R v Nguyen

[2023] NSWDC 288

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Nguyen [2023] NSWDC 288

Hearing dates:

23/6/23, 3/7/23

Date of orders:

3/7/23

Decision date:

03 July 2023

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bourke SC DCJ

Decision:

Pursuant to s.53A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999, I list the individual offences dealt with in the above aggregate sentence with respective indicative sentences:

Sequence 1            10 years, non-parole period 6 years 6 months

Sequence 3            9 years, non -parole period 5 years 10 months

Sequence 18            7 years, non-parole period 4 years 6 months

Sequence 19            4 years 6 months

The offender is convicted and I impose an AGGREGATE SENTENCE pursuant to s.53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 as follows:

Sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years and 6 months, to date from 15 October 2022 and to expire on 14 April 2034

I set a non parole period of 7 years and 6 months, to date from the commencement of the sentence

and to expire on 14 April 2030

Eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

I find special circumstances

Form 1 matters taken into account on Sequence 1.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Supply large commercial quantity of heroin

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Attorney-General’s application under s 37 CSPA 1999 (No. 1 of 2002) 56 NSWLR 146

R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

NSW DPP – Crown
Joey Nguyen - Offender

Representation:

Mr M Gleeson for Crown
Mr I Lloyd KC for Offender

File Number(s):

22/24184

Judgment

1. The offender, Mr Joey Nguyen, is for sentence in relation to four offences, those being as follows:

2. Sequence 1 offence, which is one of supply large commercial quantity of heroin, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, and a standard non-parole period of 15 years is specified. Also, in relation to that offence he asks that I take into account on a Form 1 document, three other offences to which he admits, those being the Sequence 2 offence of dealing with suspected proceeds of crime $4,710, the Sequence 20 offence of a similar kind which relates to an amount in excess of $100,000, and a third offence of manufacturing a quantity of methamphetamine.

3. The second substantive offence for which Mr Nguyen is to be sentenced is the sequence 3 offence of supply large commercial quantity of heroin for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years is specified.

4. The third substantive offence is the Sequence 18 offence of supply commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine for which the maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment and a ten year standard non-parole period is specified.

5. And finally the fourth substantive offence is sequence 19 - of manufacturing a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, being greater than the indictable quantity. The maximum penalty for that being 15 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period specified.

6. The maximum penalties, and where applicable, standard non-parole periods, are of course important guideposts in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard.

7. The offender pleaded guilty at an early stage and I intend to allow a discount of 25% on account of the utilitarian value of those pleas. The facts are agreed and in summary are as follows:

FACTS

8. On 14 October 2021 police located a clandestine drug laboratory, chemicals used in the manufacture of prohibited drugs, and a quantity of about two kilograms of pseudoephedrine in a house at Allenby Street, Canley Heights. The pseudoephedrine was contained in two plastic bags, one weighing 1,001.6 grams, and the other 1,002.3 grams which were each found to be about 80% pure.

9. The house at Allenby Street, Canley Heights was owned by a Mr Tran and was rented to a person named Billy Chen from 31 November 2020. However, surveillance of that house showed that the offender attended the premises on a number of occasions. On 27 September 2021 he was seen to attend the premises in his Mercedes vehicle shortly after 6pm and to have remained there for about 45 minutes. On 29 September 2021 he attended there again at about 5.15pm and remained there till about 5.42pm.

10. Also, GPS co-ordinates of devices used to access internet banking revealed that the offender accessed his internet banking at the Allenby Street, Canley Heights address on 6 July and 18 August 2021. Furthermore. on 17 October 2021, three days after police had seized the two kilograms of pseudoephedrine from the Allenby Street address, the offender received a message from one of the contacts in his phone which said, “Have eye in”. It is agreed that the reference to “eye” was a reference to “ice” or high grade methylamphetamine.

11. In reply to this message the offender sent a screen shot image of a police media release referring to the seizure of pseudoephedrine from the Allenby Street house, and a text which read “my friend I lost two sudo”. It is agreed that this was a reference to the two kilograms of pseudoephedrine that had been seized by police from the house.

12. The two kilograms of pseudoephedrine to which I have referred is the subject of the sequence 18 offence of supplying a prohibited drug.

13. On 18 November 2021 police obtained information from the National Australia Bank identifying that this offender had made nearly $50,000 in cash deposits over a period of eight months and had also made more than $100,000 in domestic transfers of money. On the other hand, Australian Tax Office records show that in 2020 the offender listed his occupation as a forklift driver where he declared income of $13,017, and that in 2021 he listed his occupation as “cleaning properties for real estate agents” with a declared income of $16,758.

14. It is an agreed fact that the funds passing through the offender’s bank accounts, to which I have referred, are reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of drug supply and manufacture. The approximate sum of $150,000 in transactions, to which I have referred, is the subject of the sequence 20 “deal with suspected proceeds of crime” offence which is to be taken into account on the Form 1 document.

15. Turning then to the facts relating to the remaining matters before the court. Those facts commence by reference to a house in Woids Avenue, Allawah, which was leased in December 2021 in the name of a person called Zhu, although the driver’s licence provided to the leasing estate agent contained a photograph of a co-offender named Wang, and a phone number subscribed to a Wei wei Guan.

16. On 15 January 2022 the offender was detected by a tracking device to have attended Wang’s premises in Baumans Road, Peakhurst. At that time the offender telephoned Wang’s wife, Ms Zhao, and asked “is he here yet?” to which Ms Zhao replied “yes”. Shortly after this the tracking device recorded that the offender travelled to the Woids Avenue, Allawah, house where he remained for about an hour before returning to Wang’s house at Baumans Road, Peakhurst and then onto his own home address.

17. The agreed facts record that it is “alleged” that during the above movements the offender picked up Wang before attending the Woids Avenue address in Allawah and then dropped Wang back at his home in Baumans Avenue. Although the word “alleged” is somewhat inappropriately used in this part of the facts no dispute was raised during the sentencing hearing about this allegation so I proceed on the basis that this is not in dispute.

18. On 26 January 2022 at about 9pm a telephone call between the offender and Wang was intercepted in which the offender asked Wang if he had been to “the house” yet, to which Wang replied that he had. The offender then said that he had gone to the house yesterday and put a number of items there which he asked Wang to put away. The offender and Wang then arranged to meet at the Woids Avenue House that night. Just before midnight that night, Wang was recorded on CCTV leaving his home in Baumans Road, Peakhurst, and driving away in a vehicle.

19. Shortly after, he sent to the offender a text saying “I’m here now” to which the offender replied “10 min”, and at around midnight that night the offender attended the Woids Avenue house where he remained until 6.25am on 27 January 2022. At about 6.15am that day police attended the Woids Avenue house where surveillance was commenced and the offender and Wang were photographed together at the house. At about 6.35am police saw Wang exit the premises and walk towards the offender’s car which was parked in the driveway before re-entering the house. A few minutes later Wang left the house and drove away in his car although he returned and re-entered the house a few minutes later before leaving again.

20. At about 8am the offender exited the house with a backpack which he placed into his car before moving some items around and apparently tidying inside the vehicle. He then re-entered the house and at about 8.30am exited again and then drove away. He returned about 20 minutes later, parked in the driveway and entered the house. Five minutes later he came out of the house again and went to his car where he opened the backpack and appeared to be moving items around inside it before taking the backpack from the boot and driving away.

21. Police followed and the car was stopped in Hurstville shortly after, when a search was carried out of the car. Inside the backpack, which the offender had earlier been seen with, police found a number of items including two blocks of heroin weighing in total 703.1 grams with a purity of 80% and two blocks of heroin weighing a total of 704.6 grams with a purity of 73.5%. These blocks of heroin weighing a total of 1.4077 kilograms are the subject of the sequence 1 offence for which the offender is to be sentenced.

22. Police also found inside the car $2700 cash and a further $2010 cash on the offender as well as some laboratory glassware in bubble wrap. The offender was arrested and taken into custody.

23. At about 2.45pm police forced entry into the Woids Avenue house at Allawah where they found an active clandestine drug laboratory with numerous chemicals and known drug precursors, as well as large quantities of prohibited drugs, some of which were concealed inside furniture.

24. Police also found the following relevant items inside the premises: firstly a tube containing 34.45 grams of methamphetamine at 53% purity; a metal reaction vessel containing 970 grams of methamphetamine at 1% purity; numerous other items with residue of methamphetamine on them including a 20 litre flask, a 5 and a 10 litre plastic container, an in line duct filter, a metal condenser, a metal tube elbow point, a PH meter pen, electric hotplates, thermometer, plastic bulb pipette, scales and gloves. Police also found two blocks of compressed heroin weighing a total of 702.8 grams at 79.5% purity. A further two blocks of compressed heroin were also found with a total of 702.5 grams at a purity of 77%. These four blocks of heroin weighing a total of just over 1.4 kilograms are the subject of the sequence 3 offence.

25. Police also found the following drug precursors: 3,300 grams of pseudoephedrine in three different containers with purities ranging from 2.5 to 30.5%; ephedrine weighing approximately 83 grams at 43.5%; hypo phosphorous acid weighing about 2270 grams; iodine weighing about 9600 grams; and a quantity of P2P. It is agreed that these various items are indicative of the manufacture of prohibited drugs.

26. A fingerprint matching the offender was found on a glass beaker which contained a white crystalline substance and the offender’s DNA was found on several latex gloves and a mask and a handle from a glad wrap roller. DNA however was also found in the premises which matched to a Simon Tran and Hoang Duc Dang.

27. A drug manufacturing expert provided the opinion that an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine had been manufactured at the house, and also that a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine could be manufactured using the chemicals found at the house.

28. On 28 January 2022 police executed a search warrant at the offender’s residential address in Sheppard Street, Liverpool. Inside those premises police found indications of the manufacture of methylamphetamine with a number of unknown liquids as well as the following items of interest:12,330 grams of iodine, and 17,053 grams of hypo phosphorous acid, as well as caustic soda and acetone, each of these being substances which can be used with pseudoephedrine to make methylamphetamine. Police also found two heating mantles, a number of items of laboratory glassware, as well as clamp stands, a reaction flask, two condensers, a splash head and distillation head with many of these items having traces of methylamphetamine on them. Also found was a large plastic drum containing an unknown liquid as well as a driver’s licence in the name of Leo Wai and various mobile phones and laptop computers.

29. Police also noted that in the laundry cupboard area there was staining on walls consistent with it having been used to manufacture prohibited drugs. A drug manufacturing expert concluded that a quantity of methylamphetamine had been manufactured in the premises using glassware and other equipment that was found there.

30. A Cellebrite analysis of the offender’s phone found messages sent from that phone providing his address as well as an outgoing message on 17 October 2021 to “Wang” saying “drop by my place, 28 Sheppard Street, Liverpool. Give you the keys and address”.

31. That, in summary, are the facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

32. While the maximum penalties and, where applicable, standard non-parole periods, mark the offences before the court as being very serious, it is important that I make an assessment of the objective seriousness of the particular examples of these offences as demonstrated by the evidence placed before the court.

33. The Sequence 1 offence is a deemed supply relating to the 1.4 kilograms of heroin found in the offender’s backpack upon his arrest. The heroin was of high purity and was comfortably in excess of the large commercial quantity of one kilogram. While the offence did not involve an actual supply of heroin, I have no doubt that the offender was in possession of the drugs for the purposes of them being supplied to others, and that the offence was committed with the expectation of financial gain. Having regard to all of the evidence which includes the offender being engaged with drug possession and manufacture at more than one location I consider that his position was at least that of a trusted middle man in a hierarchy the details of which I cannot determine. I assess the sequence 1 offence as being slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness.

34. The sequence 3 offence is another deemed supply relating to another approximately 1.4 kilograms of heroin found at the Woids Avenue, Allawah address. Again the heroin was of high purity and comfortably more than the large commercial quantity. Again the offender’s possession of the heroin was no doubt with the intention of it being supplied to others for personal financial gain. Having regard to all the evidence I consider the offender was a trusted middleman in some sort of hierarchy and I assess this also as an offence slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness.

35. The sequence 18 offence refers to approximately two kilograms of pseudoephedrine that was seized by police from the Canley Heights house on 14 October 2021. It was therefore well in excess of the commercial quantity of 1.25 kilograms and was again of high purity. I am satisfied that the offender had these drugs for the purposes of supply and with the object of financial gain. I consider he held at least a role as trusted middleman and I assess this offence as being near the mid-range of objective seriousness.

36. The sequence 19 offence relates to the manufacture of at least an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine at the Woids Avenue, Allawah address. I see no basis to conclude that the offender occupied any different role in relation to this offence than he did with respect to the above three offences. The exact quantity and purity of the drugs manufactured at this address, however, are unknown. And so I approach this offence on the basis that the quantity was no more than the indictable quantity of 5 grams. I assess this offence as being below the mid-range but not in the lowest range of objective seriousness.

37. In making my assessments of the objective seriousness of the various offences I have taken into account also my conclusions, expressed later in these remarks, relating to the offender’s moral culpability.

38. In reaching my conclusions about the offender’s role in relation to each of the offences, I have not overlooked para 20 through to 22 of the Crown’s written submissions. In those paragraphs the Crown argued that the offender was a “vital cog” in a criminal enterprise and acted as an expert consultant/contractor employed by various syndicates to assist in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, and that he also manufactured methylamphetamine for his own supply. The Crown also argued that the offender was well connected to suppliers or importers of heroin, and to major organised crime networks, and clearly in a position of trust. While there must be a very strong suspicion that each of these submissions of the Crown are correct, it is not possible in my opinion to make findings to this effect to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, which is necessary for such matters in aggravation. Like many drug enterprises, there was no doubt a network of individuals, performing a variety of tasks, and with differing levels of seniority, but as with many such enterprises the details cannot be determined on the basis of the limited evidence available to the court. Nonetheless, and as I have said, I am satisfied that in relation to each of the offences the offender occupied a centrally important and trusted role, best described as a middleman, in a hierarchy of persons who are all engaged for the purposes of profit.

SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

39. Turning then to subjective matters relating to the offender himself. His background, and current circumstances have been placed before the court by means of some written material. He is now 45 years of age and came to Australia with his family when he was aged three. The psychological report of Chris North notes no history of abuse or deprivation as a child, and the offender reported no history of issues in primary school although he struggled in Year 11 which he had to repeat before leaving school. He has a history of some work, including as a tiler, and as a forklift driver, but this has been interrupted by periods of incarceration. The offender also described a history of some drug use, being cannabis from age 17 and heroin on a daily basis from when he was about 20 until he was about 25.

40. His criminal history does not at all assist him, and the fact that he was on parole for a drug supply offence at the time of these offences is a matter that aggravates his overall criminality.

41. The offender married in 2008, and he and his wife had two children together who are now aged about 14 and 15. The offender also has a daughter from a previous relationship who is now aged about 25. The offender however spent much of his married life in custody and tragically in October 2021 the offender’s wife died from an apparent drug suicide. Unfortunately, the offender blames himself to some extent for his wife’s death, saying that she had threatened to overdose if he did not return home after an argument between them. Understandably the offender identified his wife’s death as being very traumatic, especially since it was he who discovered her, deceased, when he returned home. The offender told the psychologist that after this event he suffered difficulty sleeping and had recurrent intrusive memories. He also told the psychologist that after his wife’s death on 17 October 2021 his use of drugs and engagement with reckless behaviour escalated.

39. He did not, according to the psychologist, present with any overt symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress but did report symptoms of depression, emotional numbing, sleep difficulties and pessimistic thinking. The psychologist noted that it is positive that the offender acknowledged that he has not yet addressed the grief relating to his wife’s death and the trauma associated with his discovery of her body.

40. It is positive, as the psychologist concluded, that the offender said he is willing to explore these matters with psychological treatment. The psychologist concluded that the offender satisfied the diagnostic criteria for stimulant use disorder, amphetamine type substance-moderate, and concluded that he would benefit from engagement in a number of treatment programs.

41. I have given close consideration to the circumstance of the offender’s wife’s death and whether there can be said to be a link to any of the offences before the court. The affidavit of the offender’s daughter, Julie Anne Nguyen confirms that this occurred on 17 October 2021 which was three days after police located the clandestine laboratory in Canley Heights and seized the two kilograms of pseudoephedrine. This being the subject of the sequence 18 offence on 14 October 2021 now before the court. The agreed facts also confirm that the offender’s involvement with the Canley Heights house dated back to July 2021. And so it cannot be said, in my view, that the offender’s engagement in this deemed supply offence in sequence 18 was contributed to in any way by the death of his wife.

42. However, each of the other offences now before the court, including those on the Form 1 document, were committed around January 2022 some months after the death of the offender’s wife and his discovery of her body. In my view this provides support for the comment referred to in paras 4 and 25 of the psychological report which indicate that in the aftermath of his wife’s death the offender suffered acute stress disorder and that his use of drugs and his reckless behaviour escalated from this time.

43. In my view this factor, about which I am satisfied, reduces to a material degree the offender’s moral culpability for all of the offences other than the sequence 18 offence. Having said that, I consider nonetheless that his moral culpability remains relatively high. As I have earlier noted it seems to me that this reduction in moral culpability for the offences other than the sequence 18 offence is a matter relevant to the objective seriousness of the offences. But it is also a significant subjective factor that I have taken into account in a general way in determining the sentence. As was said in Commonwealth DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, where a person’s mental state contributes to an offence in a material way, the offender’s moral culpability may be reduced, and the need to denounce the crime may also be reduced. In my view that principle is engaged to some degree in this case at least in relation to the offences other than the sequence 18 offence.

44. The affidavit of the offender’s 25 year old daughter, Julianne, has been placed before the court and confirms that since the offender’s current incarceration and the death of his wife, his 13 and 15 year old children are being cared for by Julianne and her grandmother. The affidavit also confirms that the offender’s 13 year old son suffers from a hearing impairment which affects his speech. The affidavit indicates that the family’s situation is very difficult and stressful and that this is significantly added to by reason of the offender’s absence. As is well known, the sentencing of a person to imprisonment frequently has adverse, and sometimes very adverse, consequences for the offender’s family. However, it is only in rather exceptional cases that those consequences can be taken into account in a manner than can significantly reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence or the period of that sentence: R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510.

45. In this case Senior Counsel for the offender appropriately conceded that the circumstances are not so exceptional as to engage the principles discussed in the Edwards decision. However, it was submitted, and I accept, that hardship to the offender’s family will be increased by reason of his imprisonment. This is one of the matters that I have taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence.

REMORSE AND REHABILITATION

49. As to matters of remorse I make the following observations and findings. The offender has provided a letter to the court in which he apologies for his offending and its consequences for his family and the community. In his letter he also refers to his trauma and guilt associated with his wife’s death. The report of psychologist, Mr North, also notes that the offender accepted responsibility for his offences and expressed regret as well as a motivation to engage in treatment for his grief and drug issues.

50. It is noted that the offender’s drug use significantly escalated during the pandemic, and in particular in the aftermath of his wife’s death. Having regard to this material I am satisfied that there is some degree of remorse in this case.

51. The offender’s criminal history does not present a promising picture for his prospects of rehabilitation and staying offence free in the future. That is particularly the case given that since 2003, and prior to his arrest for the offences now before the court, the offender has spent close to 14 years in full-time custody, substantially for drug supply offences, and indeed was on parole at the time of the offences before the court.

52. However, and as acknowledged by the Crown, there are some glimmers of hope for the future. First, there is, as I have found, some evidence of remorse. Second, there is the fact that the offender accepted, when speaking to the psychologist, that he needs counselling or treatment to deal with his drug and grief issues. Thirdly, there is the contents of the balance of parole report dated 25 November 2022. That report notes that since re-entering custody the offender claims to have ceased contact with persons involved in the drug community, does not intend to resume contact when released, and indicated also a willingness to engage in treatment on his release. The report also notes that since being in custody the offender has maintained employment, made positive progress, has not incurred any misconduct charges and appears to be using his time in custody in a positive manner. The report further concludes that he is suitable for a medium-low level of intervention by Corrective Services commensurate with his assessed risk and criminogenic needs.

53. Having regard to all of these matters, and notwithstanding the offender’s prior poor criminal history, I assess his prospects of remaining offence free as guarded but perhaps reasonable, although largely dependant on whether he can maintain the determination to obtain treatment and to distance himself from past bad influences and bad habits.

RISK OF INSTITUTIONALISATION

54. Another factor which I consider relevant in determining sentence, and in particular the non-parole period, is the risk of institutionalisation referred to in Mr North’s report. In other words the concern that the offender has spent a good deal of time since 2003 in custody, and his comment to the psychologist that he was “more used to being in custody than outside”. I have taken this factor into account in making my determination about special circumstances.

55. The Crown’s submissions make some reference to the co-offender Wang, who is yet to be sentenced, and David Nguyen, who was sentenced in the Local Court. However, the Crown submitted that in the circumstances there are no parity issues that I need to consider in sentencing the offender. No submission to the contrary was made on behalf of the offender and in the circumstances I am satisfied that there is no parity issue that I need to consider.

56. In sentencing for the sequence 1 offence I will take into account the three matters on the Form 1 document. In an appropriate case the court can take such matters into account by giving greater weight to the need for personal deterrence and to the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences: Attorney-General’s application under s 37 CSPA 1999 (No. 1 of 2002) 56 NSWLR 146. In the circumstances of this case I consider both of these matters are of relevance especially given the offender’s history of prior drug offences. In my view the matters on the Form 1 ought to exert some degree of upwards pressure on the sentence to be imposed for sequence 1.

TOTALITY AND ACCUMULATION

57. Given that I am sentencing the offender for four offences it is important that I have regard to totality principles and the extent to which there should be any accumulation, or at least notional accumulation, given that I will be imposing an aggregate sentence. Totality principles are of course fundamentally important when sentencing for multiple offences, given the need to impose an overall appropriate sentence but one which is not inappropriately crushing.

58. In this case, although there are four substantive offences involving more than one type of drug, and more than one related address, it would in my view be artificial to look at the various offences completely in isolation. In my view the offences ought to be viewed as a continuing course of conduct over a period of some months involving related offending. Looked at in that way I am of the view that although there should be some notional accumulation it should be fairly limited and that the sentences should be largely concurrent.

DETERMINATION

59. In determining the appropriate sentence I have had regard to s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 which involves of course the need for adequate punishment, the need to prevent crime by deterring the offender and others, to protect the community from the offender and make him accountable for his actions, to denounce his conduct and recognise the harm done to the community. But also to promote, if possible, the rehabilitation of the offender.

60. I am of course conscious also that in relation to drug related offences the need for general deterrence is a very important factor. In saying that, I do not relegate the other aspects to which I have referred to any significant degree.

61. I am satisfied that the s 5 threshold is crossed and that no penalty other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence.

62. I intend to make a finding, however, of special circumstances for adjusting the ratio between head sentence and non-period period. I make that finding based upon my qualified positive findings concerning prospects of rehabilitation and the need for lengthy monitoring in the community, as well as the risk of institutionalisation and the fact that the offender’s time in custody to date and into the future, has and may be more difficult by reason of the Covid pandemic, and his untreated grief associated with the death of his wife.

BACKDATING

63. In relation to the question of backdating I note that the offender’s parole was revoked as a result of the offences now before the court, and he is currently serving the balance of parole until 26 April 2025. He was arrested for the current offences on 27 January 2022. It was submitted on his behalf that his sentence ought to date from then. In my view, however, the more appropriate course, in the exercise of my discretion, is to backdate the sentence partly so as to give the offender the benefit of approximately half of the period spent in custody to date.

64. Given that I will be imposing an aggregate sentence it is necessary that I set out the indicative sentences for each offence. These of course are not the ultimate sentence, that will be made clear in a few moments.

65. The indicative sentences, all of which have taken into account the 25% discount for plea of guilty are as follows:

66. For sequence 1, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years six months.

67. For sequence 3, a head sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of five years, ten months.

68. For sequence 18, a head sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of four years, six months.

69. For sequence 19, a sentence of four years, six months.

70. Instead I impose an aggregate sentence of 11 years, six months. I impose a non-parole period of seven years, six months.

71. I order that the sentence commence on 15 October 2022. In other words, it is backdated by 261 days which is approximately half of the period spent in custody to date. The head sentence will expire on 14 April 2034, and the non-parole period on 14 April 2030.

**********

Amendments

02 August 2023 - Appearances

Decision last updated: 02 August 2023