R v Peterson and Dislakis
[2016] VCC 1092
•28 July 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-16-00070
Case No. CR-16-00071
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| GLYNN FREDERICK PETERSON & DANIEL NOEL DISLAKIS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 May & 16 June 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 July 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Peterson & Dislakis | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 1092 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Sentence –
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Ms C. Lee (Plea) Mr M. Vella (Sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Peterson For the Accused Dislakis | Mr A. Imrie Mr D. Sala | Balmer & Associates Doogue O’Brien George |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1 Glynn Peterson, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of trafficking in methylamphetamine (Charge 1) and one charge of possessing a prescribed precursor chemical, being pseudoephedrine (Charge 2).
2 Daniel Dislakis, you are jointly charged with Mr Peterson in relation to the abovementioned charge of trafficking (Charge 1) and have also pleaded guilty to that charge.
3
The trafficking charge is alleged to have occurred in the period between
12 February and 11 March 2015.
4 The relevant date for the offence of possession of a prescribed precursor chemical offence committed by Mr Peterson is 11 March 2015, the day on which the police searched the subject premises and arrested Mr Peterson.
5 The maximum penalty for the crime of trafficking a drug of dependence is 15 years’ imprisonment. For the crime of possessing a precursor chemical it is a fine of 600 penalty units or five years’ imprisonment, or both.
6 The circumstances in which you each came to offend as alleged, are set out in the amended typed prosecution opening dated 25 May 2016, a copy of which was tendered as Exhibit A on the plea hearing. Relevant discussions relating to the offending also occurred during the course of the plea and further plea.
7 At the time he offended, Mr Peterson was 41 years of age, having been born on 17 October 1973.
8
At the time he offended, Mr Dislakis was 26 years of age, having been born on 1 May 1989.
Circumstances of the Offending
9 In August 2014, investigators from the Clandestine Laboratory Squad commenced an operation. Among the persons of interest identified by those investigators were the two of you and another man named Mohammed Belhaj. A number of other participants in the network were also identified by police, including Wasim Wardak, Mark Mamo and Jimmey Barko.
10 The investigation revealed a methylamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking syndicate operating in the Melbourne metropolitan area with connections to Tasmania. Police used telephone intercepts, physical surveillance and search warrants in the course of the investigation.
11 The prosecution case is put on the basis that the offenders were involved in a joint criminal enterprise. They allege that Mr Belhaj was the primary trafficker of the methylamphetamine. Mr Peterson’s role was to manufacture the methylamphetamine. He was the “cook”, to use the colloquial expression. For his part, Mr Dislakis was involved in sourcing pseudoephedrine for the network and in the trafficking of methylamphetamine. He regularly travelled from Melbourne to Devonport and Launceston in Tasmania to further the operation of the syndicate.
12 The subject clandestine laboratory was located at a residential address in Mimms Road, Melton West. More particularly, it was in a bungalow which Mr Belhaj rented from a man named Andrew Claffey.
13 The police used telephone intercepts for a period of approximately a month; from 12 February until 11 March 2015, the latter date being the day on which they executed the various search warrants.
14 A number of intercepted calls established that throughout the relevant period, Mr Dislakis was actively and regularly involved in the sale of methylamphetamine, in the collection and depositing of the proceeds of drug sales, and in brokering arrangements for the purchase of pseudoephedrine.
15 The prosecution also refer to the telephone intercept material to provide examples of Mr Peterson’s and Mr Dislakis’ involvement in the syndicate and the scale of the trafficking in the drug methylamphetamine. For example:
· Mr Dislakis and Mr Belhaj discussed money. Mr Dislakis told Mr Belhaj that he was returning from Tasmania with money, albeit not the full amount;
· While in Tasmania, Mr Dislakis kept Mr Belhaj updated as to the amount of money he was going to collect from associates there for the drugs that had been previously supplied. At one point, Mr Dislakis said that he had "39 on him and 15 waiting for collection";
· When speaking to Mr Belhaj, Mr Dislakis confirmed that he had "sold 288 without the bag for 10.2";
· Mr Belhaj indicated he planned to collect $2,200 owed by a person named Morton;
· Mr Belhaj and Mr Dislakis discussed a deal with Tasmanian associates in relation to the supply of pseudoephedrine;
· Mr Belhaj told Mr Wardak that he had just lost $17,000 gambling. In response, Mr Wardak suggested that Mr Belhaj had probably lost between $100,000 and $200,000 in the previous two months;
· On several occasions, Mr Belhaj rang Mr Peterson to check whether he, Mr Peterson, had sufficient funds, with a view to providing further funds if necessary;
· When Mr Morton rang Mr Belhaj seeking drugs, Mr Belhaj told him that he would "swing by";
· When Mr Belhaj and Mr Dislakis discussed the clandestine laboratory, they did so in coded language. Mr Dislakis would ask Mr Peterson how he was going and Mr Belhaj would tell Mr Peterson that he would "collect him", meaning from the laboratory; and
· Mr Belhaj spoke to another male about arranging a new precursor supplier and arranged to obtain a small sample of the precursor chemical to test.
16
Ultimately, the police investigators obtained a number of search warrants for various addresses linked to alleged members of the syndicate. Just after 5 pm on 11 March 2015, one of those warrants was executed at the address at which the subject clandestine laboratory had been operating. Mr Belhaj and
Mr Peterson were located at that address and arrested. The hands and clothing of Mr Peterson were covered in white powder. As ought to be clear from what has already been said, the prosecution does not allege that Mr Peterson was personally involved in the syndicate beyond manufacturing methylamphetamine at the clandestine laboratory located in Mimms Road.
17 After searching that address, police seized a number of items from the bungalow, including crystals, capsules in blister packs, Sudafed brand tablets, glassware, scales, solvents, acids, bases, a gas cooker and a pH probe.
18 When those items were later subjected to a forensic analysis, it was determined that the total weight of substance containing methylamphetamine was 123.9 grams. The analysis also determined that there was approximately 42.33 grams of the drug methylamphetamine within that mixture. Thus, the purity level of the mixed substance would appear to be approximately 34.19 per cent.
19 By statute, the law defines a substance containing methylamphetamine as a traffickable amount if it is at least 3 grams but less than 500 grams. By comparison, the threshold amount for a commercial quantity is 100 grams pure or a mixed substance of 500 grams.
20 As part of their case on the charge of trafficking, the prosecution rely on the fact that the methylamphetamine located by the police during this search was intended to be sold. They also rely on the relevant evidence obtained as a result of the telephone intercepts.
21 It is also relevant to note that during this search of the bungalow, police also located 2,969 grams of iodine and 420 millilitres of hydrophosphorous acid. Those substances, in combination with the 84.8 grams of pseudoephedrine that was also found, if used in combination, could have been used to manufacture in the order of 64 to 93 grams of pure methylamphetamine. As the prosecution put it, the enterprise being jointly conducted was designed to be an ongoing one and not just limited to the methylamphetamine that had already been made.
22 The prosecution case in respect of Charge 2, the offence of possessing a prescribed precursor chemical faced by Mr Peterson alone, is based on the amount of pseudoephedrine found at the bungalow, namely 84.8 grams.
Arrest and Interview
23 Following their arrests on 11 March 2015, Mr Belhaj and Mr Peterson were separately interviewed. Each chose to exercise their legal right to give ‘no comment’ answers when questioned by the police. After his interview was concluded, Mr Peterson was remanded in custody for this matter. He has remained on remand ever since.
24 For your part, Mr Dislakis, you were not arrested by police until 31 July 2015. When you were interviewed later on that day, you also made a ‘no comment’ interview, as was your legal right. After that interview was concluded, you were remanded in custody for this matter. You have remained in custody ever since, although for part of that period you were serving a sentence you received in the Magistrates Court for other, unrelated matters.
25
During the plea, an issue arose as to whether counsel appearing for
Mr Peterson was correct in his assessment of certain intercepted telephone conversations involving his client and Mr Belhaj. In Mr Imrie’s submission, when one listened to those calls, it is clear that Mr Peterson is at most a ‘reluctant cook’ in this enterprise. For their part, the prosecution challenged that assertion, submitting that the calls relied on by the defence did not establish any such thing. In support of their argument, the prosecution asked the court to consider a number of other intercepted calls in which the two men can be heard talking to each other.
26 As requested, I listened carefully to the audio recordings of those intercepted telephone conversations. As I indicated at the further plea after I had done so, I do not agree with the defence submission on this issue. In my view, the prosecution’s characterisation of those calls is correct. At no time does Mr Peterson sound reluctant in the sense relied on. Nor does there appear to be any sense of pressure or imbalance in the relationship between the two men. Rather, they seem comfortable talking to each other as friends would do. I therefore reject the submission made by Mr Imrie.
Pre-sentence Detention
27 In light of the different dates on which they were each initially remanded in custody and the fact that Mr Dislakis has had to serve a separate sentence for other matters during part of the time that he has also been on remand for the current matter, the respective periods to be declared as pre-sentence detention vary as between the two accused in this matter.
28 As I understand it, the relevant periods of pre-sentence detention to be declared in this case are as follows.
29 For Mr Peterson, it is the entire period between his arrest on 11 March 2015 and his sentencing on 28 July 2016, a total period of 505 days, not including today’s date.
30 For Mr Dislakis, it is the period between when his unrelated sentence expired on 30 June 2016 and the date of his sentencing for his current matter, 28 July 2016. Accordingly, for present purposes, the total pre-sentence detention period to be declared totals 28 days, not including today’s date. As I have already noted, in effect, the period between his initial remand on this and the other unrelated matters up until when he was sentenced for those other matters on 8 October 2015, is not to be counted because it was declared as pre-sentence detention at the time when that earlier sentence was imposed. Equally, the period between the date of that sentencing and when that sentence expired on 30 June this year is not to be counted either, as Mr Dislakis was serving his sentence on that other matter during that period. It is only since 30 June 2016, that he has been on remand for this current matter and for which the period has not already been counted as pre-sentence detention.
Criminal Record of Mr Peterson
31 The details of Mr Peterson’s prior criminal record are set out in the two criminal records which have been filed by the prosecution. They are identical in content save that the one for Charge 2 includes an additional conviction for an offence of fail to answer bail which, because of the date on which that conviction was recorded, represents a prior conviction for the purposes of sentencing him for Charge 2 but a subsequent conviction for the purposes of sentencing him for Charge 1.
32
The criminal record includes seven interstate court appearances between
11 September 2001 and 22 May 2006 for a total of 13 offences, including some for driving and others for dishonesty. Of most relevance were those for possessing a controlled substance in January of 2003, unlawful possession of drugs in May of 2003 and possessing a controlled substance for supply in May of 2006. For the first two offences, he was convicted and fined. For the latter offence, he was convicted and discharged, in effect.
33 In relation to his offending in Victoria, I note the following.
34 In September of 2006, he was convicted and fined for possessing and using amphetamine.
35 In early 2009, he was convicted and placed on a 12 month community-based order for a total of five offences. Those offences included the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession of a drug of dependence, possession of a document related to the manufacture of a drug of dependence, which I was informed on the plea was a shopping list of the items required to make drugs, and, finally, an offence of deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. It is of note that the community-based order imposed on that occasion included a condition that Mr Peterson undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol and drug abuse or dependency, and a further condition requiring him to undertake programs to reduce the chances of him re-offending.
36 In April of 2010, Mr Peterson was dealt with for breaching that community-based order. That breach occurred due to non-compliance with conditions and re-offending whilst on that order. The breach was proven and, in respect to the original offences for which he earlier had been placed on the community-based order, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of eight months’ imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. As was indicated by his counsel at the plea, Mr Peterson went on to successfully complete that order.
37 It is also of note that by the time he was dealt with on those breach proceedings, Mr Peterson had experienced what imprisonment was like as the record indicates that he had served 15 days in pre-sentence detention.
38 Finally, and most significantly, Mr Peterson was sentenced on 5 August 2011 for an offence of trafficking the drug methylamphetamine (an offence that was committed subsequent to him completing the aforementioned intensive correction order). He committed this offence of trafficking by way of manufacturing that drug of dependence. It must have been a serious offence as he was sentenced to a term of 545 days’ imprisonment. All but the period of 15 days which he had served in pre-sentence detention were ordered to be suspended for an operational period of 24 months. Thus, he was released immediately, having had what was presumably relied on at the time as the salutary experience of having to serve 15 days on remand before being sentenced.
39 That experience was not salutary enough it would seem, as Mr Peterson ultimately went on to commit the subject trafficking and possession of precursor chemical offences for which he must now be sentenced, albeit not during the operational period of the suspended portion of the earlier partly suspended sentence.
Criminal Record of Mr Dislakis
40 By comparison, the prior criminal record for Mr Dislakis is limited in scope and contains no prior offending of a like nature to the present.
41 In mid-2011, he was fined without conviction for driving while suspended and fail to answer bail.
42 In early 2012, he was convicted and placed on a 12-month community correction order for nine dishonesty related offences. It would appear from the record of that order that the motivation for that offending may have been to obtain funds to purchase drugs for his own use, as one of the conditions affixed to the community correction order required him to be assessed and treated for drug abuse or dependency. Mr Dislakis’ counsel confirmed that to be the case, not only for that offending but also in relation to the commission of the subsequent offences for which Mr Dislakis was ultimately sentenced to a term of 11 months’ imprisonment in the Magistrates Court on 8 October last year.
43 The aforementioned community correction order was the subject of breach proceedings on 13 May 2014, at which time the breach was proven. For the breach offence itself, he was convicted and fined. When re-sentenced for the original offences for which he was earlier placed on the community correction order, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of four months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of 12 months.
44 As will be clear from that chronology, the trafficking offence for which Mr Dislakis will be sentenced today was committed during the operational period of that wholly suspended sentence. Indeed, it commenced only four months into that 12-month operational period. Thus, his current offending is aggravated by that fact.
45 The offences for which Mr Dislakis was sentenced in the Magistrates Court on 8 October 2015 represent subsequent convictions for current sentencing purposes. When so sentenced, he was dealt with not just for the new offences, but also for having breached the earlier imposed wholly suspended sentence by re-offending during the operational period. When sentenced on that occasion, he was given an aggregate nine months’ imprisonment for the new offences and the sentence previously suspended was restored. The total effective sentence imposed was 11 months, for which the period of 69 days was declared as pre-sentence detention.
46 The offences for which he was sentenced on that occasion are set out in the documents that were tendered as Exhibit DD1 on the plea. There are very many of them. They were committed in the period between 2013 and 2015 and related mainly to driving related offences and offences of dishonesty in one form or another. They are clearly relevant and of importance in my task of assessing his prospects of rehabilitation.
47 Finally, I note that whilst his prior criminal record is relatively limited, it does indicate that Mr Dislakis has not seized the two previous opportunities that he was given by way of community-based dispositions, going on as he did to breach both the community correction order and the suspended sentence.
Other alleged offenders
48 At the plea hearing for this matter, the following details were provided in relation to what has occurred in respect of other persons of interest in this investigation.
49
Although charged, Mr Claffey was discharged in relation to all charges on
10 February this year.
50 Mr Barko pleaded guilty to one offence only, a charge of possessing equipment for the purpose of trafficking, the equipment being a pH meter. On 6 April 2016, he was convicted of that offence and sentenced to a term of 75 days’ imprisonment, which was a period less than he had already served by way of pre-sentence detention to that point.
51 As for Mr Belhaj, he is intending to stand his trial, which is currently listed to commence on 28 November this year.
Personal Circumstances of Mr Peterson
52 I will now turn to briefly outline the personal circumstances of each accused, commencing with you, Mr Peterson.
53 When arraigned, you gave your age as 43 and your occupation as bricklayer.
54 As Mr Imrie put it, Mr Peterson has struggled for decades to deal with his drug addiction and its consequences. He commenced that drug use from a very early age, when he was only 15.
55 After finishing Year 10 at school, he managed, notwithstanding his drug issues, to complete a building apprenticeship and work in that field for ten years or so.
56 However, in about 1998, his drug use increased significantly. Nearly 10 years later, in 2007, he learned how to manufacture the drug methylamphetamine. That drug then became his drug of choice as he was able to use some of what he was able to make. Unsurprisingly, his ability to stay clean and work fluctuated.
57 In 2014, there was a significant descent back into drug use. Prior to that time, he had gone for a relatively lengthy period without using, some 40 months or so since 2011, according to his counsel.
58 In relation to the current offending, it was put by his counsel that while Mr Peterson was paid some money in addition to the methylamphetamine that he took for his own use, it was not a significant sum. In large part, his motivation for offending was his desire to maintain his drug use. Mr Imrie submitted that his client had no real appreciation of the full scale of the operation since his own role was restricted to manufacturing the drug. He also pointed out that while his client was involved for some period, it was not for the entire period.
59 In his sentencing submissions, Mr Imrie urged the court to consider a combination sentence in the form of time served and a lengthy and suitably structured community correction order. It would, he submitted, be capable of according sufficient weight to all the relevant sentencing purposes engaged in this case.
60 Mr Imrie sought to emphasise the salutary nature of the period of more than a year that his client had already spent on remand for this matter, and submitted that as things stood, this was a very good opportunity for his client to break the cycle of drug addiction and its inevitable consequence, drug-related offending.
61 Whilst he acknowledged that a head sentence and a non-parole period could also potentially achieve the same ends, he submitted that a combination sentence was the preferred course in all the circumstances. It would allow a date certain release and allow the court to put in place rehabilitation-directed measures with more confidence.
62 I note also that Mr Peterson has taken some steps to use his time on remand productively. As the tendered course certificates demonstrate, he successfully completed a six-week course titled ‘Change on the Inside’ in the middle part of last year and a 12-hour psycho-educational program relating to substance abuse in October of that year.
Personal Circumstances of Mr Dislakis
63 I note the following in relation to your personal circumstances, Mr Dislakis.
64 When you were arraigned, you gave your age as 27 and your occupation as concreter.
65 At the plea hearing you were supported by your parents and your sister and her partner. They, unlike you, have not been in trouble or used drugs.
66 Your upbringing was a stable and happy one.
67 You were introduced to drugs through friends. That ultimately led to you developing an addiction to the drug “ice”. Unsurprisingly, given how addictive that drug is, you began to commit offences in order to support your habit.
68 In your case also, you were remunerated for the subject offence of trafficking by way of the provision of methylamphetamine and some money.
69 It would appear that you were on bail for the other matters to which I have earlier referred at the time of your involvement in this offence. That is yet another aggravating feature of your offending in this case.
70 Your father gave viva voce evidence in your support at the plea hearing
71 He believes your problems started in your late teen years and more so in your early twenties. Your conduct and demeanour, with the benefit of hindsight, was suggestive of your use of the drug ice. There was little contact in the weeks leading up to your incarceration and he was shocked at your condition when he visited you in custody. As time went on, he noticed a positive change in your attitude and physical health. At the present time, you are in the best condition, physically and mentally, that you have been in for some years. Your father also indicated that you have worked for him on occasions in the past.
72 As your counsel, Mr Sala correctly pointed out on the plea, Mr Dislakis, this court must have regard to the fact that you have served a sentence of 11 months for the other unrelated charges during most of the period that you have also been on remand for the current charge of trafficking. That has meant that you have not had the opportunity for any element of concurrency between that sentence and the one that you are about to receive for this offence. Totality considerations obviously arise and must be given effect to. Accordingly, I propose to impose a slightly lesser sentence on you for this offence than I otherwise would have.
73 Your counsel also submitted that a combination sentence was open in your case. He submitted that you are now well-placed to take advantage of any rehabilitation-directed sentence. You have undertaken a drug course whilst in custody at Fulham prison and have been working as a billet.
74 As an alternative sentencing submission, Mr Sala sought the opportunity for you to be considered for a relatively lengthy period of release on parole
Prosecution Submission on Penalty
75 In reply, the prosecution pointed out the nature and seriousness of the offending which each accused had become involved with. Each of them, in different ways, performed a very important role in what was an ongoing and serious drug trafficking operation. No real distinction should be drawn between those roles as they were each very trusted associates of Mr Belhaj, who the prosecution agree was higher in the hierarchy, and they each played an integral role in ensuring the ongoing success of the enterprise. In my view, that characterisation is an appropriate one and I intend to sentence each of you on that basis.
76 The prosecution also rely on the fact that each accused has a relevant criminal history and, in Mr Peterson’s case, for similar offending.
77 In your case, Mr Dislakis, they rely on the fact that your offending was aggravated by the fact that it occurred whilst on bail for other matters, and whilst also on a suspended sentence.
78 In their submission the trafficking involved here related to a significant amount of methylamphetamine, an amount that must have been towards the upper end of the range for trafficking simpliciter.
79 The prosecution also rely on the ongoing nature of this offending and the fact that it was only brought to an end by the intervention of the police.
80 In all of the circumstances, say the prosecution, the offending engaged in by each accused on this occasion is just too serious for the imposition of a community correction order, whether standing alone or in combination with a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
Gravity of the Offending
81 In my view, those submissions by the prosecution are correct.
82 This was a relatively serious example of an intrinsically serious offence for which there is a significant maximum penalty.
83 The offending was ongoing over a period of weeks. Your roles, while different, were crucial to the success of this criminal venture. It involved a significant amount of methylamphetamine. I have no doubt that each of you would have been prepared to continue your involvement had the police not swooped when they did. In part, you were each involved for financial reward.
Early Pleas and Remorse
84 In each of your cases, it is important to note and give effect to your early pleas of guilty. In that regard, it is relevant to note that once the prosecution no longer wished to proceed with a prosecution on the more serious charge involving the allegation of a commercial quantity, the matter settled. Those pleas have saved the cost and time that would have been involved in running a trial.
85 In the circumstances, I am prepared to find that each of your pleas have been accompanied by some degree of remorse.
86 I intend to discount each of your sentences to a commensurate degree to give effect to those matters.
Sentencing principles
87 Clearly, general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment loom large in each of your cases. The community is justifiably concerned about the frequency with which drug trafficking occurs in our community and the harm that all drug trafficking causes. They expect, quite rightly, that those who engage in such criminal conduct, especially in the scale here involved, will be appropriately punished when caught.
88 In my view, there is also a real need for each of you to be personally deterred from ever engaging in this or any similar conduct again. I consider there is more of a need in your case, Mr Peterson, but the need in Mr Dislakis’s case is nonetheless significant given the fact that this offending occurred in breach of a suspended sentence and whilst on bail.
89 I must also have regard to your respective ages and prospects of rehabilitation.
90 Mr Peterson, you are a man of mature years who has a very significant criminal history. You have been undeterred to date, including by your previous experience in custody. You need to successfully undertake a lengthy and targeted drug treatment course if you are to have any real chance of remaining drug and offence free in the future. In all the circumstances, I consider your prospects to be fair at best.
91 Mr Dislakis, your prospects also hinge in large part on your ability to undertake the necessary drug treatment and remain drug free. However, you are considerably younger than Mr Peterson and it may be that there will still be the potential for some positive changes as the result of a natural maturation process. I consider your prospects to be more positive than his, although the nature and extent of your offending in recent years, and the apparently entrenched nature of your drug addiction, suggests that you have a long way to go in order to achieve full rehabilitation. It is to your credit that while you have been in custody, you have completed a 40-hour drug treatment program and returned a number of clean urine sample results. In the end, I have concluded that your prospects are moderate.
Sentences
92 In each of your cases, I have carefully considered the circumstances of your offending, and had regard to your respective personal circumstances and the matters in mitigation that can be relied on. After having done so, I am left in no doubt that nothing other than a substantial custodial sentence is open in each case.
93 Mr Peterson, you are hereby sentenced as follows.
94 On Charge 1, trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of four years’ imprisonment.
95 On Charge 2, possessing a prescribed precursor chemical, namely pseudoephedrine, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of six months’ imprisonment.
96 In respect to those sentences, I make no order as to cumulation and so they will be served concurrently.
97 Thus, the total effective sentence will be four years’ imprisonment.
98 In respect of that sentence, a non-parole period of two years and nine months is fixed.
99 Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, it is indicated that had you not pleaded guilty to these charges and had you been found guilty of them at trial, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months.
100 I declare that the period of 505 days which Mr Peterson has spent on remand for these offences, not including today’s date, is to be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under this sentence. I order that there be noted in the records of the court the fact that this declaration was made and its details.
101 Mr Dislakis, you are hereby sentenced as follows.
102 On Charge 1, trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of three years and six months’ imprisonment.
103 In respect to that sentence, a non-parole period of two years and three months is fixed.
104 Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, it is indicated that had you not pleaded guilty to this charge, and had you been found guilty of it at trial, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.
105 I declare that the period of 28 days pre-sentence detention which Mr Dislakis has spent on remand for this offence, not including today’s date, is to be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under this sentence. I order that there be noted in the records of the court the fact that this declaration was made and its details.
Ancillary Orders
106 The prosecution have made application for a number of ancillary orders in this case.
107 In respect to both accused, they seek a forensic sample order. Neither accused opposes the making of such an order.
108 In respect to Mr Peterson, the prosecution also seek a disposal order in relation to various items listed in the attached schedule. There is no opposition to the making of such an order.
109 In respect to Mr Peterson, the prosecution also seek a forfeiture order in relation to various items listed in the attached schedule. There is no opposition to the making of that order.
110 I intend to exercise my discretion and grant each of the applications and to make the orders in the terms sought.
111 In relation to the applications for the taking of a forensic sample, I state the following.
112 In the cases of each accused, having considered the seriousness of the circumstances of the forensic sample offence(s), I am satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the making of the forensic sample order is justified, because the seriousness of the offending warrants the order, as do the nature and extent of the prior criminal record, the order is not opposed, and the making of the order is in the public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to s.464ZF(2), I order that each of you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a mouth scraping from the mouth and/or a blood sample in accordance with Subdivision 30A of Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1958 until a sufficient sample is obtained for placement on the database.
113 Mr Peterson and Mr Dislakis, would you both stand, please? I am obliged to inform each of you that if, at the time of request, you do not consent to the taking of a mouth scraping under the supervision of an authorised member of the police force, then the sample to be taken will be a blood sample and police may use reasonable force to enable that forensic procedure to be conducted.
114 Do you understand that, Mr Peterson?
115 MR PETERSON: Yes.
116 Do you also understand what I have just said, Mr Dislakis?
117 MR DISLAKIS: Yes, your Honour.
118 HIS HONOUR: Do counsel have anything to raise at this stage in relation to either the sentence or sentencing reasons?
119 MR VELLA : No, your Honour.
120 MR IMRIE: No, your Honour.
121 MR SALA: No, your Honour.
122 HIS HONOUR: Very well. I will now stand down until the next matter is ready to proceed.
- - -
0
0
0