R v Ronald Ian Lennox

[2007] NSWDC 388

CITATION:	R v Ronald Ian LENNOX [2007] NSWDC 388
JUDGMENT DATE:	13 August 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ
DECISION:	Good behaviour bond for period of two years.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - possess prohibited drug namely methylamphetamine - prior criminal record - professional truck driver using amphetamines daily to stay awake - plea of guilty - unlikely to re-offend - bond appropriate
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 9, s 21A
PARTIES:	Regina Ronald Ian Lennox
FILE NUMBER(S):	96/31/0063
COUNSEL:	Mr Holles for the ODPP Mr Goldring for Mr Lennox

SENTENCE

1. Ronald Ian Lennox was arraigned before me today on a charge that on 5 September 2006 at Bulahdelah he possessed a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine. Exhibit A tendered by the Crown was a set of facts.

2. Briefly, Mr Lennox was driving a semi-trailer north on the Pacific Highway at 90 to 100 kilometres an hour on a straight section. The prime mover and the trailer left the road and climbed an embankment and rolled over. Fortunately Mr Lennox was not injured - and fortunately - nor were other road users. The semi-trailer was extensively damaged. Police arrived and spoke with him. He passed a breathalyser test, but the police noticed that he was unsteady on his feet and that his eyes were dilated and he seemed to be vague. They took him to a hospital where a blood and urine sample were obtained. They found some items in the cabin which contained syringes, white powder and crystalline substance. Certain parts of those items were found to contain amphetamine and the total amount of amphetamine, including dextrose, which was some of the other substance, came to more than 26 grams.

3. Mr Lennox has a criminal record. It is mostly for traffic offences, with two exceptions, namely an assault which occurred in 1995 and an offence of goods in custody which occurred ten years later in 2005.

4. Mr Golding, who appeared for Mr Lennox, called his client. The offence occurred on 5 September 2006. Mr Lennox had been using amphetamine for a while, for some 12 months. He was a professional truck driver, travelling interstate between Sydney and Brisbane. He used about a gram of amphetamines daily in his coffee in order to stay awake, because he had a tight schedule of runs.

5. His personal circumstances at the time were such that his mother had died a few weeks beforehand, which left him significantly affected. She had died from heart failure, following a period of illness. He returned to work the day before the offence. He has always been a driver. He has a daughter who is about to turn 13. Since birth she has had cerebral palsy. She is about to have significant surgery on 18 September this year. By tragic coincidence, Mr Lennox’s father died on 15 October 2006, only a couple of months after his mother died. He has had no drugs since his arrest and is prepared to undertake urine analysis in order to demonstrate that. He feels a lot better being off the drugs. He appreciates the danger to himself and others from driving a truck under the influence of amphetamines. He is presently re-employed as an interstate truck driver.

6. Cross-examined by Mr Holles for the Crown, he acknowledged the risk he was taking and the impact which his death or disability would have on the life of his disabled daughter.

7. Part of Mr Golding’s case were a number of references. One was from his former partner, the mother of his daughter Kyla. She has since remarried and said that she and her husband hold Mr Lennox in the highest regard and respect. He is always available to help and takes a significant role in caring for his daughter. He has always been a devoted father. There is also a reference from R J Cocco, who also indicates that he is a devoted father, a trustworthy friend and companion. There is a note from his employer, Easter Group Pty Limited, who indicates that he is an honest and enthusiastic employee in every respect. It acknowledges the charges. It indicates also that he is a loyal, trustworthy and reliable person.

8. Mr Golding has been frank in what he is seeking, which is an order under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which enables me to impose a bond instead of imprisonment. He draws my attention to mitigating factors under s 21A(3) of that Act, in particular his client’s plea of guilty and his character and lack of a serious record.

9. As I observed during his submissions, in my opinion his record does not entitle me to conclude that he has an unblemished character because it includes an offence of assault and an offence of having goods in custody. The first concerns violence, the second concerns honesty, but there is only one count of each and they are relatively minor and so, in my opinion, I can regard Mr Lennox to have a fairly good character. I accept, which is supported by the evidence, that his daughter figures very prominently in his life. I also accept that he is unlikely to re-offend. I accept Mr Lennox’s evidence that he is no longer on drugs and that he has learnt his lesson, as Mr Golding put it.

10. The circumstance of this particular offence unhappily coincided with the recent death of his mother and the responsibility of sharing the burden of his disabled daughter. It was clear from the circumstances of the offence, as indicated by the fact that the Crown were prepared to accept a plea of guilty to this offence, that the drugs in Mr Lennox’s possession were for his own use.

11. I must be aware that I am not sentencing Mr Lennox for driving under the influence of these drugs. It is obviously a frightening prospect for members of the community that a truck driver, pulling a semi-trailer, might be driving under the influence of a very significant quantity of amphetamines. But he was sentenced in respect of driving under the influence of drugs in the Local Court at Forster on 5 September 2006. So what is relevant for me is not to be punishing Mr Lennox for that kind of driving. But it is relevant for me to take into account, in the circumstances of his offending, that the purpose of his possession of the drugs was to keep him awake whilst he was working.

12. I have decided to accept Mr Golding’s submission. This is the first drug offence of which Mr Lennox has been convicted. Hopefully it will be the last. As I have said I am confident that it will be and that his prospects of rehabilitation are good. In the circumstances it seems to be to be appropriate to deal with this matter by way of a bond. I propose to stipulate supervision and that he subject himself to urine analysis as and when required. The condition of the bond will deal with specific deterrence, so far as Mr Lennox’s drug usage is concerned and I regard the circumstances of the case as such that the sentence will also serve as a general deterrence.

13. Okay, stand up Mr Lennox. Mr Lennox, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment on you, I make an order directing you to enter into a good behaviour bond for two years. I make it a condition of the bond that you will appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during that bond. I make it a further condition that during the term of the bond you will be of good behaviour. I make it a further condition that you be supervised by an officer of the Probation and Parole Service and that you subject yourself to whatever tests that officer or officers may require to check whether you have been using prohibited drugs. Any other order Mr Holles?

HOLLES: No your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Or condition, Mr Golding?

GOLDING: Thank you your Honour.

14. Mr Lennox you have heard what I said. You have got a bond for two years. I am hoping this is a one-off offence. It sounds as though you are back on the right track. Now because you have been under a bond - I am just not sure if you have had a bond before - you have got to stay out of trouble for those two years. You will have to report to the Probation and Parole Service so they can arrange supervision. I have made it a specific term that they can test you, probably by urinalysis and that is because it is important that you stay of those drugs.

15. Mr Lennox, if you breach the bond you can be called to appear before the Court again and the Court can revoke the bond and you can be re-sentenced and range of sentences is open again so that you may be subjected to a more serious penalty than the one I have imposed. So it is very important that you stick to the bond and remain of good behaviour.

Now gentlemen there is usually a condition about reporting.

GOLDING: Your Honour, to give effect to your Honour’s order, would your Honour direct that he report to the Probation and Parole Office at Penrith by the close of business this Friday?

HIS HONOUR: This Friday? Does that leave enough time?

GOLDING: Excuse me your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Yes.

GOLDING: Penrith your Honour.

16. Okay. In addition I order that Mr Lennox report to the Probation and Parole Office at Penrith on or before Friday 17 August 2007. Do you understand that Mr Lennox?

OFFENDER: Yes your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Anything else Mr Crown?

HOLLES: No your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Golding?

GOLDING: Thank you your Honour, no.

HIS HONOUR: All right. That is finished. You can come out of the dock Mr - you will need to go into the Registry but Mr Golding will tell you about that.

**********