.

Re Bloom:

Re Count 1 Manufacture - I am satisfied that a term of imprisonment is required. I convict the offender.

I intend to impose a term of imprisonment of 22 months, but I adjourn the matter for the purpose of obtaining a home detention assessment.

SOPH for sentence to 19/4/21 at 9.30am in the Downing Centre.

I order a Sentencing Assessment Report – Home Detention Assessment

The offender is to report to the Campbelltown office of Community Corrections by telephone by 5pm today to enable the report to be prepared.

Bail continued.

Re Not keep firearm safely - s10A conviction with no further penalty.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Manufacture methylamphetamine – Fail to keep firearm safely – Supply methylamphetamine – Possess precursor with intent to use them in the manufacture of prohibited drug

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Firearms Act 1996

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

R v Edwards [(996) 90 A Crim R 510

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

NSW DPP – Crown
Christian Meis – Offender
Craig William Bloom - Offender

Representation:

Mr C Austin for Crown
Mr M Davis for Meis
Mr Smith for Bloom

File Number(s):

2018/334663, 2018/382995

sentence

1. The offenders, Mr Craig Bloom, and Mr Christian Meis, are before the Court for sentence today.

2. The offender Mr Bloom is to be sentenced for an offence under s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, of knowingly take part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years’ imprisonment. In addition, he is to be dealt with for another offence that is the subject of a s 166 certificate, of failing to keep a firearm safely. That is an offence under the Firearms Act 1996, which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment, as well as a possible fine.

3. The offender Christian Meis is to be sentenced for the following offences: firstly, an offence, under s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, of manufacturing a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine, being less than or equal to the small quantity; and, secondly, an offence of supply prohibited drug, namely, methamphetamine, being an offence under s 25(1) and relating to a quantity in excess of the indictable quantity, namely, an amount of 24.58 grams. The maximum penalty for each of those offences is 15 years’ imprisonment.

4. In addition, in Mr Meis’s case, there are two offences which he admits, which are on a s 166 certificate, each of them being under s 24A(1a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, being offences of possessing a precursor, one offence involving approximately 5 kilograms of iodine, and the other involving approximately 5 kilograms of hypophosphorous acid, and being in possession of those substances with the intent to use them in the manufacture of a prohibited drug. The maximum penalty on indictment for those offences is, in each case, ten years’ imprisonment, but, of course, given that they are on a s 166 certificate, the penalty to be imposed is subject to the Local Court jurisdictional limit of two years in each case.

5. The maximum penalties are important guideposts in the sentencing exercise which I must undertake and to which I have had regard.

6. Each of the offenders entered pleas of guilty to the offences on 19 October 2020, which was the date on which their trials were due to commence. It was argued by the Crown that the pleas of guilty by each offender should attract a discount of 5% only. It was accepted by the Crown, in submissions, that Mr Bloom had, in the Local Court, offered to plead guilty to the firearms offence and to an offence of conspiracy to manufacture not less than an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine. The Crown argued, by reference to s 25E(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, that that offence was not “reasonably equivalent” to the offence of knowingly take part in manufacture, to which Mr Bloom has now pleaded guilty.

7. I have considered this argument but I do not accept it. In my view, the offence of knowingly take part in manufacture, to which the Crown has now accepted a plea of guilty, is reasonably equivalent, as that term is defined in s 25E, to the offence of conspiracy to manufacture. In those circumstances, I intend to apply a discount of 25%, on account of the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty to the offence on the indictment, as well as to the firearms offence, to which a plea of guilty had also previously been offered.

8. In the case of Mr Meis, the case conference certificate records that on 9 December 2019 he offered to plead guilty to a s 25(1) offence of supply not less than the indictable quantity of methylamphetamine, as well as an offence under s 24(1) of conspiracy to manufacture not less than an indictable quantity of methamphetamine, with all other charges to be withdrawn. This offer was not accepted by the Crown.

9. In my view, having regard to this offer, the offender is entitled to receive a 25% discount on the two offences to which he has now pleaded on indictment. In my opinion, those two offences are, for the purposes of s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, “reasonably equivalent” to the offences to which he offered to plead guilty in the Local Court. Indeed, the count 2 offence on the indictment is the exact same offence to which an offer to plead guilty was made. In relation to the two matters on the s 166 certificate however, I intend to allow only a 5% discount, given that the offender’s offer of 9 December 2019 sought the withdrawal of those charges.

FACTS

10. Turning to factual matters, the Court has been supplied with a separate agreed statement of facts for each offender.

11. The agreed facts in Mr Bloom’s case are as follows:

12. In 2017, police commenced an investigation into the manufacture and supply of prohibited drugs by Ross Hitchen, Craig Bloom and Christian Meis. From around November 2017 until sometime shortly before 31 October 2018 - Mr Meis was operating a clandestine laboratory in the garage of his house at Glen Alpine. On 16 November 2017, a surveillance device recorded that Ross Hitchen travelled to a petrol station in St Helens Park. Closed-circuit television recorded him meeting with Mr Bloom and being driven away in Mr Bloom’s vehicle. The surveillance device recorded Mr Bloom to drive to a house in Glen Alpine, which was the residence of Mr Meis, where Mr Bloom and Ross Hitchen remained for about five hours. Surveillance also recorded Mr Bloom attending Mr Meis’ residence at Glen Alpine for short periods of time on other days, namely, 22, 23, 26 and 29 January 2018.

13. On 30 January 2018, at 8.05am, Ross Hitchen attended the petrol station at St Helens Park, where he met with Mr Bloom. They travelled together to Mr Meis’s house at Glen Alpine, where they remained for eight hours. During this period, on one occasion, they travelled to a 7-Eleven store at St Helens Park, where they purchased eight bags of ice and, on another occasion, they travelled to a Bunnings hardware warehouse. Mr Meis was observed at his residence on that day, namely, 30 January 2018.

14. On 27 February 2018, Mr Bloom attended Mr Meis’s house at Glen Alpine, where he remained for a period of about 90 minutes. Surveillance showed that the offender Mr Bloom entered and exited the premises via the garage. On 20 March 2018, at about 8.30am, Ross Hitchen met with the offender Mr Bloom at a petrol station at St Helens Park. They then travelled together to the house at Glen Alpine, where they remained in the garage. At about 10 past 3 that afternoon, Mr Bloom purchased a number of bags of ice at a 7 Eleven store at St Helens Park and then returned to Mr Meis’ premises at Glen Alpine. Mr Bloom and Mr Hitchen left the premises at about 8.30pm

15. On 10 April 2018, Ross Hitchen was recorded attending the petrol station at St Helens Park, where he met with Mr Bloom. On that occasion, Mr Bloom purchased 12 bags of ice (frozen water) and loaded them into his vehicle. Ross Hitchen and Mr Bloom then travelled in Bloom’s vehicle to the house at Glen Alpine, where they remained for about eight hours.

16. A number of months later, on 29 June 2018, a surveillance device recorded Ross Hitchen attending a house at Wedderburn, where he met with Mr Bloom, and where a discussion took place along the following lines: Mr Bloom said, “Did you want to go around the little guy’s place and we’ll ask him if that guy wants a litre?” Later in the conversation, Mr Bloom also said, “Well, maybe I’ll see this guy at the gym tomorrow. I’ve been trying to catch him all week. I didn’t go to the gym today” and, later, Mr Bloom said, “I spent all that money fixing the fucking ice machine. I’ve got the ice machine in there, ready to go. I left him some money for the new ducting and that sort of stuff...remember, the ducting was fucked”. The ice machine and ducting were, it is agreed, to assist in the production of methylamphetamine at the laboratory at Mr Meis’s premises. On each occasion when Mr Bloom attended the premises with ice, that is, frozen water, Ross Hitchen was engaged in the process of manufacturing methylamphetamine.

17. The agreed facts in Mr Bloom’s case go on to record that on 31 October 2018 police executed a warrant at the premises at Glen Alpine. In the garage, they found precursors for use in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, namely, iodine and hypophosphorous acid, a commercial ice machine, scientific glassware, pumps, an electric wok, acetone, hydrochloric acid, rubber gloves, and other equipment. They also found an extraction fan that had been installed in the garage.

18. Subsequent forensic analysis of the items located by police at those premises revealed DNA matching Ross Hitchen and Christian Meis on some of the items used in the production of methylamphetamine. However, as recorded in the agreed facts, the lab was “disassembled” at the time that police arrived at the premises.

19. While the statement of facts for Mr Bloom, that I have just set out, is reasonably succinct, the statement of facts agreed in Mr Meis’s case is rather unsatisfactory, probably, I suspect, because it was not put into final form and signed until 27 January 2021, when the document was tendered in Court, at the commencement of the sentence proceedings. It is apparent that that statement of facts is largely a cut-and-paste from an earlier Crown case statement and essentially involves a reiteration of the facts relied upon in the sentencing of co offenders Ross and Geoffrey Hitchen, who were sentenced by me in 2020. Given the charges to which Mr Meis has now pleaded guilty, and the position of the Crown on just what Mr Meis did, large parts of those agreed facts are of little or no relevance in the sentencing exercise I must perform in Mr Meis’s case. However, given that they are agreed facts and no issue was taken about them during the sentence hearing, I will set them out in these remarks, although I intend to do so in a somewhat summarised form.

20. The agreed facts in relation to Mr Meis are as follows:

21. As I have already noted in setting out the facts concerning Mr Bloom, in 2017, police commenced an investigation into the manufacture and supply of prohibited drugs by Ross Hitchen, Craig Bloom, and Christian Meis, from around November 2017 until shortly before 31 October 2018 - although the facts refer to “2020”, which I assume is a typographical error. The offender Mr Meis was operating a clandestine laboratory in the garage of his house at Glen Alpine. On 17 August 2017, police installed a surveillance device in the Ford Territory vehicle of Ross Hitchen. The device recorded Ross Hitchen to drive to Mr Bloom’s residence at Wedderburn, where he stayed for about 90 minutes. On 19 August 2017, investigators intercepted a phone call from Ross Hitchen to his brother Geoffrey, in which Ross said, “Has Craig left yet”, to which Geoffrey replied, “No, he hasn’t”. The phone was then passed by Geoffrey Hitchen to Mr Bloom. Ross Hitchen then gave Mr Bloom directions to the McDonald’s restaurant at Narellan and, at about 11.30am that morning, Mr Bloom was seen on CCTV at the McDonald’s, to meet with Mr Ross Hitchen.

22. On 24 August 2017, police observed Ross Hitchen drive to Craig Bloom’s house. On 13 September 2017, a surveillance device recorded Ross Hitchen attending a fuel supply shop in Oakville, where he purchased 20 litres of toluene. On 19 and 20 September 2017, police intercepted phone calls between Bloom and Ross Hitchen. During these calls, they arranged to meet at 4.30pm on 20 September 2017. Police observed Ross Hitchen and Craig Bloom meet at that time at Craig Bloom’s house.

23. On 23 September 2017, in the morning, a police surveillance device recorded Ross Hitchen travel to a service station at St Helens Park, where he was recorded to have met with Craig Bloom and to have entered Mr Bloom’s vehicle, a Ford Ranger. After that, they drove away in the vehicle and returned at about 7.15pm, when Ross Hitchen got into the vehicle, which had been parked there since 8am.

24. On 11 October 2017, a police surveillance device recorded Ross Hitchen to travel to a Bunnings hardware store at North Penrith, where he purchased 4 litre of acetone and a litre of hydrochloric acid. On 25 October 2017, a police surveillance device recorded Geoffrey Hitchen travelling to the Bunnings hardware store at North Penrith, where he purchased some hydrochloric acid.

25. On 15 November 2017, Ross Hitchen and a Stefan Gillard were observed by police to attend a lab supply shop in Mascot. This was a business that supplied scientific glassware. Mr Gillard entered the store and purchased a 5-litre Buchner flask, a Buchner funnel, some filter papers and a connecting sleeve. These are all items that can be used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. He then joined Ross Hitchen, who was waiting outside, carrying, himself, two large boxes containing these items. Ross Hitchen later took these boxes to an address in South Penrith.

26. The next day, 16 November 2017, a police surveillance device recorded Ross Hitchen travel to a petrol station at St Helens Park, where he met with Mr Bloom and was driven away in Mr Bloom’s vehicle. A surveillance device recorded Mr Bloom drive to Mr Meis’ house, where they remained for five hours.

27. About a month later, on 19 December 2017, police observed Mr Bloom and Ross Hitchen meet at a restaurant at Rosemeadow Marketplace. Surveillance recorded Mr Bloom attending Mr Meis’ residence at Glen Alpine for short periods of time on 22, 23, 26 and 29 January 2018.

28. On 30 January 2018, in the morning, police observed Mr Ross Hitchen attending a petrol station at St Helens Park, where he met with Mr Bloom. They then travelled together to the offender Mr Meis’ house, where they remained for about eight hours. During that period, Mr Bloom and Ross Hitchen travelled to a 7-Eleven store at St Helens Park, where they purchased eight bags of ice, that is, frozen water, and also travelled to a Bunnings warehouse, where they bought a black submersible pump. The offender Mr Meis was observed at his residence during that day.

29. On 1, 9 and 11 February 2019, police observed Ross Hitchen attend Mr Bloom’s residence and meet with him.

30. On 27 February 2018, Craig Bloom was recorded attending Mr Meis’ residence, where he remained for about 90 minutes. Surveillance showed that the offender Mr Meis entered and exited his home via the garage on that day.

31. On 20 March 2018, at about 8.30am, Ross Hitchen met with Mr Bloom at a petrol station at St Helens Park. They travelled together to the offender Mr Meis’ house, where they remained in the garage. However, at about 10 past 3 in the afternoon, Mr Bloom, having left the house, purchased several bags of ice, that is, frozen water, at a 7 Eleven store at St Helens Park, before returning to Mr Meis’ home. After that, he and Ross Hitchen left the offender’s home, at about 8.30pm.

32. On 10 April 2018, Ross Hitchen attended the Budget Petrol station at St Helens Park and met with Craig Bloom. Mr Bloom on that occasion purchased a number of bags of ice, that is, frozen water, and put them into his vehicle. After that, Mr Bloom and Ross Hitchen travelled in Mr Bloom’s vehicle to the Meis’ home, where they remained for about eight hours. The agreed facts record that on each occasion when Mr Bloom attended Meis’ premises with ice, that is, frozen water, the offender was engaged in the process of manufacturing methylamphetamine.

33. On 29 June 2018, a police surveillance device recorded Ross Hitchen attending at Mr Bloom’s home, where a discussion took place in which Mr Bloom said the following things: “Did you want to go around to the little guy’s place and we’ll ask him if that guy wants that litre?” and “Well, maybe I’ll see this guy at the gym tomorrow. I’ve been trying to catch him all week. I didn’t go to the gym today.” And “I spent all that money fixing the fucking ice machine. I’ve got the ice machine in there now, ready to go. I left him some money for the new ducting and that sort of stuff. Remember, the ducting was fucked”. Ross Hitchen was recorded also as speaking and having said, “The guy from Adelaide is starting to pick up now, too”, to which Mr Bloom responded, “I gave the bloke a half. We’ll have to see what he comes back for”.

34. The ice machine and ducting that I have just referred to were to be used, it is agreed, to assist in the offender Mr Meis’ manufacture of methylamphetamine at the lab.

35. On 10 October 2018, that is, approximately three and a half months later, at 8.50pm, a conversation was recorded between Geoffrey Hitchen and Ross Hitchen while they were travelling in a vehicle. That conversation, which I do not intend to set out in full, related to a discussion between the two of them about what should happen to a quantity of cash that was then in their possession.

36. On 11 October 2018, police executed a search warrant at Ross Hitchen’s residence at South Penrith. In the garage they located some chemicals and equipment used, or capable of being used, in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. In a spare bedroom, police located a box containing a magnetic stirrer and a retort stand attachment. Also, DNA matching that of Ross Hitchen was located on a respirator and a glove found in the carport at those premises, and two bottles and a plastic bag containing 179.8 grams of methylamphetamine were found in the garage. In addition, in an area under a staircase in the garage, police located quantities of methylamphetamine, which were found in four water bottles and in one plastic bag, the total of which was 1386.54 grams. In addition, in the bedroom used by Ross Hitchen, police found a 500 millilitre Buchner flask, a 10 litre glass beaker and a white plastic filter funnel.

37. On 31 October 2018, police executed a search warrant at the offender Mr Meis’s home. In the garage police located items for use in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, including a commercial ice machine, scientific glassware, pumps, an electric wok, acetone, hydrochloric acid, rubber gloves, and other equipment. Also, an extraction fan had been installed in the garage. The lab, however, at that time was in a dismantled state and the equipment was stored in boxes and/or heavy-duty bags. Various items and equipment were seized by police, including approximately 5 kilograms of iodine and approximately 5 kilograms of hypophosphorous acid that are the subject of the offences on the s 166 certificate.

10. In addition, police found a number of other items, including two 20-litre glass flasks, three glass condensers, a plastic funnel, two facemask filter cartridges, a metal tray, a number of gloves, a Tupperware container, all of which were found to contain traces of methylamphetamine or related chemicals or precursors, such as pseudoephedrine.

11. On a review of the equipment and chemicals located, it was the opinion of a forensic chemist that it was possible to manufacture methylamphetamine of not less than a commercial quantity using the iodine and hypophosphorous acid, to which I have just referred, if sufficient pseudoephedrine or ephedrine had been available. It is noted however, in the facts, that there was no such pseudoephedrine or ephedrine found at the premises at the time of search.

12. Although these facts do not specify the actual amount manufactured by Mr Meis, the Crown submissions have acknowledged that the amount was not more than 1 gram, which is in fact a small quantity of such drug.

13. Turning then to the agreed facts for the second offence on which Mr Meis is to be sentenced, that being, supply methamphetamine, the facts are as follows:

14. On 31 October 2018, at about 20 minutes past 5 in the afternoon, the offender Mr Meis sent a text message to “Diane 2”, with a telephone number ending in 962, from his own telephone number, ending in 390, in which he said, “What size case of drinks”, to which he received a reply from “Diane 2”, with the word “Cricket”. In response, the offender replied, “Cricket ball”. About seven minutes later, “Diane 2” sent a further message, in which she said, “Just going to have a coffee and look around mall”, to which the offender replied with the letter “K”, which I assume, in this modern day of phone speak, meant “Okay”.

15. At about 6.32pm, “Diane 2” sent a message saying, “I’m here”. At 7.50pm that day, the offender drove to the Aldi carpark at Ambarvale and parked near a grey Mazda 3, which at that time was occupied by a Steven Wishart and a Dianne Buggy. The offender was arrested at that time by police. Police located 24.58 grams of methylamphetamine in his pocket. A drug purity test was not conducted on that substance. However, the methylamphetamine was described as a pasty substance, which also contained ephedrine, as well as N isopropylbenzylamine and phenyl-2-propanone. Police also located an iPhone, ending in 390, in the console of Mr Meis’s vehicle.

16. Those are the facts in relation to Mr Meis’s matter.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

45. In determining the appropriate sentence in these cases, I must, of course, have regard to their objective seriousness. Firstly, the objective seriousness of the offences before the Court are marked, especially the offences of manufacture and supply, as well as the offence of knowingly take part in manufacture, by the significant maximum penalties of 15 years’ imprisonment. Those maximum penalties are, of course, important guideposts in the sentencing exercise, to which I have had regard. Furthermore, the Courts of this country have clearly stated, for many decades, that persons who commit drug offences, and especially those involved in supply and manufacturing, must expect to receive serious punishment.

46. Deterrence, both personal and general, are important considerations. However, in determining the objective seriousness of an offence, and in sentencing generally for such offences, it is important that I have regard, closely, to the offender’s role, that is, what he did.

47. I consider first the objective seriousness of the offences for which Mr Bloom is to be sentenced.

48. The Crown argued that the “knowingly take part in manufacture” offence falls towards the low end of objective seriousness. In support of this submission, the Crown pointed to Mr Bloom’s actions in purchasing equipment and ice used in the manufacturing process, but conceded that this was a limited role. The Crown also pointed out that the quantity of methylamphetamine actually manufactured was very small, being not more than 1 gram.

49. I accept these submissions and I treat the offence as being towards the lower end of objective seriousness.

50. As to the remaining offence, of failing to keep a firearm safely, which is on a s 166 certificate, I note that this involved an air rifle of which Mr Bloom was apparently the registered owner and for which he held a licence. The rifle, however, was found to be stored unlawfully in an office area in the house. The offender gave evidence, on which he was not challenged, to the effect that he had bought the rifle as a Christmas present for his son. The Crown submitted that this offence falls within the midrange, but, having regard to the nature of the weapon and the offender’s evidence, I regard the offence as being towards the lower range.

51. It was not argued that any aggravating features are present in Mr Bloom’s case.

52. Turning to the objective seriousness of the offences for which Mr Meis is to be sentenced. The Crown argued that the manufacture offence falls in the midrange of objective seriousness, based largely on the various items of equipment and traces of methylamphetamine found on some of that equipment at the offender’s home, as well as the potential exposure of his partner to his criminal activities. On behalf of the offender, however, it was pointed out that no cash was found, there is no evidence that he was involved in purchasing the lab equipment, that no manufactured product was found at the house, and that there is no evidence that he acquired any direct financial benefit.

53. I have had regard to all of these submissions and all of the facts, including the agreed facts, that, as noted in the Crown written submissions, only 1 gram of methylamphetamine was produced, indicating that this was not a sophisticated or terribly successful manufacturing operation. In my opinion, this offence lies below the midrange, although not in the lowest range, especially given that the manufacturing took place over a period of some time.

54. As to Mr Meis’s offence of supply methamphetamine, the Crown pointed out that this offence involved a prior exchange of messages with the intended purchaser, that a substantial quantity was involved and that, but for police intervention, the intended supply would have been successfully completed. On the other hand, the offender argued that the substance was not of high quality or purity, that there was no evidence of drug supply paraphernalia, such as scales, or large amounts of cash, and that there is no suggestion that the offender had a regular client base or led an opulent lifestyle.

55. Having regard to the various matters I have just referred to and all of the facts, in my opinion, this offence lies just below the midrange.

56. In relation to the sequences 3 and 4 possess precursor offences, it was submitted by the Crown that these are within the midrange of objective seriousness but that they are “indivisibly linked” to the count 1 manufacture offence. While that is so, it is also relevant that the quantities of precursors were substantial and were capable, if pseudoephedrine or ephedrine had been available, of being used to manufacture at least a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine.

57. In my opinion, therefore, these two offences amount to relatively serious forms of an offence under s 24A and are within the midrange for this type of offence. I do, however, accept that there is a degree of overlap between those offences and the manufacture offence. That is a matter that I will take into account in determining the totality of the ultimate penalty and questions of accumulation and concurrence.

58. As the Crown pointed out, in sentencing Mr Meis, I must also take into account the aggravating feature that he has a prior offence, from 2007, of supplying a prohibited drug. While this is not relevant to the objective seriousness of the offences before the Court, it is a matter that I take into account in determining the sentence.

SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

59. I turn then to subjective matters, starting with Mr Bloom.

60. The subjective case for Mr Bloom has been placed before the Court by a large volume of written material. He also gave evidence and confirmed the information reported by him to psychologist Dr Lennings. He is currently aged 52 years and he has no prior criminal history. He and his wife have been married since 2005 and have been in a relationship since 1992. They have five children together, ranging in age from 19 years to twins, who are now about 21 months old and were born while the offender was in custody, bail refused. He has a history of stable employment, which has included running his own businesses, including dog breeding, which he carried out with his wife. The offender is also an international judge at dog shows and has particular expertise in relation to South African Boerboel dogs. In his younger years, he was a competitive football player and weightlifter and had hopes of competing as an elite sportsman, however, those plans fell aside, due to injuries.

61. The psychologist notes that Mr Bloom is a highly-motivated and driven man, who has always dedicated himself to any task he has taken on. However, this has, at times, involved some bad decisions, due to an apparent lack of judgment. Although the psychologist found no evidence of mental illness, the offender, when assessed in December 2020, described his current circumstances as being the lowest point in his life. He said that although he had tried to live his life by good example, his reputation is now significantly tarnished.

62. The most significant aspect in the offender’s subjective case, however, relates to his family circumstances. In addition to the twins, who are now about 21 months old, the offender has three older children; a daughter, aged 20, and two sons, Kale, who is 15, and Dace, who is 12. It is clear, on the evidence before the Court, that the offender’s family circumstances have in recent times involved very substantial adversity. That adversity has been particularly hard on the offender’s wife, who gave birth to twins while the offender was in custody, while also trying to manage the very substantial needs of her two sons, who each have significant neurodevelopmental impairments.

63. Kale, who is now 15, has autism, which has involved extensive and costly therapy, since he was three years old, to address delays in receptive and expressive communication skills, as well as other problems.

64. Dace, who is now 12 years old, has autism, as well as Klinefelter syndrome, involving impaired IQ, poor memory, shyness, low testosterone, and teeth and gum problems. In April 2020, Dace also started having seizures, the cause of which has yet to be determined.

65. I have no doubt that managing these difficulties, the weekly appointments for the two boys, as well as looking after the twins, especially while the offender was in custody for nearly one and a half years, and, in part, during a pandemic, must have imposed a very significant burden on the offender’s wife and family. It is also apparent, from Dr Lennings’ report and the offender’s own evidence, that these circumstances have taken a psychological toll on the offender himself, both from being unable to assist while in custody and since his release to bail in May 2020, from which date he has been able to assist his wife in the care of the children.

66. Hardship to family and dependants is often, if not almost always, to be expected to occur where a parent or life partner is imprisoned. However, as case law establishes, it is only in cases where the hardship to family can be described as truly or clearly exceptional that that hardship can operate so as to remove the need to impose an otherwise necessary term of imprisonment or to substantially reduce its duration. It was argued for the offender that this is indeed an exceptional case.

67. In my view, while the evidence about the offender’s family circumstances brings this case very close to an exceptional one, it is not “truly exceptional”, in the manner that that expression has been applied in the many cases that have considered it (see R v Edwards [(996) 90 A Crim R 510). Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the impact on the family, and on the offender himself, which has resulted already from his incarceration, is a highly relevant matter that I have taken into account, in a general way, in determining the appropriate penalty in his case.

68. Turning to subjective matters in Mr Meis’ case, Mr Meis’ subjective case has been placed before the Court largely by means of his evidence on oath and some written material. He was born in Argentina and came to Australia with his parents when he was four or five, when they fled that country, due to the “Dirty War” that was then ongoing. Mr Meis did not complete high school and describes himself as “a bit of a ratbag” at school. There was some suggestion that he might have had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at that time, but he was never medicated for this, as his father would not allow it.

69. The offender said that he idolised his father and was seriously affected by his father’s suicide by hanging in late 2014 and that he remained with his father’s body, at the house, for about eight hours. He said the death of his father led to suicide attempts by his mother and the offender described two occasions when he had to kick the door in at his mother’s home, after she had overdosed on medication; once in August and again in December 2015. On this second occasion, he said his mother did not survive and he stayed with her body for about four to five hours and had to clean up some of the mess associated with her suicide. After these events, he commenced using drugs to problematic levels and in 2017 was hospitalised, after the first of a number of attempts at suicide.

70. The offender Mr Meis also described the loss of a close family friend by suicide in 2008, and his own back injuries, suffered in a motorcycle accident in 2006, which still affect him daily.

71. It was apparent from the offender’s evidence in Court that he still struggles psychologically, especially with the trauma associated with the deaths of his parents, and I have formed the clear view that he is in need of psychological support and intervention. It is positive that he has sought help from psychologist Mr Hanlon, who states in his report that the offender is today a very different man to the anxious and depressed patient he initially took on, after Mr Meis came to him after release on bail. The psychologist also says that the offender has expressed deep feelings of regret for his actions, and shame, especially due to the fright and hurt experienced by his daughter when his home was raided by armed police, in darkness. The offender reflected these expressions of remorse in his evidence before me, stating that he now has a changed attitude, has avoided drugs and wishes to be a better role model to his children.

72. I note that the Sentencing Assessment Report indicates that the offender also expressed shame for his offences and feels naive for having involved himself. Although the Sentencing Assessment Report also contains a suggestion that the offender minimised his involvement in the offences, he disavowed this suggestion in his evidence. His expressions of remorse are also echoed in the letter from his friend, Mr Tilly. All in all, I accept that he has expressed genuine remorse.

73. I am also satisfied that Mr Bloom has expressed genuine remorse, in particular, to Dr Lennings, but also in his evidence before me, in which he expressed disgust for his offending and explained how it is contrary to the standards and morals that he has, in general, lived up to, prior to that point. His expressions of remorse and his prospects of rehabilitation are supported by his actions while in custody, which have involved him taking on positions of trust within the prison environment. These matters, as well as his lack of prior criminal history, his good work history, his work and distinguished reputation as an international judge of pedigree dogs, and his dedication to family, lead me to conclude that his prospects of rehabilitation are reasonably good.

74. In relation to Mr Meis, as I have already noted, I am satisfied that he has expressed genuine remorse for his offending. As to his prospects of rehabilitation, there are positive signs that he may have turned a corner, given his evidence before me, his engagement with the psychologist, and the part-time work he has engaged in, together with his daughter, at a smash repair shop in Ingleburn. It is also positive that the owner of that business has told the Court, in a letter, that he would be prepared to offer Mr Meis paid employment in the future. Mr Meis has only a limited criminal history, involving one offence of supply prohibited drug in 2007, for which he was placed on a s 9 bond for two years, in August 2008. Having regard to this and to all of the evidence, I regard his prospects of rehabilitation as being reasonable, although very much dependent on whether he continues to seek out psychological assistance and remain drug-free.

PARITY

75. In determining the appropriate penalty in these cases, it is necessary for me to have regard, to the extent that they are relevant, to any sentences received by co offenders. In that regard, I have already imposed sentences of imprisonment on co offenders Ross and Geoffrey Hitchen. On 3 August 2020, at Penrith District Court, in the case of Ross Hitchen, I imposed an aggregate term, after a discount of 25%, of ten years, six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years, nine months, for the following offences: firstly, conspiring to manufacture a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine; secondly, knowing take part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, with a further offence of knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, on a Form 1; and, thirdly, an offence of possessing an unauthorised firearm.

76. On 12 October 2020, at Penrith District Court, I imposed on Geoffrey Hitchen an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years, ten months. That sentence related to an offence of knowingly take part in the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, with an offence of knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, on a Form 1, and a second offence of possessing an unauthorised firearm. On those sentences, Mr Geoffrey Hitchen received a discount of 25% on the firearms offence, but only 10% on the drug offence.

77. Parity principles require that I take into account the sentences imposed on the Hitchen brothers and attempt to ensure, so far as I can, that the penalties imposed on Mr Bloom and Mr Meis are not such as to create a justifiable sense of grievance, when comparison is made among the various penalties imposed on all co offenders. In doing so, I must have regard not only to any similarities among them but, also, to any differences.

78. One of the challenges that arises in this case is that the various co offenders are not being dealt with at the same time, in a single hearing. Also, they have pleaded guilty to different offences, which involve a range of different maximum penalties. Most notable, perhaps, is the fact that the Hitchen brothers were each sentenced in relation to commercial quantities and, in the case of Ross Hitchen, an additional offence involving a large commercial quantity, attracting a potential maximum of life imprisonment. Furthermore, the more serious offences in the cases of Ross and Geoffrey Hitchen attracted a standard non parole period.

79. Mr Bloom and Mr Meis, on the other hand, are before the Court for different offences, with lesser maximum penalties, none of which attract a standard non parole period. These are some of the differences but there are others, that I need not set out in full here. Suffice to say that I have had regard to parity principles.

DETERMINATION

80. I have also had regard to s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and especially the importance of deterrence, both general and personal, retribution, community protection, but also, of course, the need to encourage rehabilitation.

81. In the case of Mr Bloom, it was submitted by the Crown that the s 5 threshold in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 had been crossed in relation to the offence of knowingly take part in manufacture, but it was conceded, in his case, that a custodial term of two years or less would be within range, and, further, that it would be within the Court’s discretion to order that any such custody be served in the community, by means of an Intensive Correction Order with stringent conditions.

82. In Mr Bloom’s case, I am satisfied that a term of imprisonment is required in relation to the drug offence. I convict him of that offence and I impose a head sentence, after the 25% discount, of 22 months’ imprisonment. I intend to consider, pursuant to s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, whether that sentence should be served in the community. I intend to stand over Mr Bloom’s matter to a later date for the final determination of that question. For that purpose, I direct that a further Sentencing Assessment Report, assessing suitability for home detention, be prepared. I direct that Mr Bloom make contact, by telephone, with Community Corrections at Campbelltown before 5pm today, for the purposes of facilitating that assessment.

83. For the offence under the Firearms Act 1996, I am not satisfied that the s 5 imprisonment threshold is crossed. Pursuant to s 10A, Mr Bloom is convicted of that offence but I impose no other penalty.

84. Mr Bloom, you understand I have sentenced you a term of imprisonment but I intend to consider whether that sentence can appropriately be served by intensive correction order. For that purpose, I am standing your matter over, so as to obtain a report about home detention, and I will then consider whether that term of imprisonment should be served by intensive correction order, with certain conditions, one of which may well be home detention.

85. In Mr Bloom’s matter, I will stand the matter over till Monday, 19 April 2021. That will be at the Downing Centre, where I will then, I expect, be sitting.

86. Turning to Mr Meis, I am satisfied that in his case the s 5 threshold has been crossed and that a term of full time imprisonment is required for each of the offences. I have taken into account, in determining the appropriate sentence and its commencement date, that Mr Meis has already spent seven days in custody at the time of his arrest in October 2018. I have also taken into account the fact that he has been since released to bail, subject to fairly stringent bail conditions, including a curfew and regular reporting, and that there has been no breach of those conditions.

87. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence in relation to Mr Meis. Had I not done so, then the indicative sentences, after taking account of appropriate discounts, as well as the Local Court jurisdictional limit for the matters on the s 166 certificate, are as follows:

88. For the count 1 offence of manufacturing, after a 25% discount, a term of imprisonment of two years;

89. For the count 2 offence of supply prohibited drug, after a 25% discount, a term of imprisonment of two years, seven months;

90. For the sequence 3 offence on the s 166 certificate, being the possession of the iodine, after a 5% discount, a term of imprisonment of 11 months;

91. For the sequence 4 offence of possession hypophosphorous acid, after a 5% discount, a term of imprisonment of 11 months.

92. I have found special circumstances in Mr Meis’ case for varying the ratio between head sentence and non-parole period. I have made that finding based on the following matters: firstly, that this will be his first time in custody; as well as the fact that his psychological condition will, I accept, make his time in custody more difficult; and, thirdly, the need for a lengthy period of supervision on parole.

TOTALITY

93. I have had regard to principles of totality in his case, given that I am sentencing him for more than one matter. I have also had regard to the fact that there is a degree, a considerable degree, of overlap between the possess

94. precursor offences and the manufacture offence. Having regard to that, I accept that there should be a considerable degree of concurrency between the sentences in those s 166 matters and the manufacture offence. However, the supply offence, being count 2 on the indictment, does involve a discrete piece of offending and, so, some accumulation is required.

95. In Mr Meis’ case, I impose an aggregate sentence of three years, three months. I impose a non-parole period of one year, eight months. Each of those will date from today. The head sentence will expire on 11 May 2024 and the non-parole period, on 11 October 2022.

96. I direct that a copy of the report of Mr Harold Hanlon be sent to Corrective Services, Community Corrections and to Justice Health.

97. I note that sequences 5 and 6, are withdrawn, and they are dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 May 2021