R v Osborne; R v Dayaratne; R v Leahy

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Osborne; R v Dayaratne; R v Leahy [2025] QSC 243

PARTIES:
R

v
MATTHEW BRETT OSBORNE

(first defendant)

KUSHAN THOSAINGE THANUJ DAYARATNE
(second defendant)
GARTH WILLIAM LEAHY

(third defendant)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 1275 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial (Judge alone)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 June 2025, 24 June 2025 and 26 June 2025

JUDGE:

Sullivan J

VERDICT:

1.   Matthew Brett Osborne is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).

2.   Kushan Thosainge Thanuj Dayaratne is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).

3.   Garth William Leahy is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS – TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY – where the defendants were jointly charged on the indictment that they carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation pursuant to s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where the defendants pleaded not guilty to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation, but guilty to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the Crown did not accept their guilty pleas – where the trial proceeded as a judge-alone trial – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the circumstance of aggravation – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the relevant period each of the defendants were participants in a “criminal organisation” as defined by s 161O of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the offence was being committed in association with participants in a criminal organisation

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 575, s 615, s 615B, s 615C
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161N, s 161O,
s 161P, s 161Q

R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1
R v Hilton (2020) 3 QR 260
R v Simpson [2024] QSC 295
R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533
The State of Western Australia v Bell [No 3] [2014] WASC 341

COUNSEL:

J T Aylward for the Crown
G M McGuire for the first defendant
P J McCafferty KC for the second defendant
S A Lynch for the third defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown
Hounsell Cunningham Lawyers for the first defendant
Ashkan Tai Lawyers for the second defendant
Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the third defendant

Table of Contents

Introduction

Availability of an alternative verdict

Relevant provisions

Operation of the relevant provisions

Principles applicable to a judge-alone trial

Appropriate directions

The offence charged

The elements of the offence

Element 1: Trafficking in dangerous drugs

Formal admissions

Element 2: Participants in a “group” which qualifies as a criminal organisation

(a) Introduction

(b) Contentions of the Crown

(d) Contentions of Dayaratne

(e) Contentions of Leahy

(f) Transactions 1 to 8 and the relationship between Osborne and Leahy

(g) Relationship between Osborne and Dayaratne

(h) Relationship between Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy at the time of Transaction 9

(i) Conclusion on Element 2

Element 3: ‘defendant knew, or ought reasonably to have known that the offence was being committed in association with one or more persons who were at the time of the offence participants in a criminal organisation’

Verdict

Introduction

The defendants, Matthew Brett Osborne (“Osborne”), Kushan Thosainge Thanuj Dayaratne (“Dayaratne”) and Garth William Leahy (“Leahy”), are jointly charged on indictment 1275 of 2022 that between 8 April 2019 and 25 June 2019 they carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation pursuant to s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (“PS Act”).
The defendants each pleaded not guilty to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation, but guilty to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs when arraigned on 23 June 2025. The Crown did not accept their guilty pleas.
The trial commenced on 23 June 2025 and concluded on 26 June 2025. It proceeded as a judge-alone trial in accordance with an order made on 22 May 2024 pursuant to

s 615(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (“Criminal Code”).
The real issue for determination is whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the circumstance of aggravation. That is, whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the relevant period each of the defendants were participants in a criminal organisation and knew or ought reasonably to have known that the offence was being committed in association with participants in a criminal organisation.
Availability of an alternative verdict
In this case, the singular count on the indictment allows for alternative verdicts. This is by reason of s 575 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:
“575 Offences involving circumstances of aggravation
Except as hereinafter stated, upon an indictment charging a person with an offence committed with circumstances of aggravation, the person may be convicted of any offence which is established by the evidence, and which is constituted by any act or omission which is an element of the offence charged, with or without any of the circumstances of aggravation charged in the indictment.”
Accordingly, the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] is an alternative to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation.
[1]That is, simpliciter (being the first five lines of Count 1 on the indictment).
I am required to give my verdict first on Count 1 on the indictment, namely trafficking in dangerous drugs with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation. It is only if I return a verdict of not guilty on that count that I will need to return a verdict on the alternative offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
Relevant provisions
I turn next to the statutory provisions which underly the count on the indictment. Section 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) (“Drugs Misuse Act”) deals with the trafficking simpliciter offence and relevantly provides:
“5 Trafficking in dangerous drugs
(1)A person who carries on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug is guilty of a crime.
Maximum penalty—life imprisonment.
(2)The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 161Q states a circumstance of aggravation for an offence against this section.
...”
The serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation is dealt with in Part 9D, Division 1 of the PS Act.
Section 161Q within Part 9D Division 1 of the PS Act provides:
“161Q   Meaning of serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation
(1)It is a circumstance of aggravation (a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation) for a prescribed offence of which an offender is convicted that, at the time the offence was committed, or at any time during the course of the commission of the offence, the offender—
(a)       was a participant in a criminal organisation; and
(b)knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the    offence was being committed—
(i)at the direction of a criminal organisation or a participant in a criminal organisation; or
(ii)in association with 1 or more persons who were, at the time the offence was committed, or at any time during the course of the commission of the offence, participants in a criminal organisation; or
(iii)     for the benefit of a criminal organisation.
(2)For subsection (1)(b), an offence is committed for the benefit of a criminal organisation if the organisation obtains a benefit, directly or indirectly, from the commission of the offence.
(3)To remove any doubt, it is declared that a criminal organisation mentioned in subsection (1)(b) need not be the criminal organisation in which the offender was a participant.”
Schedule 1C of the PS Act provides that trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act is a “prescribed offence” for the purposes of s 161N of the PS Act.
Section 161O of the PS Act then defines a “criminal organisation” as follows:
“161O   Meaning of criminal organisation
(1)A criminal organisation is a group of 3 or more persons, whether arranged formally or informally—
(a)who engage in, or have as their purpose (or 1 of their purposes) engaging in, serious criminal activity; and
(b)who, by their association, represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community.
(2)       For subsection (1), it does not matter whether—
(a)     the group of persons—
(i)        has a name; or
(ii)is capable of being recognised by the public as a group; or
(iii)has an ongoing existence as a group beyond the serious criminal activity in which the group engages or has as a purpose; or
(iv)     has a legal personality; or
(b)     the persons comprising the group—
(i)have different roles in relation to the serious criminal activity; or
Example—
Of the persons comprising a methylamphetamine syndicate, different persons are responsible for supplying the cold and flu tablets, extracting the pseudoephedrine from the tablets, supplying other necessary ingredients, and cooking the ingredients to produce methylamphetamine.
(ii)have different interests in, or obtain different benefits from, the serious criminal activity; or
Example—
Of the 3 persons comprising a group that engages in serious criminal activity, 1 person obtains the profit from the activity and pays the other 2 persons an amount for engaging in the activity.
(iii)     change from time to time.
Example—
a networked online child exploitation forum
(3)       In this section—
engage, in serious criminal activity, includes each of the following—
(a)organise, plan, facilitate, support, or otherwise conspire to engage in, serious criminal activity;
(b)obtain a material benefit, directly or indirectly, from serious criminal activity.”
The meaning of “participant” is defined by s 161P of the PS Act as follows:
“161P    Meaning of participant
(1)       A person is a participant, in a criminal organisation, if—
(a)the person has been accepted as a member of the organisation and has not ceased to be a member of the organisation; or
(b)the person is an honorary member of the organisation; or
(c)the person is a prospective member of the organisation; or
(d)the person is an office holder of the organisation; or
(e)the person identifies himself or herself in any way as belonging to the organisation; or
Examples—
•using a theme-based naming convention or icon to establish a screen name or profile for an online child exploitation forum
•wearing or displaying the patches or insignia, or a version of the patches or insignia, of a criminal organisation
(f)the person’s conduct in relation to the organisation would reasonably lead someone else to consider the person to be a participant in the organisation.
Example of conduct for paragraph (f)—
doing any of the following for a criminal organisation involved in the production and sale of cannabis—
•tending the cannabis plants
•packaging the cannabis for sale
•selling the cannabis
•laundering the profits from the sale of the cannabis
•managing the day-to-day business of the organisation
(2)For subsection (1)(a), a person may be accepted as a member of a criminal organisation—
(a)     informally; or
(b)through a process set by the organisation, including, for example, by paying a fee or levy.”
Operation of the relevant provisions
I had the benefit of the considered reasons from four judge-only proceedings which have interpreted the above provisions. They are:
(a)R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533 (Henry J), a 590AA application;
(b)R v Hilton (2020) 3 QR 260 (Henry J), an application for a permanent stay brought in trial;
(c)R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1 (Applegarth J), trial reasons; and
(d)R v Simpson [2024] QSC 295 (Williams J), trial reasons.
Those reasons contain substantive conclusions on the proper construction and operation of the relevant provisions. I will identify the relevant conclusions below.
In accordance with the statutory definition of “criminal organisation,” an essential element of the circumstance of aggravation is that the person be a “participant” in a “group” which qualifies as a “criminal organisation”.
The word “group” in s 161O of the PS Act should be given an ordinary meaning, the choice of which is influenced by:
· its immediate statutory context derived from s 161O(2), namely that a “group” may lack or have certain features and be a “criminal organisation”;
· its broader statutory context, and the fact that the word falls to be applied in respect of a group of three or more persons who engage in, or have as their purpose engaging in, serious criminal activity; and
· consideration of appropriate extrinsic material.
The words “by their association” in s 161O(1)(b) of the PS Act are not a reference to the entity or organisation but, rather, are a reference to the act of associating. Acts of association can occur without necessarily there being evidence of direct contact between two persons alleged to be associating.[2]
[2]R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533 at [31] per Henry J.
The word “group” in the statutory context in which it appears is not concerned simply with persons who may be related in some way or who may be classified together on the basis of certain shared characteristics, such as their preparedness to engage in criminal activity. Instead, the word “group” in its statutory context connotes some association of persons to form “a collective unity”.[3]
[3]R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1 at [96] per Applegarth J.
There must be some unifying combination or relation between persons for them to constitute a “group”.
It is not sufficient to attract the consequences of being a “group”, that three or more persons are merely connected together in some way in a serious criminal activity. By way of example, two persons working in concert in the supply side of drugs trafficking who sell to a customer will not, without more, constitute a “group” of three persons. There is a connection between the pair of sellers acting in concert and the customer in relation to serious criminal activity, but the connection lacks the type of collective unity of association to which the legislation is aimed. They must constitute a “group” and “by their association” represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community.[4]
[4]R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1 at [90] per Applegarth J.
The word “group” in s 161O of the PS Act is capable of applying to a group of associated criminals, arranged informally, and lacking the features of a legitimate business arrangement.
It is not necessary for a “group” to have a formal organisational structure or the processes and procedures that might often be associated with a legitimate group, such as business reports and accounts.
The serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation was not intended to be visited upon persons who do not comprise a “group” according to the meaning of that word in the statutory context.[5]
[5]R v Simpson [2024] QSC 295 at [108] per Williams J.
Necessarily, there must be evidence of association of the nature described. That evidence can be indirect, that is circumstantial, but it must exist, and it must be “…capable of sustaining the inference that there was association as between the three [or more] members of the group.”[6] If, however, there is no evidence that there was the required association between the three members of the group, the circumstance of aggravation cannot be established.
[6]R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533 at [30].
It is appropriate to set out an extract from the reasons of Applegarth J in R v Hill (No 2),[7] where his Honour dealt with a portion of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill,[8] which brought in the particular form of the provisions under consideration, and explained how that extrinsic material is to be used. His Honour observed as follows:[9]
[7](2020) 6 QR 1.
[8]Explanatory Notes to the Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, p. 19.
[9]R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1 at [82]-[83].
“[82] If required to resolve any ambiguity about the purpose of

ss 161O(1) and 161O(2) in particular, regard may be had to the Explanatory Notes to the Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Bill 2016:
“The new definition of ‘criminal organisation’ is intended to be sufficiently broad enough to capture both traditional and hierarchically structured criminal groups; as well as shape-shifting, opportunistically formed and flexible criminal groups. This enhancement acknowledges that while [outlaw motorcycle gangs] have traditionally favoured hierarchical and highly visible models of organisation, other crime groups are now frequently informally arranged and adaptable in their structure …In framing the new definitions, the Bill takes into account the recent decision of the Honourable Justice Peter Lyons in R v Hannan, Hannan, Gills, Murrell & Hannan [2016] QSC 161; to ensure the scenario illustrated by that case is captured by the definition.”
This suggests that the section did not intend to adopt an artificial meaning of the word “group”, but to ensure that an available meaning of “group” is not adopted which prevents the section from applying to criminal groups which are “shape-shifting, opportunistically formed and flexible”. It still must be a group, but it may be “informally arranged and adaptable” in its structure and as a result may not be capable of being recognised by the public as a group.
[83]In any case, and without reference to the Explanatory Notes,

s 161O(2) is not a mandate to give the word “group” some unusual or technical meaning not associated with its ordinary usage. Instead, it guides the choice of relevant ordinary meanings and emphasises that, in the present context, a group may lack things like a name or other features which enable it to be recognised by the public as a group.” (footnotes omitted)
Accordingly, the word “group” ought to be construed as including a group which is formed opportunistically and does not require an ongoing existence beyond the criminal activity engaged in.
Principles applicable to a judge-alone trial
In a trial by judge sitting without a jury, the judge must apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury.[10]
[10]See s 615B(1) of the Criminal Code.
If an Act or the common law requires information or a warning or instruction to be given to the jury in particular circumstances, or prohibits a warning from being given to a jury, the judge in a trial by a judge sitting without a jury must take the requirement or prohibition into account if the circumstances arise in the course of the trial.[11]
[11]See s 615B(3) of the Criminal Code.
The judge in such a trial may make any findings and give any verdict that a jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury. Any finding or verdict of the judge has, for all purposes, the same effect as a finding or verdict of a jury.[12]
[12]See s 615C of the Criminal Code.

These reasons must include the principles of law that I have applied and the findings of fact on which I have relied.[13]
[13]See s 615C(3) of the Criminal Code.
I note the observations of McKechnie J in The State of Western Australia v Bell [No 3] [2014] WASC 341 at [8]-[14] concerning the nature of the task of a judge in a judge-alone trial. They are as follows:
“[8]A jury is required to return a verdict if it is able to achieve unanimity. A jury is not required to provide reasons for its verdict.
[9]A judge is required to set out the principles of law that have been applied and the findings of the fact that have been made...
[10]Reaching judgment is an evolving process. Testimonies of witnesses are absorbed and initial impressions formed. These initial impressions are then subjected to analysis and comparison with other testimony and physical evidence. Initial impressions may be altered as the trial proceeds and more evidence becomes available.
[11]When the trial has finished a judge embarks upon a reflective consideration. Principles of law are identified or revisited and the evidence evaluated against these principles. The submissions of counsel are important in highlighting their respective cases and are given careful analysis.
[12]A jury has the inestimable advantage of discussion and sharing of views and opinions. Twelve people can share with each other their impressions and views, acknowledge contrary opinions, and alter their stance accordingly.
[13]A judge has no such equivalent but works in the solitude of chambers. A judge can discuss a case with no-one lest the judge be subject to unconscious influence. For that, among other reasons, it is important for a judge to take time to reflect on the evidence and to test possible theories and assumptions against the framework of legal principles.
[14]The physical act of writing and explaining the reasons for a decision also concentrates the mind. Errors of reasoning may be identified and corrected.”
In coming to my verdict, I have engaged in a deliberative process which reflects his Honour’s observations.
Appropriate directions
I turn now to the specific directions I must give to myself in respect of my deliberations. These directions were formulated and agreed to by each of the Crown and the defendants but were articulated in respect of only one of the defendants. It is agreed by all parties that these are the relevant specific directions I should make. Having reviewed the directions, I am satisfied that I should make the directions. Accordingly, and with appropriate modifications to ensure that the directions apply to each of the defendants, I direct myself in the following terms.
Each element of the offence simpliciter and the circumstance of aggravation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction for the offence is achieved by the Crown.
The Court must dismiss all feelings of sympathy or prejudice, whether for Osborne, Dayaratne or Leahy, or any other person. The Court must approach its duty dispassionately, deciding facts upon the whole of the evidence.
The Court must decide the case on the evidence and only the evidence. The evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses that have been called, the exhibits and the formal admissions. The Court must not act on any outside information or other outside influence. The Court must not make its own inquiries or investigations about the case, or anyone connected with it.
The Court must approach the task of reaching a verdict on the basis that the Court may accept evidence in whole or in part. It is for the Court to decide whether it accepts the whole of what a witness says, or only part of it, or none of it. It is for the Court to decide whether a witness is telling the truth and correctly recalls the facts upon which he or she has testified.
The Court may draw inferences from the evidence. The inferences must be reasonable ones to draw from the facts that the Court finds have been established by the evidence. Whilst it is up to the Court to decide whether it accepts particular evidence, and if so, the weight or significance to be attributed to it, the Court must not speculate or conject to fill in any gaps in the evidence.
This is a circumstantial case. It is not for Osborne, Dayaratne or Leahy in the case brought against each of them to prove that inferences against themselves should not be drawn. A verdict of guilty cannot be returned against a defendant unless the circumstances are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of that defendant.
Where there are reasonable inferences consistent with guilt and reasonable inferences consistent with innocence, the Court must not draw an inference consistent with guilt. The Court must not convict any of Osborne, Dayaratne or Leahy on the circumstance of aggravation on the basis of inferences, unless it is able to exclude beyond reasonable doubt any reasonable inference consistent with innocence.
Guilt must be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances. If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, the Court must acquit. This applies to the offence charged on the indictment, including the circumstance of aggravation, as well as the alternative offence of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs simpliciter.
In considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence.
The evidence is not to be looked at in a piecemeal fashion; however a single circumstance inconsistent with a conclusion of guilt may be of more importance than all the rest of the evidence in as much as it destroys the hypothesis of guilt.
Each of Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy are presumed innocent of the offence simpliciter and the circumstance of aggravation. The presumption may only be displaced by evidence which has been placed before the Court, and may only be displaced if the Court is satisfied of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the offence charged against each of them.
The Crown carries the burden of proving the guilt of each defendant. For each defendant, the Crown is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that particular defendant is guilty.
This means that, in order to convict a particular defendant, the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of every element that goes to make up the offence charged against that particular defendant.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law. The standard of satisfaction required in a criminal trial is much higher than in a civil trial.
If the Court is left with any reasonable doubt about guilt, it is bound to acquit.
Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy have not given or called evidence, which is their right; each of them are not bound to give evidence. Each of them are entitled to insist that the Crown prove the case against each of them if it can. The fact that they have not given evidence is not proof of guilt against any of them. It does not constitute an admission of guilt by conduct, and it may not be used to fill any gaps in the evidence led by the Crown; it proves nothing at all.
The Court cannot consider the fact that Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy have not called or given evidence when deciding whether the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it does not make the task confronting the Crown any easier. It does not change the fact that the Crown retains the responsibility to prove the guilt of each defendant beyond reasonable doubt.
Audio and video recordings in the form of surveillance have been admitted into evidence. Transcripts of those recordings have also been received and marked for identification.
The actual evidence consists of the sounds and any images produced by playing these recordings, rather than the exhibit itself.
The transcripts of the recordings which have been marked for identification were an aid to listening only during the trial and are not evidence. The Court will have no regard to the transcripts in reaching a verdict.
It is very common for recordings to require editing before they are used in a trial. The Court must not speculate about the parts that have been edited out. The Court cannot draw any inference adverse to a defendant merely because irrelevant material has not been placed before the Court. To do so would not only be wrong, but it would also be utterly unfair.
Before the Court can rely on a statement made by a defendant in surveillance footage, the Court must be satisfied:
(a)that the defendant in fact spoke the words attributed to him and he was thereby making an admission against interest; and
(b)that what the defendant said was true.
If the Court accepts that the statement or statements were made by the defendant and that they were true, then it is up to the Court to decide what weight they are to be given, and what the Court thinks they prove.
Finally, in respect of each individual defendant, the Court must decide the case solely on the evidence against that defendant. The evidence in relation to the other two defendants must be considered separately from the evidence against the individual defendant and separate verdicts must be returned in respect of each individual defendant.
The offence charged
The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each of the defendants were trafficking in dangerous drugs and there was a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation.
The elements of the offence
The Crown must prove in respect of each of Osborne, Dayaratne, and Leahy that the defendants were each trafficking in dangerous drugs.
The Crown must then prove that Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy were “a group of 3 or more persons,” whether arranged formally or informally:
(a)who engaged in, or had as their purpose (or one of their purposes) engaging in, serious criminal activity; and
(b)who, by their association, represented an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community.
Finally, the Crown must prove, in respect of each defendant, that he knew or ought reasonably to have known that the trafficking offence he was committing was being committed in association with the other two defendants in a criminal organisation.
Element 1: Trafficking in dangerous drugs
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, based on the formal admissions made in the trial, that each of the defendants unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs in the period between 8 April 2019 and 25 June 2019. That finding is also supported by:
(a)the pleas of guilty to the trafficking simpliciter offence at the start of the trial;[14] and
(b)counsel for each defendant informing me on behalf of their respective client that their client had committed the trafficking simpliciter offence in the relevant period.
[14]Albeit the plea was not accepted by the Crown.
I will set out in full the formal admissions which I have relied upon for this finding.
Formal admissions[15]
[15]The agreed admissions between the Crown and defence are Exhibit 1 [previously marked for identification “A”] and have been faithfully replicated in this judgment, including any errors.
“It is formally admitted by the defendants and the prosecution as evidence in the trial that
1.   Between 8 April 2019 and 25^th June 2019 Matthew Brett Osborne, Kushan Thosainge Dayaratne and Garth William Leahy carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs.
Operation Papa Montana 2
2. Operation Papa Montana 2 commenced in 2019 to investigate a criminal network trafficking dangerous drugs in Brisbane.
3. The operation involved a number of investigative and surveillance strategies: telephone intercept warrant on the first defendant's mobile phone, covert surveillance, tactical intercepts and interactions with three Law Enforcement Participants (“LEP”).
The defendants
4. The first defendant is Matthew Brett Osborne (DOB: 24 October 1983).
5. The second defendant is Kushan Thosainge Dayaratne (DOB: 11 July 1991).
6. The third defendant is Garth William Leahy (DOB: 5 September 1986).
The offending
7.   The offending includes nine (9) transactions which occurred between 9 April 2019 and 24 June 2019.
8.   During these transactions drugs (cannabis, cocaine and MDMA) were supplied to three to LEPs.
9.   The first eight transactions involved supplies to LEP68 (Transactions 1 to 8). The final transaction (Transaction 9) involved a supply to LEP71 and LEP73.
Transactions 1 to 8
10. Osborne was introduced to LEP68 through an associate who had already negotiated with Osborne for the purchase by LE68 of cannabis (5 pounds) on behalf of LEP68 (Transaction 1) at a price of $14,750. Transaction 1 occurred on 9 April 2019.
11. On 10 April 2019, Osborne met LEP68 and supplied a sample (1 gram) of cannabis at no cost (Transaction 2). Osborne and LEP68 exchanged cipher CID numbers. Osborne identified himself as “fendi” on cipher.
12. After Transaction 2, Osborne created a group chat in cipher between himself, Leahy “bobthewolf” and LEP68 called “Coco drop”.
13. In the “Coco drop” group chat Osborne directed Leahy to deliver drugs to LEP68 and collect the money on his behalf. LEP68 and Leahy would arrange to meet in a car park, or the park, in Poppy Street, Hemmant, and each transaction occurred in or around Leahy's car. Transactions 3, 4 and 5 occurred in this way. Specifically:
(a)Transaction 3 occurred on 11 April 2019 and involved the purchase by LEP68 of one ounce of cocaine (27.695 grams of substance, 75.5% purity, so 20.909 grams of pure cocaine) and 1,343 grams (2.96 pounds) of cannabis for $17,350;
(b)Transaction 4 occurred on 12 April 2019 and involved the purchase by LEP68 of an ounce of MDMA (26.828 grams of substance, 71% purity, so 19.101 grams of MDMA) for $1,000;
(c)Transaction 5 occurred on 26 April 2019 and involved the purchase by LEP69 an ounce of cocaine (27.599 grams of substance, 76.5% purity, so 21.113 grams of pure cocaine) for $8,500.
14. In organising Transaction 6, which occurred on 30 April 2019, Osborne included LEP68 in another cipher group chat called “Coco Md” which included another user called “DMT”. It is not alleged that DMT is any of the defendants. After a series of messages, the transaction was completed. It involved the purchase by LEP68 of 892 grams of cannabis and an ounce of MDMA (28.021 grams of substance, 68.8% purity, so 19.278 grams of MDMA) for $6,900.
15. On 2 May 2019, Osborne changed his profile from “fendi” to “acacia88”.
16. Transaction 7 occurred on 16 May 2019. It was arranged in a similar way to Transactions 3, 4 and 5. It involved the purchase by LEP68 of one ounce of cocaine (27.823 grams of substance, 70.3% purity, so 19.559 grams of pure cocaine) for $8,500.
17. Transaction 8 was arranged in the following circumstances. On 16 May 2019, in the evening after the Transaction 7 had been completed, Osborne and “DMT” agreed to supply LEP68 with two ounces of MDMA the following day. This negotiation occurred within the “Coco Md” group chat. DMT arranged to get another person who was added to the group, “Youngblood”, to deliver drugs. Youngblood is Samuel Hodge (“Hodge”), who is not a defendant on this indictment. The following day, on 17 May 2019, Transaction 8 occurred. LEP68 nominated the meeting location (the carpark at a soccer club at 108 Fairly Street, Indooroopilly) where Hodge met LEP68 and supplied him with two ounces of MDMA (55.862 grams of substance, 70.9% purity, so 39.606 grams of MDMA) for $2,600.
18. The following table summarises the drugs supplied in transactions

1-8:

Drug	Total amount supplied	Pure amount	Amount paid
Cannabis	4,473 grams
Cocaine	83.117g substance	61.581 grams
MDMA	110.711g substance	77.985 grams
$59,570

Transaction 9
19. What became Transaction 9, which occurred on 24 June 2019, was negotiated between 27 May 2019 and 24 June 2019 between LEP73 (with the username “samboy95”) and Osborne (with the username “acacia88”) on the “Wickr” application. LEP73 requested Osborne to supply 100 pounds of cannabis, half a kilogram of cocaine and a cipher phone. Osborne indicated that for this, “350K should be enough”. LEP73 subsequently sought from Osborne “a sample of md” also. Osborne said he could supply at “1k for an oz”. LEP73 requested “10oz” of MD and the total price of $360,000 was agreed.
20. On 22 June 2019 Osborne received the half kilogram of cocaine and sent a message to LEP73 on Wickr of a photo of it.
21. On 23 June 2019 Alan Wong (“Wong”) and Richard Nguyen (“Nguyen”) (neither are defendants) travelled from Sydney to Brisbane with three suitcases with a total weight of 63 kilograms. Wong travelled with the three suitcases to 143 Payne Street, Indooroopilly (“143 Payne Street”), which was Dayaratne’s home address. Nguyen returned to Sydney. The suitcases contained the cannabis which was to be supplied.
22. On 24 June 2019 LEP73 booked a hotel room at the Coopers Colonial Hotel in Acacia Ridge (“Coopers Colonial Hotel”). LEP73 subsequently informed Osborne (via Wickr message at 12:06pm) that this hotel was where they were to meet.
23. On 24 June 2019, surveillance of Osborne, Dayaratne, Leahy and Hodge showed the following movements:
(a)at 8:37am Leahy, travelling in a white Mitsubishi Outlander, left 56 Violet Street, Hemmant (“56 Violet Street”), his home address, and travelled to 37 Barton Road, Hawthorne;
(b)at 9:08am, Leahy leaves Barton Road wheeling a suitcase which he puts into his car;
(c)at 10:08am Hodge arrives at 56 Violet Street in his car (black Ford Focus);

(d) at 10:30am Leahy returns to 56 Violet Street;
(e)at ll:22am Dayaratne arrives at 56 Violet Street in his car (silver Toyota Corolla);
(f)at 11:39am Osborne and Dayaratne depart 56 Violet Street in Osborne’s car, a Toyota Hilux Dual cab utility;

(g) at 11:45am Leahy departs 56 Violet Street;
(h)at 12:12pm Hodge leaves 56 Violet Street in his car and surveillance is not maintained on him;

(i) at 12:20pm Leahy arrives at 143 Payne Street;
(j)at 12:46pm Osborne and Dayaratne arrive at Coopers Colonial Hotel;

(k)   at 12:55pm Hodge arrives at the Coopers Colonial Hotel;
(l)    at 1:00pm Leahy leaves 143 Payne Street;
(m) at 1:09pm Hodge leaves the Coopers Colonial Hotel; and
(n)   at 1:36pm Leahy arrives at the Coopers Colonial Hotel.
24. After they arrived at the Coopers Colonial Hotel, Osborne and Dayaratne went into room 40 where LEP71 and LEP73 were located. The interactions were captured by surveillance, audio and some audio visual.
25. At approximately 1pm, Hodge arrived at the hotel in the Ford Focus. He delivered samples of cannabis (446g) MDMA (27.290grams/ 19.376g pure), and cocaine (27.521g/18.93 grams pure) in vacuum sealed bags. He then left.
26. When Leahy arrived at the hotel (at approximately 13:36) he delivered three suitcases.
27. Within the suitcases was:

Drugs	Analysis
Cannabis	114 pounds / 52 kilograms
Cocaine (within a JBHi-Fi shopping bag)	489 grams of substance, 350 grams was pure (71% purity)

28. The MDMA was not in the suitcases. It was brought in by Leahy in a separate small bag. There were 279 grams of substance, 192 grams was pure (68%).
29. At 1:45pm police entered room 40 and arrested Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy. During the arrest the following items were seized:

Location	Items
Leahy’s possession	$1,000 cash
Leahy’s possession	2 x mobile phones
Osborne’s possession	1 x mobile phone
Given to the LEP	Cipher phone
Osborne’s car parked outside the hotel	Toyota Hilux
Centre console of Osborne’s car	2 x mobile phones

Search warrants executed at defendants’ addresses after arrest
143 Payne Street, Indooroopilly (Dayaratne's address)

30. Items of interest located :

Location	Item		Analysis
Refrigerator	2 x bottles of Cannabis Oil		Nil
Drawer in master bedroom	$18,000		Nil
Coffee table in living room	Cannabis in Tupperware container- personal use quantity		23 grams of Cannabis
	Bowl with small amount of Cannabis
	11 Vials of Cannabinoid oil		Nil
	Digital Scales		Nil
	Smoking utensils		Nil
	Mobile phone		Nil
	Empty cryovac bag		Nil
Lounge room	Tray with white powdery residue		Nil
Luggage in main bedroom	53 vials of Cannabinoid substance		Nil
Locked utility room	Large black suitcases, large plastic vacuum bags, unused cryovac plastic, heavy weight baggage tags	Nil
In luggage locked utility room, had a 26kgs Qantas excess baggage tag attached.	Cannabis in 9 cryovac bags- Commercial quantity	16.5 pounds of Cannabis
Plugged into wall in master bedroom	Mobile phone	Nil
Small bathroom	Luggage tag for flight QF546 dated 23 June 2019, in the name of “Nguyen”	Nil
Kitchen	Cryovac plastic bags and cryovac machine	Nil
Kitchen bin	3 x boarding passes

52 Violet Street, Hemmant (Osborne's address)
31. Items of interest located:

Location	Item	Analysis
Living Room on set of shelves	Jar of Cannabis labelled “fire cookies”.	38 grams of Cannabis
Glass jar in lounge room, on top of storage unit	Cannabis - personal use quantity
Glass jar in second draw of computer desk, Osborne's room
Lounge room, plastic storage box	Tick book (Jillian McCarthy, paragraph 7)
Second drawer in computer desk On a plate with Osborne's RACQ card	Cocaine - personal use quantity	0.606 grams
Second drawer in computer desk	22 diazepam pills	3.814 grams
Several places in Osborne's room: Miniature bin container Top drawer of desk Ladies wallet	$12,425
Concealed floor safe	$192,950	Nil
	8 boxes of “Saint Joint” Cannabis cigarettes	Nil
	1 vial of Cannabis oil braded “Alien Labs”	Nil
	2 x vials of “Dr Zodiac Moonrock”	Nil
	7 x boxes with vials of Cannabis Vaper “Dank Vaper”	Nil

56 Violet Street. Hemmant (Leahy’s address)
32. Items of interest located :

Location	Item	Analysis
Lounge room coffee table	Bowl containing Cannabis	366 grams of Cannabis
Lounge room coffee table	Jar containing Cannabis	366 grams of Cannabis
Kitchen cupboard	3 x bags containing Cannabis
	1 x bag containing Cannabis
	1 x jar containing Cannabis
	1 x plastic lid containing Cannabis
Kitchen cupboard	Cocaine - Commercial quantity	39 grams of substance, 22 grams pure (57%)
Kitchen Drawer	Tick sheets	Nil
Kitchen Bench	2 x digital scales	Nil
Under the lounge room coffee table	Water-pipe, cone stem,	Nil
Bedroom safe	$37,680	Nil
Defendant's bedroom	$3,000	Nil
Defendant's bedroom	Water-pipe and 2 stems	Nil
Ensuite in defendant's bedroom	Spoons and syringe	Nil
Outside the defendant's house	Mercedes Benz A45	Nil

Further
33. Flight records reveal that Dayaratne boarded a flight to Darwin on
27 May 2019.
34. When police executed the search warrant at 143 Payne St, Indooroopilly, Wong told police them a friend called ‘Curry’ lived there.
Co Offenders
35. Samuel Paul HODGE pleaded guilty on 18^th May 2021 to two counts of supplying a dangerous drug (in relation to transactions 8 and 9) and was sentenced by Judge Dearden to 2.5 years imprisonment with immediate parole release. 4 days of presentence custody was declared.
36. Alan WONG pleaded guilty on 14 April 2021 to one count of supplying dangerous drugs, and one count of possession dangerous drugs in excess of 500grams (Cannabis) and was sentenced by Judge Sheridan to 3 years imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of 4 years”

For the purposes of the remaining part of these reasons, I will define the various police officers as follows:
(a)LEP68 involved in Transactions 1 - 8 will be “Undercover Officer A”;
(b)LEP73 involved in Transaction 9 will be “Undercover Officer 1”; and
(c)LEP71 involved in Transaction 9 will be “Undercover Officer 2”.
Element 2: Participants in a “group” which qualifies as a criminal organisation
(a) Introduction
This element requires the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt for each defendant that at any time in the period from 8 April 2019 to 25 June 2019, that the defendant in question was a participant in a “group” which qualifies as a “criminal organisation.”
(b) Contentions of the Crown
The Crown contended that, as in most organisations, each of the defendants played a different role in relation to the trafficking.
In relation to Osborne, his role was said to include:
·     negotiating drug supplies, both in person and by messages;
·     adopting a usual practice where he and his partner would come to the first transaction and then send runners on subsequent transactions;
·     sourcing drugs from interstate;
·     showing photographs of drugs from Melbourne and Sydney to potential purchasers;
·     directing runners to deliver drugs;
·     apologising for poor quality drugs and offering refunds;
·     supplying cipher phones to potential customers to avoid detection;
·     storing significant amounts of cash at his house in a concealed safe;
·     using multiple safe houses to store drugs;
·     offering to courier drugs and a cipher phone to Cairns for a potential customer and detailing how he would send drugs by suitcases with the codes to unlock them;
·     discussing how business class flights were used for runners carrying drugs so they could use higher weight limits and take two suitcases;
·     expanding operations to Darwin and telling Undercover Officer 1 that he had just sent 100 pounds of cannabis to Darwin;
·     offering to supply MD,[16] rack[17] and acid in bulk;
·     sourcing cocaine from Sydney or Melbourne;
·     having more than one business partner;
·     during Transaction 9 stating, “All I want to do is just get the coin back to our other, our other partner…in Sydney”;[18]
·     regularly flying drugs to Brisbane from Sydney;
·     offering a guarantee to Undercover Officer 1 regarding the quality of the cannabis.
[16]The initials “MD” and “MDMA” in this judgment refer to 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
[17]The word “rack” in this judgment refers to cocaine.
[18]Exhibit 24 Part 2 at 1.15.
In relation to Leahy, his role was said to include:
·     that he physically supplied drugs at the direction of Osborne during various of the Transactions 1 to 9;
·     his physical supply of drugs at the direction of Dayaratne during Transaction 9;
·     storing commercial quantities of drugs and cash at his residential premises;
·     describing Osborne as ‘Chef’ and as his boss to Undercover Officer A;
·     describing the organisation as a ‘collective’ when discussing whether there is any MD available to supply to Undercover Officer A;
·     offering a refund for poor quality drugs to Undercover Officer A;
·     discussing supplies with Undercover Officer A, and prices generally but not specifically;
·     telling Undercover Officer A that they do not cut cocaine, so it will be more expensive than anyone else; the cocaine is “cut from the brick”[19] and “literally direct from the cartels over in Colombia…shipped to Sydney Harbour, our guys get it there, they take it, they cut it from the brick down to small amounts…we’ll pretty much always have some in Brisbane, and if not, like, we can get it from Sydney during daylight hours with like four hours notice”;[20]
·     talking with Undercover Officer A about quality issues of the cannabis and difficulty with suppliers when complaints are made;
·     talking to an Undercover Officer A about cannabis not arriving and difficulties with runners bringing it via airlines;
·     knowing there was some “really good” MD coming;
·     in relation to MD, telling Undercover Officer A that he knew it was available, “I know it’s in - like, we have it as in the collective has it. Ah, where it actually is and all that I don’t know”;[21]
·     telling Undercover Officer A that they could supply larger amounts of MD;
·     discussing a new load of cannabis they were expecting which was going to be more expensive;
·     telling Undercover Officer A that they had a guy for their cipher phones who they “actually have a face-to-face with this guy and he can do shit like remote wipe our phones for us”;[22]
·     telling Undercover Officer A that MD was down in Logan and someone was going to get it;
·     the proximity of his house to his “boss”, namely Osborne’s house, the two houses being 52 and 56 Violet Street, Hemmant.
[19]Exhibit 7, Transaction 4 at 7.50.
[20]Exhibit 7, Transaction 4 at 8.41.
[21]Exhibit 7, Transaction 5 at 17.16.
[22]Exhibit 7, Transaction 7 at 5.22.
In relation to Dayaratne, the following was pointed to:
·     his involvement in the sourcing of drugs as evidenced by the cannabis delivery to his residence;
·     the use of his house as a safe house for the storage of drugs, as evidenced by empty suitcases and heavy luggage tags in the locked utility room;
·     allowing drug couriers to stay at his house before their return to Sydney;
·     storing the cannabis for Transaction 9 at his house;
·     preparing the cocaine sample by taking it off the brick;
·     supplying dangerous drugs during Transaction 9;
·     organising the runners, being Leahy and Hodge, during Transaction 9;
·     maintaining contact with Leahy during Transaction 9 and telling Osborne that “Bob was still packing and getting ready”;[23]
·     being involved in the ‘Sydney Chat’ about cocaine supplies;
·     suggesting to Undercover Officer 1 that they would do future supplies of bulk cannabis to Cairns;
·     being involved in previous supplies with Osborne at a hotel drop.
[23]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 10.46.
The Crown did not rely on Osborne having unilaterally stated that he was bringing a partner to Transaction 9. The Crown accepts that whilst Dayaratne arrived with Osborne at Transaction 9, at no time did Osborne positively identify Dayaratne as his business partner in Dayaratne’s presence.
The Crown submitted that there was significant evidence that Osborne and Leahy were directly associated with each other and were unified in their endeavour in the business of trafficking, as evidenced by Transactions 1 to 9. It was said Osborne was Leahy’s boss, and Leahy worked at Osborne’s direction.
It was submitted that there was a strong body of evidence that all three defendants directly associated with each other and were unified in their endeavour in trafficking dangerous drugs in respect of Transaction 9.
It was further submitted that there was indirect evidence of an association between Osborne and Leahy’s trafficking and Dayaratne beyond Transaction 9, which could be relied on to support the inference that Dayaratne’s involvement in the trafficking extended beyond Transaction 9.
The Crown submitted that the association between the defendants, both direct and indirect, established that they meet the threshold of a criminal organisation.
The evidence which was said to support the direct association between the three defendants regarding Transaction 9 was the following:
·     on 24 June 2019, prior to Transaction 9 taking place, all three defendants, together with Hodge, met at Leahy’s residence at 56 Violet Street, Hemmant;
·     on the morning of 24 June 2019, Osborne mentioned to Undercover Officer 1 on multiple occasions that he would be meeting Undercover Officer 1 with his business partner;
·     Osborne and Dayaratne travelled together to the motel, which Undercover Officer 1 had arranged for Transaction 9, and they entered the motel together. The fact that both Osborne and Dayaratne remained at the motel for the entirety of Transaction 9 was also pointed to;
·     Osborne said to Undercover Officer 1 and Undercover Officer 2 in the presence of Dayaratne: “I’ll introduce you to all the boys, you know, you’ll meet most of the crew now. Like, the two runners, you’ll probably be catching up with them. You probably won’t have to see us again - you’ll see us when we come party with ya.”[24] This was said to be consistent with the previous conversation Osborne had with an undercover officer to the effect that Osborne would meet new customers face-to-face on the first supply, but would then send runners on following occasions;
[24]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 7.48.
·     after meeting with Dayaratne and Osborne at 56 Violet Street, Hemmant, Leahy attended Dayaratne’s residence at 143 Payne Street, Indooroopilly to collect suitcases containing drugs;
·     Dayaratne told Undercover Officer 1 that the drugs were “the best in Brissie and Sydney”;[25]
· Dayaratne communicated with Hodge about bringing the samples of drugs to the motel and told Undercover Officer 1 that Hodge was bringing the rack and bud,[26] and Dayaratne knew the amounts the runner would have;
·     Dayaratne told Osborne that Leahy was still packing and getting ready, and then he would come to the motel room;
·     by way of inference from the last point, once Hodge had delivered the drug samples to the motel room, Dayaratne contacted Leahy to bring the rest of the drugs to the motel room;
·     Dayaratne confirming he had taken the cocaine sample, brought to the room by Hodge, off the brick;
·     when Leahy delivered the suitcases containing the drugs, all three defendants were present together when the suitcases were opened;
·     Osborne saying they have houses that they pay for in regards to locations for drug supplies (for example, the Hawthorne address that Leahy visited that morning);
·     Osborne telling Undercover Officer 1 during Transaction 9, “We got a fucking huge crew”;[27]
·     Dayaratne and Leahy knew the codes to unlock the suitcases that had been brought to the motel by Leahy from Dayaratne’s residence.
[25]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 4.44.
[26]The word “bud” in this judgment refers to cannabis.
[27]Exhibit 24 Part 2 at 10.46.
The Crown accepted that there was no evidence that Dayaratne was directly associated with Transactions 1 to 8. It was said that his association with the other defendants was clear in relation to Transaction 9. However, it was submitted that a body of evidence supported the inference that Dayaratne was part of the criminal organisation beyond Transaction 9. The evidence specifically pointed to was as follows:
·     the photographs tendered, which showed numerous empty suitcases and heavy bag tags in the locked utility room at Dayaratne’s house, were consistent with his house being one of the safe houses for the storage of drugs flown to Brisbane. It was said that both Osborne and Leahy discussed flying cannabis to Brisbane when speaking to undercover officers, and Osborne talked about drugs being stored at ‘safies’ and the courier, Mr Wong (“Wong”), told police his friend, “Curry” lives at the Indooroopilly residence. Mr Dayaratne is of a South Asian appearance and the submission was that the reference to “Curry” was a reference to Dayaratne;
·     commercial quantities of 16.5 pounds of cannabis were located in the locked utility room at Dayaratne’s residence, which was the approximate amount Dayaratne had confirmed to Osborne that he still had during Transaction 9;
·     the distinctive towels located with empty suitcases in the locked utility room at Dayaratne’s residence were similar in appearance to the towels in the suitcases containing the drugs in Transaction 9;
·     Osborne’s discussion on 27 May 2019 with Undercover Officer 1, where he stated to the effect that he had just sent 100 pounds of cannabis to Darwin and, “the boys just landed there”,[28] in circumstances where flight records revealed that Dayaratne boarded a flight to Darwin on 27 May 2019 (being the same date of that conversation);
·     during Transaction 9, Osborne gave Undercover Officer 1 a cipher phone and provided both his and Dayaratne’s contact details, suggesting future contact was anticipated;
·     during Transaction 9, Osborne discussed the operations of the organisation and previous dealings, repeatedly referring to “we” in the context of those operations and dealings in the presence of Dayaratne.
·     Osborne commenting during Transaction 9 that he would introduce Undercover Officer 1 and Undercover Officer 2 to “all the boys, you know, you’ll meet most of the crew now” and that they “probably won’t have to see us [Osborne and Dayaratne] again”;[29]
·     discussions between Osborne and Dayaratne, where Osborne asked about the next brick of cocaine and what was coming, with Dayaratne replying, “AK”.[30] Further, Osborne and Dayaratne then discussed the pricing of that cocaine, and Dayaratne identifying it as being in the “Sydney chat”;[31]
·     Dayaratne discussing future drops and past drops with Undercover Officer 1, including that they would not undertake future drops in hotels “probably after this one, probably won’t do hotel drops, hey”,[32] because they had “lost a load”, which Osborne agreed with;
·     Dayaratne suggesting to Undercover Officer 1 that “once we do, like, a couple of deals maybe fucking organising to…take bulk up there in one go…save youse coming back for hundred, hundred, hundred”;[33]
·     Dayaratne saying in regard to the quality of the cannabis that, “it took us a long time to get to this level”;[34]
·     Dayaratne talking about a runner that they had who had worn a bright red tracksuit in the Brisbane airport;
·     the courier, Wong’s, description of Dayaratne as a ‘friend called Curry’.
[28]Exhibit 24, Recording of meeting with Undercover Officer 1 on 27 May 2019 at 5.26.
[29]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 7.48.
[30]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 28.38.
[31]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 29.00.
[32]Exhibit 24 Part 1 at 8.55.
[33]Exhibit 24 Part 2 at 3.45.
[34]Exhibit 24 Part 2 at 28.14.
The submission of the Crown was that this evidence showed that Dayaratne had been part of the trafficking with Osborne, and by extension, Leahy, before Transaction 9, and anticipated trafficking with them in the future.
It was submitted that it showed that Dayaratne was actively involved in discussions about both cannabis and cocaine. It was submitted that he knew what cocaine they expected for the next delivery. It was submitted that Dayaratne spoke of previous supplies they [Osborne and Dayaratne] had been involved in and also future supplies they would be involved in together.
Ultimately, it was submitted by the Crown that when each piece of the circumstantial evidence is combined, it becomes significant evidence to support a finding of guilt.
The Crown anticipated a number of possible arguments it said that the defendants might advance. The first was that Osborne had engaged in exaggeration when he spoke to undercover officers about his business. It was contended such an argument should be rejected, because the evidence showed otherwise, including his direct involvement in all nine transactions, including the supply of commercial quantities of dangerous drugs and his role in negotiations.
Further, it was contended Osborne’s trafficking had clearly been successful, having $192,950 concealed in a safe at his residence, which was separate to the $360,000 that was to be received in Transaction 9.
Those matters supported that Osborne’s claims were not exaggerated, but were an accurate reflection of the level of trafficking he was carrying out.
Secondly, the Crown anticipated an argument that it might be suggested that Dayaratne’s role was not such as to reach the threshold of a criminal organisation comprising three or more persons, or that Dayaratne was not a participant in the organisation for the purpose of s 161P of the PS Act. The Crown submitted that Dayaratne’s role in the trafficking was not limited to his presence in the motel, but also included his participation in the lead up to 24 June 2019 through his involvement with the cannabis courier from Sydney, who had arrived the day before. The Crown’s submissions also covered the matters previously identified in relation to Dayaratne, including Dayaratne’s own assertions about past drug supplies with Osborne, and assertions as to future transactions with the undercover officers. It was re-emphasised that Dayaratne had said in relation to the quality of the cannabis being supplied, “It took us a long time to get to this level.”[35]
[35]Exhibit 24 Part 2 at 28.14.

The Crown submitted that Dayaratne’s conduct in relation to the organisation would reasonably lead someone else to consider him to be a participant in the organisation, particularly noting the examples set out in s 161P of the PS Act.
It was noted that during cross-examination of Undercover Officer 1, it was put to him that Dayaratne had said during the counting of the money, “I have never seen that much money in my life.” In answer, Undercover Officer 1 maintained Dayaratne said, “I have never seen that many hundreds in my life.” The Crown submitted that a careful review of the recording would satisfy the Court that Dayaratne had, in fact, said the latter in accordance with the evidence of the Undercover Officer 1.
In conclusion, the Crown submitted that the trafficking involved:
(a)the sourcing of large amounts of drugs from interstate on a regular basis using couriers on commercial airlines;
(b)the supply of commercial quantities of a variety of drugs;
(c)sending money to Sydney with couriers;
(d)the use of encrypted phones; and
(e)large amounts of cash stored at the homes of the defendants.
The Crown’s contention was that the defendants had worked together to carry on that business. There was a collective unity in their approach and direct association with each other, as they came together to participate in a very significant trafficking operation. The evidence was said to establish that the three defendants were each participants in a criminal organisation who engaged in serious criminal activity, being trafficking in dangerous drugs. The Crown acknowledged that the case against the defendants in regard to the circumstance of aggravation was a circumstantial one, and the Court should not return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances were such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. However, it was submitted that when each piece of circumstantial evidence was combined, the strength of the evidence removes any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and proves each defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Crown concluded that the Court would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the three defendants were a criminal organisation who engaged in a significant trafficking business, and the Court would be satisfied that the carrying on of the business of trafficking represents an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community.
(c) Contentions of Osborne
The submissions on behalf of Osborne commenced with identifying what the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the Crown had to prove that the defendants were “a group of three or more persons” arranged informally who:
(a)engaged in, or had as their purpose engaging in, serious criminal activity; and
(b)who, by their association, represented an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community.
It was then emphasised that if that threshold issue is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Crown must also prove beyond reasonable doubt that Osborne himself:
(a)was a participant in that “criminal organisation”; and
(b)knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the offence was being committed in association with one or more persons who were, at the time the offence was being committed, or, at any time during the commission of the offence, participants in a criminal organisation.
It was said on behalf of Osborne that it was not sufficient that three or more persons associate together in serious criminal activity. It was submitted that what must be proved beyond reasonable doubt was that the three persons, by their association, formed a collective unity, such that there must be some unifying combination or relation between persons for them to constitute a “group”.
This collective unity which must exist between the persons who are alleged to be a part of a criminal organisation requires evidence of an association between all members; that is, a connection or relationship between them as a group, not as individuals.
Counsel for Osborne expressly indicated that he adopted all of the written submissions that had been made on behalf of Dayaratne.
In his written closing address, counsel for Osborne referred to specific parts of the evidence. They were:
·     certain conversations where Leahy sometimes used “we”, but counsel pointed out that the only time Leahy gave more details was in the conversation on 26 April 2019, where he made references to Osborne, when he referred to “the boss”, “Chef” and “Matt”;
·     certain conversations between Osborne and Undercover Officer A on 10 April 2019, where in the context of moving the drug MD, Osborne had referred to his business partner in Sydney. It was pointed out by counsel that there is no suggestion that either Leahy or Dayaratne resided in Sydney;
·     text conversations exchanged between Osborne and Undercover Officer A in relation to the period of Transactions 1 to 8. These included a text message which indicated more than one source for the supply of cannabis, and text messages where Osborne referred to meeting his “runner,” being a reference to Leahy. The exception to this was Transaction 8, when Hodge delivered the drugs. In relation to Hodge, it was pointed out that there was no allegation that he formed part of the alleged criminal organisation, despite Hodge dropping off drugs on that abovementioned Transaction 8 and during Transaction 9 at the motel room;
·     a text message on 16 May 2019, where Osborne had included on a group chat a “DMT”, where “DMT” was inferentially the supplier of MD. It was noted that it is not alleged that “DMT” was any of the defendants. It was also noted that in the group chat it was “DMT” who indicated that he would get “Youngblood” to deliver the drugs. It was pointed out that on the next day, being 17 May 2019, Hodge delivered the drugs to Undercover Officer A. There is no dispute that Hodge went by the moniker “Youngblood” on the cipher phone group chat;
·     conversations between Osborne and Undercover Officer 1 on 27 May 2019, where Osborne made statements which included the following words and phrases: “we”, “that’s the Melbourne we got coming up”, “I do loads every day”, “the boys just landed in Darwin”, “they’ll get you the MD, rack, acid”; “I can get one tomorrow for you if you want, like, local”, “I got contacts everywhere”, “I got contacts in every State”, “me and the boys will come up first run.” It was pointed out that sometimes the words used by Osborne indicated the plural, and sometimes they indicated the singular;
·
the text message exchange between Osborne and an undercover officer between

27 May 2019 and 24 June 2019. On 8 June 2019, Osborne used the generic term “we” and “us”. On 19 June 2019, he said “We come for the run; me and one of my business partner…”. On 20 June 2019, he used the generic term, “we” and “us”. On 22 June 2019, he used “I”, “we” and “our”. On 23 June 2019, Osborne referred to “my safie” and “I got everything”. On 24 June 2019, Osborne used the words “my crew”, and “me and my business partner”. Again, it was pointed out that sometimes the words indicated the plural, and sometimes they indicated the singular;
·     the various movements of Osborne, Dayaratne, Leahy and Hodge for Transaction 9 as they are set out in the agreed admissions document;
·     the recorded conversations on 24 June 2019 were capable of showing that at that time Osborne and Dayaratne were in company for the purpose of the drug deal. But, it was pointed out that Osborne spoke of “both my runners walking up now”, “you’ll meet most of the crew now” and spoke of “our other partner in Sydney”.
The references to these particular forms of evidence were then the introduction to submissions that were made on behalf of Osborne to the following effect.
In Transactions 1 and 3 to 7, it was conceded that Leahy was clearly acting as the runner for Osborne, who Leahy referred to as “the boss”.
It was also conceded that through that period there was a relevant “association” between Leahy and Osborne.
It was submitted that Osborne had a number of different suppliers for at least cannabis. This was said to be apparent from the evidence in relation to those transactions, and that the person referred to as “DMT” supplied MDMA to Undercover Officer A via the runner, Hodge. The submission was made that “DMT” only appeared by reference to Transaction 8 when “DMT” inferentially organises Hodge to bring the MDMA to Undercover Officer A on 17 May 2019. It is noted that Hodge appeared again at the motel room on 24 June 2019 (as part of Transaction 9), but Hodge had not been indicted as being part of the alleged serious criminal organisation. Likewise, it was pointed out that the courier who had brought the cannabis up from Sydney, Wong, was also not indicted as part of the serious criminal organisation.
The contention was made on Osborne’s behalf that the Crown’s case failed to show a sufficient nexus between Dayaratne and Leahy to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, together with Osborne, the three of them constitute a “group” pursuant to s 161O of the PS Act.
It was submitted that the movements of Leahy on 24 June 2019 were inferentially consistent with no more than his continued use, by Osborne, as a runner, picking up and delivering drugs.
It was said that there was nothing in the material which shows any knowledge as between Leahy and Dayaratne of each other prior to 24 June 2019, at least to the requisite standard required.
It was pointed out that this was not a case where all three defendants featured throughout the alleged offending period.
It was conceded that during Transactions 1 and 3 to 7, Osborne and Leahy clearly operated together. That is, there was a collective unity between only those two. However, it was submitted that the tick sheets found in the possession of Leahy, at his residence, inferentially disclosed offending separate from the involvement of Osborne.
It was conceded that Dayaratne was clearly in collective unity with Osborne on 24 June 2019, but inferentially only with Dayaratne being the supplier of the cannabis for that day. It was said that a search of Dayaratne’s residence at Indooroopilly disclosed materials consistent only with the supply of cannabis.
It was submitted that Leahy’s involvement on 24 June 2019 was again restricted to his being Osborne’s “runner”, and that his name was not on the cipher phone.
It was submitted that the Crown could not exclude, as a rational hypothesis, that it was only Osborne and Dayaratne who were in collective unity on 24 June 2019 for Transaction 9, and that Leahy, along with Hodge, were simply conduits for the delivery of the drugs.
It was submitted that the omission of Hodge and Wong from the indictment as members of the alleged serious criminal organisation was a clear example of the importance of finding the necessary “collective unity”, because otherwise the draconian consequences that flow from the use of the provisions would be subject to a simple capricious bureaucratic decision that any group of three persons who get together to effect a drug sale could be liable to Crown under its provisions.
In terms of the quality of the audio and visual recordings of Osborne’s interactions with others, it was submitted that it was clear that both on 10 April 2019 (Transaction 2) and 24 June 2019 (Transaction 9), that when Osborne was having face-to-face interactions with the undercover officers, he was drug-affected. It was submitted that, in fact, Osborne was using drugs in the motel room during Transaction 9. This was a reference to Osborne allegedly vaping cannabis oil.
In relation to Dayaratne, it was said that on the recording of Transaction 9 on 24 June 2019, Dayaratne said that he had never seen such a large sum of money in his life. It was submitted that this statement was inconsistent with the bragging he and Osborne were engaging in.
Both in relation to what was said to be the drug-affected nature of Osborne, where he was said to be demonstrating erratic, frenetic behaviour, together with boastful comments, and the general boastful comments also made by Dayaratne, it was submitted that great care should be taken in accepting, at face value, the truth of what was said by the defendants in such circumstances.
(d) Contentions of Dayaratne
It was submitted that Dayaratne’s admission of trafficking only related to his involvement in Transaction 9, and that there was no suggestion nor evidence that he had any knowledge of, or participated in, Transactions 1 to 8.
Reference was made to Transaction 7 specifically, which occurred on 16 May 2019. It was pointed out that the recording of that transaction had Leahy speaking of himself and “Chef”, and that “Chef” was also referred to as “the boss”. Reference was also made to “Chef” being known as “Matt” and that Leahy was using the name “Chef” because he did not want to use the other’s real name.
It was submitted that this evidence was consistent with Osborne and Leahy working together as a pair in these earlier transactions, and that Leahy made no mention of any other person, and certainly not Dayaratne.
It was submitted that the evidence concerning Transactions 1 to 8 was consistent with Osborne sourcing drugs from multiple people. In support of that submission, extracts from relevant messages on 10 April 2019 between Osborne and Undercover Officer A were referred to, and to the evidence concerning Transaction 3.
This evidence showed that there were multiple suppliers of cannabis, as the relevant messages refer to Osborne sourcing cannabis “from another guy”, because a load did not come through.
It was also submitted that Osborne had more than one supplier for MD, and in this respect, extracts from the audio of Transaction 5 on 26 April 2019 were pointed to specifically. It was noted that the Crown did not appear to contend that Dayaratne had any knowledge or involvement in Transactions 1 to 8. The concession by the Crown that it did not contend that Dayaratne was properly characterised as Osborne’s “business partner” was also pointed to. That concession had related to the text messages sent by Osborne to Undercover Officer 1 on the morning of Transaction 9 on 24 June 2019, prior to the attendance at the motel room later in the day.
It was submitted by Dayaratne’s counsel, in a similar way to the submission that had been made on behalf of Osborne, that Osborne was not a person who could be relied upon for accuracy and the Court should readily accept that he was prone to exaggeration and embellishment. It was submitted that on the various recordings Osborne sounded intoxicated. Specifically, during Transaction 9 on 24 June 2019, Osborne was seen to vape from a device which, it was submitted, contained cannabis oil. Osborne was described by counsel for Dayaratne as appearing on the 24 June 2019 video recordings to be edgy, constantly moving his arms in a theatrical-style manner which was consistent with intoxication. To the extent that the undercover officers disagreed with this under cross-examination, it was said that the undercover officers’ evidence that Osborne did not appear intoxicated ought to be rejected as inherently implausible. In oral closing submissions, Osborne was referred to as being, “edgy”, “sketchy”, “speaking in grandiose terms” and, to use the common vernacular, “being off his face”, not necessarily coherent and being repetitious. It was submitted that Osborne was a man who was not reliable in terms of his evidence.
It was submitted that as the Crown does not allege any direct association by Dayaratne with Transactions 1 to 8, the Crown’s case, to the extent it maintains those transactions attract the circumstance of aggravation, must fail. It was said that the case can only be that Leahy and Osborne constitute a group for the earlier transactions. However, to be a criminal organisation, s 161O(1) of the PS Act requires a “group” to be of three or more persons.
This was then said to leave two matters for consideration. The first was Transaction 9, and the second was the Crown’s contention that Dayaratne is part of a criminal organisation beyond Transaction 9.
In relation to Transaction 9, counsel for Dayaratne submitted as follows:
·     Transaction 9 was negotiated by Osborne over a period of a month, commencing with negotiations on 27 May 2019 in person, and then done via mobile phone communications on the Wickr app with Undercover Officer 1.
·     By the time Dayaratne enters the picture on 24 June 2019, the negotiation was well and truly completed. That evidence is consistent with Osborne alone negotiating all aspects of the deal, including price and logistics.
·     During negotiations, Osborne sent photographs to Undercover Officer 1 of various drugs that were to be supplied.
·     It was not in issue that the cocaine that was to be supplied for Transaction 9 to the undercover officers was received by Osborne on 22 June 2019.
·     It was not in issue that the cannabis that was to be supplied for Transaction 9 was taken to Dayaratne’s residence in Indooroopilly on the evening of 23 June 2019 by Wong in three suitcases. It was conceded that it may be accepted that Wong knew Dayaratne.
·     On the day of Transaction 9, being 24 June 2019, Osborne’s communication with Undercover Officer 1 commenced at 6.28 am.
·     It was noted that in three text messages at 10.23 am, 11.01 am and 12.01 pm, Osborne messaged Undercover Officer 1 to the effect that he and his “business partner” would meet with him. It was noted that the Crown does not assert that the terminology “business partner” is an accurate description of Dayaratne, but rather it was submitted that the Crown appeared to rely on it to show that Osborne and Dayaratne had a direct association.
·     It was conceded that an association between Osborne and Dayaratne may readily be accepted. The pair travelled together to the motel. It was accepted that the two knew each other before 24 June 2019.
It was submitted that the Crown’s position must be that the involvement of Leahy meant that the requirements of s 161O of the PS Act must be limited to what the Crown contends are interactions between the defendants, as statements made by the defendants were hardly evidence of direct association.
It was submitted that the various audio and video recordings were of poor quality, were punctuated by multiple interruptions, and contained people talking over one another. It was submitted that relying on the recordings was inherently dangerous, particularly if context was missed.
Additionally, it was said that given the events happened six years ago, it was inherently dangerous to seek to rely on the recollections of the three undercover officers who gave oral evidence.
It was submitted that, based on the Crown’s written submissions, it was presumed that the Crown pointed to the following five alleged matters to establish direct involvement of the defendants. Those five alleged matters were as follows:
·     First, Leahy’s involvement:
(a)being present with Osborne and Dayaratne at 56 Violet Street (noting the Crown described it as a “meeting”); and
(b)Leahy travelling to 143 Payne Street, Indooroopilly (Dayaratne’s home) after all three were at 56 Violet Street.
·     Secondly, Dayaratne contacting Hodge about bringing the drugs to the motel, and stating that he was bringing “rack” and “bud”.
·     Thirdly, Dayaratne:
(a)contacting Leahy to bring the remainder of the drugs to the motel room; and
(b)telling Osborne that Leahy was still packing, getting ready and that then Leahy would come to the motel.
·     Fourthly, the presence of all three defendants in the room when the suitcases containing the drugs were opened.
·     Fifthly, Dayaratne and Leahy knowing the codes to open the suitcases.
Having identified the above matters, it was submitted that some form of association between Osborne and Dayaratne may be accepted. Similarly, it was accepted that an association between Osborne and Leahy obviously existed.

What can be seen and heard on the video recording is that Osborne asked the question of Dayaratne as to what was the next brick of cocaine that was going to come to Brisbane. Dayaratne was able to give an answer which was, “AK”.
I find that Dayaratne was truthfully answering Osborne on this issue. There is no reason to doubt that he was telling the truth when Osborne was asking for this factual information. This evidence supports the inference, which I draw, that Dayaratne had pre-existing knowledge of cocaine supplies which were anticipated to be available and could communicate a descriptor, AK, which Osborne would understand referred to a particular brick.
Further, as this discussion takes place, each of Osborne and Dayaratne can be seen to have cipher phones which they are looking at and operating.
I find that the discussion in conjunction with the video recording of Osborne and Dayaratne operating their cipher phones supports the inference, which I draw, that Dayaratne and Osborne were each examining chats, including at least one linked to Sydney, which they both had access to and understood. It is unclear exactly whether the descriptors “A” and “BR” referred to an individual’s identity in a chat or the name of a chat group, however, what is clear as an inference is that the “A” and “BR” were descriptors associated with that part of a “Sydney” chat where the prices for cocaine were to be found and were descriptors which were understood by both Osborne and Dayaratne. I draw this inference.
The mutual access of Osborne and Dayaratne to these cipher chats, and their mutual knowledge that the potential availability of cocaine bricks and the pricing of cocaine were to be found in the cipher chats, illustrates the collective unity of association between Dayaratne and Osborne in relation to cocaine being sourced from Sydney. It again shows that Dayaratne’s role was not limited to the supply of cannabis.
Sixthly, after Osborne had supplied a cipher phone to Undercover Officer 1, Osborne helped him to open it and commence operation of it. Osborne then had a conversation with Undercover Officer 1 where Osborne identified that he had the username “Shadow” in the cipher chat.
The relevant exchange occurs at Exhibit 24 Part 1 at approximately 24.49:
“UO1: [to O]: So you’re “Shadow” on here?
O: [to UO1]: Yeah. Yeah, that’s me. That’s me. He’s Namo.”
I find the reference to “Namo” was to Dayaratne for the following reasons. There were only ever five people in the motel room over the full course of the meeting for Transaction 9. Undercover Officer 1 had only just been supplied with the cipher phone and had only previously communicated with Osborne through the telephone app Wickr. Logically the reference to “he’s” was a reference to someone other than Undercover Officer 1 to whom Osborne was then speaking. There was no suggestion that Undercover Officer 2 had any communication with Osborne by a mobile phone device. The reference to “Namo” was obviously not a reference to Undercover Officer 1 or Undercover Officer 2.
By the time of the relevant exchange, Hodge had left the motel room, as is evident from Exhibit 24 Part 1 starting at 20.03 through to 20.33. At this point of the recording, Hodge says, amongst other things, “See ya, guys” and Dayaratne says, “See you soon” and Hodge briefly hugs Osborne before leaving. The reference to “Namo” was obviously not to Hodge.
Leahy had not yet arrived. The reference to “Namo” was obviously not a reference to Leahy.
That inevitably means that the statement “He’s Namo” could only have been a reference to Dayaratne who was present but was not in the frame of the video recording at that time.
I note the submission made on behalf of the defendants that no screenshot or other photograph was presented from the cipher phones showing the use of the word, “Namo.” That is true. The evidence was silent on the issue. This silence also extended to whether there was such evidence available. I would be speculating if I were to ponder on the reason why such evidence was not before the Court, or if such evidence existed at all. I should not speculate.
The absence of that evidence does not alter my view that Osborne was identifying that Dayaratne was known as “Namo” on the cipher phone. The statement was made as a matter of fact by Osborne and was referring to someone.
In addition to my assessment of the video recording on this issue, I also had the evidence of the Undercover Officer 1. He gave evidence that Osborne had confirmed that he was “Shadow” on the cipher phone, and said that Dayaratne was “Namo” on the cipher phone by Osborne pointing to Dayaratne and saying, “He’s Namo.”
I do not see on the video recording Osborne pointing to Dayaratne when he says, “He’s Namo.” However, Osborne’s right arm is off camera when he says the words. Whatever occurred in terms of a gesture by Osborne off camera, I accept the evidence of Undercover Officer 1 that he understood that the statement was identifying Dayaratne. That evidence accords with my own assessment of what was said and appeared on the video recording in the circumstances I have described.
That Dayaratne was on the cipher phone by the moniker “Namo” is consistent with the other evidence I have referred to above, namely that Dayaratne had access to and familiarity with cipher chats concerning dangerous drugs, not limited to cannabis.
Seventhly, Dayaratne knew that the sample drugs which were coming involved not just cannabis, but also cocaine and MDMA. It is consistent with Dayaratne having knowledge of the three types of drugs being supplied. This evidence supports, and I find, that Dayaratne’s knowledge of Transaction 9 extended beyond the supply of cannabis and included knowledge of the supply of both cocaine and MDMA, and details of the method of supply (namely for samples of each drug to be first delivered before the later delivery of the bulk drugs). I will set out the actual conversation later in these reasons.
(h) Relationship between Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy at the time of Transaction 9
The evidence supports that there was a relationship between all three of Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy at the time of Transaction 9.
It was a relationship where there was a collective unity of association between all three, which ultimately establishes beyond reasonable doubt a finding that the three of them were a “group” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the PS Act. My finding is based on the following.
First, the pre-existing relationship between Osborne and Leahy continued in Transaction 9. The matters which gave rise to their association and collective unity for Transactions 1 and 3 to 7 supports the continuity of that collective unity of association for Transaction 9.
A continued association was accepted by all of the defendants in the terms that I have previously identified above.
Secondly, under the previous heading, I have set out my findings in support of the existence of the association and collective unity which existed between Osborne and Dayaratne during Transaction 9. It pre-existed the meeting at the motel room on 24 June 2019. The association and collective unity was linked, not just to cannabis supply by Dayaratne, but to an association and a collective unity in relation to their involvement with cocaine and MDMA as well. An association was accepted by all of the defendants, but limited on the defendants’ case to one which involved cannabis.
Thirdly, Leahy was actively involved in Transaction 9. On the evidence, Leahy was fulfilling a role within Transaction 9, which relevantly included:
·     the picking up and transportation of the bulk of the MDMA;
·     the packing of at least one of the large suitcases containing cannabis;
·     the picking up and the transportation of the bulk of the cannabis and cocaine to the motel room in the three large suitcases;
·     the taking possession of and the commencement of the transportation of the $360,000 as proceeds of trafficking to other premises at the conclusion of Transaction 9, although the transportation was interrupted at an early stage when police made arrests at the motel.
That active involvement was undertaken in a unified and coordinated way with Osborne and Dayaratne. Osborne and Dayaratne were in more senior positions and were performing other roles, but their unified and coordinated conduct was designed to bring about the trafficking of a large amount of dangerous drugs to what was understood by all three defendants to be actual purchasers of the drugs.
Fourthly, the video recording at Exhibit 24 supports a finding that Dayaratne was communicating with Leahy whilst Dayaratne was in the motel room. It also supports a finding that Osborne was aware that Dayaratne was communicating with Leahy. This communication was via a phone which Dayaratne possessed within the motel room, which was a separate phone to the phone which Osborne possessed and operated in the motel room, and was separate again to the cipher phone which Osborne supplied to Undercover Officer 1. The three different phones can be seen in the video recording at Exhibit 24 Part 1 at approximately 3.17, where Dayaratne has his phone, Osborne has his phone and Osborne can be seen to be holding the separate cipher phone, which he then hands to Undercover Officer 1.
The context to Dayaratne’s communication with Leahy starts with an exchange between Osborne and Dayaratne, whereby Dayaratne indicated that he would contact Hodge. In this exchange, Dayaratne uses Hodge’s moniker of “Youngblood”. That part of the video can be seen at Exhibit 24 Part 1 at approximately 6.34, and is as follows:
“O:Once youse is hooked up on cipher we can get fucking anything, bro. I’ll just get my - get our runners to fucking bring everything here. Samples and that. We’re going have both my runners rocking up now.
D:I’ll make sure Youngblood’s not too far away.
O:Yeah, then you can see it, anyway.
UO2:So, he’s got it all?
D:He’s got the oz of the rack and I forget - a pound/a kilo of bud and whatever MD [indistinct].[47]
UO2:Yeah, cool.
D:Just so you can have a look at it.
UO1:And then all of it will come after.
D:Yeah.”
[47]This is the conversation which shows Dayaratne was aware of the three types of drugs being supplied.
The inference which I accept is that the contact would be made via the phone which Dayaratne individually possessed. This conversation also establishes the following facts.
Dayaratne was aware that Hodge was bringing sample drugs. Dayaratne knew the sample included an ounce of cocaine, referred to as an “oz of the rack”, a pound or a kilogram of “bud”, meaning a pound or kilogram of cannabis and an amount of MDMA. The sample, when brought by Hodge, included approximately an ounce of cocaine, a pound of cannabis and an ounce of MDMA. Dayaratne also knew that all of the drugs would be brought after the sample. This, in fact, occurred. It illustrated his understanding of how Transaction 9 was to be physically undertaken by those involved on his side of the transaction. This knowledge supports the inference that Dayaratne was not simply involved in the supply of cannabis but was also involved in the overall supply of cannabis, cocaine and MDMA to the Undercover Officers 1 and 2 in Transaction 9. The defendants’ submission that Dayaratne only ever spoke of cannabis is incorrect. He spoke of cocaine and MDMA and knew that they were also being supplied both by sample and then in bulk.
Then, later in the video, it is evident from an exchange between Osborne and Dayaratne, that Dayaratne has been communicating with Hodge and Leahy. The exchange is at Exhibit 24 Part 1 at approximately 10.30:
“O:       The blokes here and ready. Oh. Nah. Nah. [to D]: Is that work?
D:No, work was…I told them I’m not coming in. Bob…

[While the video does not capture much of D at this point as he is mostly standing off screen to the right, there is enough video to identify that as D says “Bob” to O, he holds up the phone he has been operating and shows O the screen].
O:All right. Sweet. He, must be driving, eh?
D:         Yeah. Just a couple of minutes off to eh Youngblood.
O:         Oh yeah. What about Bob?
D:Bob’s still packing and getting it ready. He’s getting it ready now and then he’ll come.
O:Okay. Okay. Rightio. Okay. Cause we gotta…
D:Because we told him to get the other one.
O:They’ll just pack it up and bring it.”
The inferences from this call which I accept are as follows:
·     Dayaratne has made contact with Hodge and is able to communicate to Osborne that Hodge is a couple of minutes away.
·     Dayaratne knows who Osborne is referring to when he uses the descriptor, “Bob”.
·     Dayaratne knows that “Bob” is a reference to Leahy.
·     Dayaratne has also been in communication with Leahy by his phone. Dayaratne is able to inform Osborne of Leahy’s current status.
·     Leahy has told Dayaratne that he is still packing and will come to the motel when he is ready.
·     The packing is a reference to packing dangerous drugs.
There is then a further exchange before Leahy arrives, principally between Osborne and Dayaratne which again supports the inference, which I accept, that Dayaratne had previously been communicating with Leahy through Dayaratne’s phone. The exchange is at Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 1.51 and is as follows:
“O:       Ah, Bob should be nearly here.
D:         Ah, I didn’t tell him what room to come to.
O:         Oh, fuck, I think he was texting me.
D:         I’ve got no internet. Oh, fuck.
UO1:     You find it all right?
D:         Ah, I’ve known this place [Indistinct].
UO1:     All right, sick.
O:         Ten - ten, three. Wha---
UO1:     Ya. Room 40.
[O is typing on his cipher phone whilst saying the numbers above and being given the room number from UO1]
[Indistinct]
D:         My phone’s not connecting. Is your phone working?
O:         Yep.”
The inferences which I have drawn are:
·     Dayaratne knows who Bob is and that Bob is Leahy. Dayaratne has had a prior communication with Leahy, but he forgot to give Leahy the room number at the motel.
·     Dayaratne goes to communicate with Leahy to give the relevant information but then realises that at that particular time he does not have internet connection.
·     Osborne then gives directions to Leahy on the phone via a typed message, being what is probably the street number for the motel, but is certainly the room number which Undercover Officer 1 supplies, namely room 40.
·     Shortly thereafter, Dayaratne can be seen to be texting on his phone so that it can be inferred that his phone has re-established internet connection.
I pause here to deal with the submissions advanced by all three defendants that I could not be satisfied on the evidence that Dayaratne was using his own phone. This was said to be because the agreed facts recorded a phone was seized from Osborne at the motel room, and two phones seized from the centre console of Osborne’s car, and a phone was seized from Leahy, but no phone was recorded as being seized from Dayaratne.
With respect, this submission goes nowhere. It can clearly be seen on the video recording (eg at Exhibit 24 Part 1 at approximately 3.17) that Dayaratne possesses and uses a phone separate to the phone which Osborne possesses and uses, and which is separate again to the cipher phone which was supplied by Osborne to Undercover Officer 1.
Dayaratne refers to it as “his” phone. While actual ownership of that phone by Dayaratne is not established by the fact that he possessed and used it in the motel room, what is clear and I find, is that during Transaction 9, whilst in the motel room, Dayaratne possessed a phone which he was exclusively using, and used it to do a whole range of things, including looking at cipher chats, inferentially contacting Hodge and Leahy in relation to the drop off of drugs, and seeking to contact Leahy about the motel room number. The fact that no phone was seized from Dayaratne by the police simply means one of two things. Either Dayaratne successfully concealed the phone when the police came onto the scene at the time when the arrests took place, or the phone had been taken out to Osborne’s car and it was one of the two phones sitting in the centre console. It makes no difference which of those two scenarios occurred, or indeed whether there was some other scenario I have not contemplated.
The indisputable facts are:
(a)that Dayaratne had possession of a phone during Transaction 9;
(b)it was separate to Osborne’s phone and the cipher phone given to Undercover Officer 1; and
(c)Dayaratne was actively using the phone in the motel room to the exclusion of others.
Fifthly, Dayaratne knew it was “Bob” who was delivering the bulk of the drugs and that Bob was Leahy. That is an inference which I have drawn from the evidence referred to in the last point dealt with above. However, there is further evidence to support this finding. At a time after Hodge had been and gone from the motel room, a knock on the motel door occurs and the following can be heard on the video recording at Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 15.10:
[KNOCK ON THE DOOR]
D:         Oh, that’s Bob.
O:         Yeah, it is.
UO1:     Sweet.”
It is evidently Dayaratne who meets Leahy in the vicinity of the entry to the motel room. This is so as Osborne remains in frame on the video. Then at Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 15.21, the following exchange occurs:
“D:       Bring it in, Bob.
L:         Where?
D:        Bring it in. Yeah, I’ll come with you. You alright?
L:         Oh, I’ve got gastro.”
I note a submission was made on behalf of all the defendants that it could not be seen or heard from the video recording that Dayaratne greeted Leahy when he arrived.
In response to that submission, I note as follows. The video recording of Transaction 9 is of the bedroom portion of the particular motel room. It does not show the area where the front door is located. There is no plan of the motel room in evidence to fully understand its layout. The audio recording of what is happening at the door is fainter than the recording of what is happening in front of the camera in what is a bedroom. At the time of Leahy’s arrival, Dayaratne is not in shot. I am not able to determine from the video recording what, if anything, might have been said or done between them in terms of a greeting at the point when Leahy first enters the front door. What is clear is that Dayaratne at one stage tells “Bob” to “bring it in”. This evidence is consistent with and supports the earlier inferences which I have drawn that Dayaratne knows who Bob is, knows that Leahy is Bob and that Dayaratne has previously been communicating with Leahy.
There was nothing in the video’s visual or audio recording at this point which suggests that Dayaratne and Leahy do not know each other. They speak in normal tones to each other. It is Dayaratne who goes to the vicinity of the entry to meet Leahy. That would be odd if Leahy did not know Dayaratne, given the size of this drug deal. Dayaratne addresses Leahy as Bob. All of this is consistent with and supports the earlier inference that I have accepted, that Dayaratne and Leahy knew of each other prior to Leahy’s physical attendance at the motel room.
Sixthly, at the motel, Leahy was instructed to do things by Osborne. Leahy would duly do what he was told. An example of this was in the motel room, when Transaction 9 was largely completed, Osborne handed the bag containing the $360,000 to Leahy. The following exchange then occurred in Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 18.44:
[O hands L the bag containing the $360,000]
“O: We will follow you home.
L: You’re going to follow me home? All right, cool.”
I find the reference to “we will follow you home” was a reference to both Osborne and Dayaratne following Leahy. Leahy then confirms by restatement that he understands that is what is going to happen.

Seventhly, Dayaratne conversed with Leahy whilst they were in the motel room in a way which was consistent with their having previously communicated. The conversation in the motel room was in relation to the codes for the locks on the three suitcases. The exchanges which occurred involved Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy, and concerned different suitcases. The first exchange can be seen and heard in Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 16.27, when Leahy brings in the first suitcase and Osborne is attempting to unlock it. The exchange is as follows:
“O:        Uh, what is it, bro?
D:         Ah, 639.
O:You do it. [at this point, D takes over the unlocking of the first suitcase] [to L]: Hey, bro, you right?
L:Oh, yeah. Nervous. The whole not eating things just getting to me.
O:         As soon as we do this, we’ll grab the coin and fucking---
D:[to L] What did it end up being? 639, 639. Oh yeah, 639. [as D says “639” for the second time, he opens the lock]
[at this point, D then places the opened suitcase 1 on the bed and unzips].
O:         We’ll follow you out and then you---
[Indistinct].
L:          Picked today of all days to be sick.”
During this exchange, Dayaratne had taken over the opening of the first suitcase. At one stage, he asks Leahy what the code on the suitcase lock ended up being. Dayaratne eventually successfully opens it, thereby illustrating his pre-existing knowledge of the code to the combination lock.
The second exchange then occurs at Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 17.17, at a time after the first suitcase has been opened. Dayaratne is attempting to unlock another second suitcase next to the far bedroom wall, and Osborne and Undercover Officer 1 have brought the third suitcase in and situated it on the floor nearest to the camera. The following exchange then occurs in respect of the code to unlock the third case:
“O:What is it, brother? The other one?
D:That’ll be 639. That’ll open it. [D at this time points at the third suitcase]
UO1:[UO1 briefly moves to the third suitcase lock and then says] All you, bro.” [as UO1 says this, he then moves away and O starts to try and unlock the third suitcase]
This again supports the inference which I accept that Dayaratne knew one or more codes for the suitcase locks.
The third exchange then occurs at Exhibit 24 Part 2 at approximately 17.28. Dayaratne at this time is still trying to open the second suitcase:
“D:       What was the code on the rack[48] one? 689?
[48]The reference to ‘rack’ is a reference to cocaine.
L:          Uh, 639?
O:         Nah, the other one.
L:630?
O:Nah.
L:I don’t know if I actually looked in that one. Didn’t look at that one sorry. You can tell the one I opened is that one, ‘cause it’s, like, completely destroyed.
O:[to L] Where’s the - where’s the 10 oz of MD?
L:Ah, it’s in the car still, sorry.
D:That’s the rack brick - half brick, sorry.
UO1:[at this point, D has opened the second suitcase which contains cannabis and the bulk of the cocaine] Oh, yeah, all vacced[49] up. [UO1 says this whilst looking at the cocaine in the yellow plastic bag that had been in the second suitcase opened by D].
D:Yep.
UO1:Fuck yeah, cunt. Get that MD and we’ll get out of here man.
O:Yep. Happy? Happy?
D:Yeah, let’s grab the coin and go.
O:You happy with that?
UO1:Yeah, man, more than fucking happy.”
[49]The inference is that the term “vacced” is a reference to vacuum sealed, given the cocaine was wrapped in vacuum sealed plastic bags.
This evidence supports the inferences which I accept that:
·     Leahy had actually opened at least one of the suitcases with cannabis in it prior to attending the motel room. This was entirely consistent with Dayaratne’s previous statements about “Bob” packing the bags.
·     Leahy had personal knowledge of at least one suitcase lock code.
·     Dayaratne had personal knowledge of at least two suitcase codes, as he opened two suitcases, and had not been told the codes by the others on the recordings.
·     Dayaratne knew that suitcase 2 had the “rack”, that is the cocaine packed in it.
·     Leahy had packed at least one of the suitcases with cannabis.
Eighthly, I accept that Wong and Hodge were not charged on the indictment as being part of the “group”. The fact that they were not charged says nothing of the association and collective unity between Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy that may be established on evidence which was before the Court.
Ninthly, I accept that the agreed facts do not establish that each of Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy actually met all together between 11.22 am and 11.39 am on 24 June 2019, when they were all at the 56 Violet Street address, which was Leahy’s residence. However, on the facts set out previously, I find that each of Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy knew each other and had communicated with each other prior to Leahy going to the motel room on 24 June 2019. Their mutual presence at the address on the morning of Transaction 9 is consistent with this finding. Not knowing exactly what happened at 56 Violet Street during this period does not in any way detract from the other evidence which I have relied upon.
(i) Conclusion on Element 2
I am satisfied that the evidence summarised above shows that at least for Transaction 9, each of Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy were in an association with the required collective unity to constitute them a group of three persons who were informally:
(a)engaged in the serious criminal activity of trafficking dangerous drugs; and
(b)who, by their association, represented an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community.
In forming this conclusion, I note that I do not need to find that this group had an ongoing existence as a group beyond the serious criminal activity in which the group was engaged. Further, as the relevant explanatory memorandum to the Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 made plain, the new definition of “criminal organisation” applied to a group which was opportunistically formed.
Whilst the evidence does not allow me to conclude to the requisite high standard that the three defendants were constituted within a “group” prior to the undertaking of Transaction 9, the evidence is sufficient to establish that such a “group” did exist for Transaction 9, and was, at the bare minimum, an opportunistically formed group.
In respect of each Osborne, Dayaratne and Leahy, I find that they were each participants in the criminal organisation which I have already found existed.
The conduct of each of the defendants, which I have dealt with above, in relation to the criminal organisation was such that it would reasonably lead someone else to consider each of them to have been a participant in the criminal organisation.
For the purposes of Transaction 9, I will point to conduct of each defendant which establishes that finding.
In relation to Osborne, his conduct relevantly included:
·     negotiating the trafficking deal which initiated Transaction 9;
·     communicating with Undercover Officer 1 to facilitate the meeting at the motel room on 24 June 2019;
·     directing Leahy during the meeting at the motel room in relation to facilitating Transaction 9; and
·     actively participating in the underlying sale of the dangerous drugs in the motel room on 24 June 2019, including by way of:
o   liaising with Undercover Officers 1 and 2;
o   communication with Leahy by cipher phone during the transaction for the purpose of facilitating Transaction 9;
o   in person, liaising with Dayaratne and Leahy during Transaction 9 in the motel room;
o   helping to open and unpack the suitcases containing the dangerous drugs during Transaction 9 in the motel room;
o   counting the money produced for the sale of the dangerous drugs; and
o   handing over the money to Leahy at the end of Transaction 9, with instructions for its transportation.
In relation to Dayaratne, his conduct relevantly included:
·     the storage of cannabis at his residential address for the purposes of Transaction 9;
·     creating the cocaine sample prior to the meeting in the motel room;
·     communication with Hodge and Leahy by cipher phone whilst in the motel room for the purposes of facilitating Transaction 9;
·     helping to open and unpack the suitcases containing the dangerous drugs and knowing the codes to unlock at least two of the suitcases during Transaction 9 in the motel room;
·     in person, liaising with Osborne and Leahy during Transaction 9 in the motel room; and
·     directing Leahy during the meeting at the motel room in relation to facilitating Transaction 9 by asking him to bring in the suitcases of dangerous drugs.
In relation to Leahy, his conduct relevantly included:
·     prior to his arriving at the motel room, communicating with Osborne and Dayaratne in relation to facilitating Transaction 9;
·     actively participating in the underlying sale of the dangerous drugs in the motel room on 24 June 2019, including by way of;-
o   collecting and transporting the bulk of the cannabis, cocaine and MDMA for the purpose of facilitating Transaction 9;
o   collecting and transporting the bulk of the dangerous drugs;
o   taking instructions in relation to the location of the delivery of the dangerous drugs from Osborne on the cipher phone;
o   communication with Dayaratne by cipher phone during Transaction 9 for the purpose of facilitating the transaction by advising of his progress in relation to the packing, transportation and delivery of the dangerous drugs;
o   in person liaising with Dayaratne and Osborne during Transaction 9 in the motel room;
o   taking direction from Dayaratne during the meeting at the motel room in readiness to facilitate Transaction 9 by acting on Dayaratne’s direction to bring in the suitcases of dangerous drugs; and
o   taking possession of and then starting to transport the proceeds of the trafficking of the dangerous drugs at the conclusion of Transaction 9 at the direction of Osborne.
Clearly the association of such persons who in a coordinated way work together to traffic to others significant quantities of dangerous drugs represents an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare and order of the community. To borrow a term used by Osborne these three defendants were acting as a coordinated drug “crew” in undertaking Transaction 9.
Element 3: ‘defendant knew, or ought reasonably to have known that the offence was being committed in association with one or more persons who were at the time of the offence participants in a criminal organisation’
The third element requires the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that each of the defendants knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the trafficking of dangerous drugs was being committed in association with participants in a criminal organisation.
I am satisfied that for each of Osborne, Dayaratne, and Leahy, that each knew that the trafficking offence was being committed in association with each of the other two defendants who were, at the time that offence was being committed, participants in the criminal organisation that I have found.
Each of the defendants knew of the other defendants’ existence both before and at the time when they were all physically present at the motel room for Transaction 9. At the time when that knowledge was held, each of the defendants knew that each of the other defendants were participating in association with the others in a coordinated and unified way, as participants in the criminal organisation that I have found. I have made findings about their conduct and their states of mind under the “Element 2” heading.
I pause to re-emphasise the finding that Leahy and Dayaratne had such knowledge of each other. Dayaratne and Leahy communicated prior to Leahy’s arrival at the motel room. Dayaratne knew of Bob and that Leahy was Bob. Dayaratne was the person who initially met Leahy in the vicinity of the door to the motel room and then directed Leahy to bring in the bags. Leahy complied with that direction. Leahy and Dayaratne shared knowledge concerning the drug suitcase codes and Dayaratne knew to seek information from Leahy about the suitcase codes.
I am satisfied that the requirement in s 161Q(1)(b)(ii) of the PS Act has been made out by such actual knowledge.
Even if I was not satisfied about the position of actual knowledge, I am satisfied that each defendant ought reasonably to have had that knowledge.
The evidence, the findings and the inferences which underly my conclusions set out above are those expressed under the Element 1 and Element 2 headings.
Based on the findings I have made above, I find that Count 1 of the indictment has been proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt in respect of each defendant.
Verdict
My verdict is as follows:
1.   Matthew Brett Osborne is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).
2.   Kushan Thosainge Thanuj Dayaratne is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).
3.   Garth William Leahy is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).

CITATION:	R v Osborne; R v Dayaratne; R v Leahy [2025] QSC 243
PARTIES:	R v MATTHEW BRETT OSBORNE (first defendant) KUSHAN THOSAINGE THANUJ DAYARATNE (second defendant) GARTH WILLIAM LEAHY (third defendant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 1275 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial (Judge alone)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	****23 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 June 2025, 24 June 2025 and 26 June 2025
JUDGE:	Sullivan J
VERDICT:	1. Matthew Brett Osborne is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime). 2. Kushan Thosainge Thanuj Dayaratne is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime). 3. Garth William Leahy is guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and guilty of the circumstance of aggravation (serious organised crime).
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS – TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY – where the defendants were jointly charged on the indictment that they carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation pursuant to s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where the defendants pleaded not guilty to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs with a serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation, but guilty to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the Crown did not accept their guilty pleas – where the trial proceeded as a judge-alone trial – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the circumstance of aggravation – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the relevant period each of the defendants were participants in a “criminal organisation” as defined by s 161O of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the offence was being committed in association with participants in a criminal organisation Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 575, s 615, s 615B, s 615C Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161N, s 161O, s 161P, s 161Q R v Hill (No 2) (2020) 6 QR 1 R v Hilton (2020) 3 QR 260 R v Simpson [2024] QSC 295 R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533 The State of Western Australia v Bell [No 3] [2014] WASC 341
COUNSEL:	J T Aylward for the Crown G M McGuire for the first defendant P J McCafferty KC for the second defendant S A Lynch for the third defendant

[2025] QSC 243

23 Sept 2025