R v Williams & Foletti
[2004] VSC 424
•29 October 2004
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1434 of 2004
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| CARL ANTHONY WILLIAMS and WALTER FOLETTI |
---
JUDGE: | KELLAM J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 and 28 September 2004 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 October 2004 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Williams and Foletti | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2004] VSC 424 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs – “Giretti” offences over a 5 week period – Pleas of guilty.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr W.H. Morgan-Payler, Q.C. with Mr M. Gamble | Solicitor to the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Williams | Mr P. Faris, Q.C. | Theo Magazis |
| For the Accused Walter Foletti | Mr P. Marin | Tony Danos |
HIS HONOUR:
You, Carl Anthony Williams and you, Walter Foletti, have each pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs of dependence, namely, MDMA and methylamphetamine, in the form of tablets sold as “Ecstasy” tablets and one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely, cocaine.
At the time of your offences, s.71(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act provided for a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment for trafficking drugs of dependence in a commercial quantity and for a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in a drug of dependence. You have pleaded guilty to each of these offences on the basis that they involved trafficking in drugs between 12 April 2001 and 19 May 2001 on a Giretti basis[1]. Thus by your plea you concede that between the dates alleged you each engaged in a continuing “trade or business of dealing in drugs” or engaged “on a regular and commercial basis in the transmission of drugs from source to consumer”.[2]
[1]R v Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112.
[2]R v Giretti See Ormiston J at 130.
The factual background to the matters before the court is that in early 2001 police commenced an operation designed at targeting drug trafficking in the western suburbs of Melbourne using various methods including covert surveillance and electronic intercepts of telephone calls. That operation resulted in an undercover police officer known as “Jimmy” being introduced to you, Walter Foletti. Thereafter, a series of meetings between you, Walter Foletti, and the covert operative Jimmy, took place. These meetings were tape recorded. The meetings between you, Foletti, and Jimmy, always took place in the car park of a McDonalds restaurant in Sydenham.
The first relevant meeting took place on 12 April 2001 when you, Foletti, sold Jimmy 500 Ecstasy tablets for the sum of $8,500. A free sample of cocaine which was later found to be 35% pure was supplied to Jimmy by you, Foletti, on that occasion. During that meeting you, Foletti, stated to Jimmy that you could supply up to 50,000 Ecstasy tablets and could also supply cocaine and amphetamine. Following that meeting you, Foletti, were followed covertly by police. You were then observed to meet Carl Williams at the Water Gardens Shopping Centre. You, Walter Foletti, again met Jimmy on 22 April 2001 during which meeting you agreed to provide an ounce of cocaine for $5,000. You also stated to Jimmy that you were expecting another shipment of imported Ecstasy tablets which tablets would contain MDMA and that such tablets would be available for purchase by Jimmy for the sum of $13 per tablet provided a minimum of 25,000 such tablets were purchased by him.
The sale of the ounce of cocaine took place on 24 April 2001 for the sum of $5,000 as agreed. Immediately after that transaction you, Walter Foletti, drove to the Watergardens Shopping Centre where you collected a female and then drove to the address of Carl Williams. On 2 May 2001 the undercover operative Jimmy rang you, Foletti, and the sale of 2,000 Ecstasy tablets was arranged for the following day. On the following day, 3 May 2001, you, Foletti, met with Jimmy and sold him 2,000 Ecstasy tablets for the sum of $26,000. It should be observed that those tablets alone contained a commercial quantity of both MDMA and methylamphetamine. On that day you, Foletti, provided samples of four differently coloured and embossed tablets to Jimmy which tablets you said were Ecstasy. You offered to sell them to him at a price of $8 per tablet. You then produced a bag with 1,000 blue tablets embossed with the letters XTC and you claimed to Jimmy that they were the best Ecstasy available. Jimmy said to you that he would like to purchase 2,000 of those tablets. You, Foletti, then used your mobile telephone and rang your supplier to arrange for the provision of another thousand of those same blue tablets. The number you dialled was the home of Carl Williams. A conversation took place between you, Foletti and you, Carl Williams. That conversation makes it clear that Foletti was placing an order for a further 1,000 Ecstasy tablets with you, Williams. Subsequently, you, Foletti, told Jimmy that you were able to get the other 1,000 tablets in an hour. You then sold him the 1,000 blue XTC tablets that you did have in your possession for $13,000, and confirmed that your boss would obtain the extra thousand tablets soon. You, Foletti, then rang Carl Williams and said, “Can you go and grab it for me?” Williams said, “I’ll go now, okay mate”. Immediately following that call you, Williams, were observed by police to leave your home address and drive to the Yarraville area and then return. Soon thereafter Foletti was seen to leave the Williams house and drive to the McDonalds car park where you, Foletti, met Jimmy and sold the second batch of blue Ecstasy tablets which you had just obtained from Carl Williams. After that meeting you, Foletti, were observed to again drive to the home address of Williams.
In the course of that day you, Foletti, informed Jimmy that if given sufficient notice you could obtain 26,500 Ecstasy tablets and store them in your house ready for sale without delay.
On 13 May 2001 there was a further meeting between Jimmy and you, Foletti at the McDonalds car park in Sydenham. During this meeting you, Foletti, discussed the sale of 26,500 Ecstasy tablets. Ultimately, on the afternoon of 14 May 2001, you, Foletti, agreed to sell two ounces of cocaine to Jimmy.
After that meeting you, Foletti, rang Carl Williams. You asked him to obtain “two soccer balls”. You, Williams, agreed to do so and said that it would take you up to an hour to get them. That afternoon and shortly before the sale of the two ounces of cocaine took place to Jimmy, you Foletti attended at the Williams’ house.
That transaction was completed late on the afternoon of 14 May when the covert operative Jimmy paid the sum of $8,600 to you, Foletti, in exchange for the two ounces of cocaine. At the same time, the covert operative told you, Foletti, that he required 27,500 Ecstasy tablets. You, Foletti, quoted a price of $316,500 for the full 27,500 tablets. You confirmed that you would need only a day’s notice to fulfil the order.
On 18 May 2001, Jimmy telephoned you, Foletti, and ordered “ten soccer balls” meaning 10 ounces of cocaine. You, Foletti, said there would be no problem about that but that transaction was not completed. During that same telephone call, and when asked by Jimmy if you could supply the 27,500 Ecstasy tablets the next day, you, Foletti, said there would be no problem about that. Later that evening you, Foletti, and Jimmy had a further telephone conversation whereby you told Jimmy that the sale of 27,500 tablets was confirmed and could proceed the next day, being Saturday 19 May 2001.
On 19 May 2001, Jimmy telephoned you, Foletti, and an arrangement was made to meet in the course of the day. However, in the course of this conversation Jimmy said he did not want to do the full deal for the 27,500 tablets at the same time and it was agreed to proceed with the sale of 8,000 tablets for $100,000 and the balance of the sale was to take place later in the day. As planned, you, Foletti, met Jimmy, shortly after 2.30 p.m. in the McDonalds car park. You got out of your car and sat in Jimmy’s car and talked for a while. You had your nephew, Pablo Foletti, with you in your car at the time. You, Walter Foletti, then asked your nephew Pablo, to go and get the tablets. Pablo as requested went to your home address and retrieved 8,000 Ecstasy tablets while you, Foletti, remained with Jimmy. Pablo returned and gave the tablets to you, Foletti, who then sold them to the covert operative for $100,000 in cash. Once again, those 8,000 tablets themselves alone contained commercial quantities of both MDMA and methylamphetamine.
After that sale took place Jimmy confirmed with you, Walter Foletti, that he wished to purchase the remaining 19,500 tablets. You, Walter Foletti, and your nephew Pablo Foletti, were then observed by police to drive back to your home address and a short time later Roberta Williams was seen to leave your residence carrying a backpack style bag. She was followed to the Watergardens Shopping Centre in Sydenham where she met you, Carl Williams. After that meeting you, Carl Williams, and your wife, walked around the shopping centre, before leaving it and returning to a car which had previously been driven to the shopping centre by you, Carl Williams. As you, Carl Williams, and your wife stepped into the car, police approached. At that stage you, Carl Williams, were observed by police to be holding the backpack style bag that your wife had previously been carrying. When police examined the contents of that bag they found the $100,000 cash which had been used by Jimmy to pay Walter Foletti for the 8,000 Ecstasy tablets. You, Carl Williams, and your wife, were then arrested.
Immediately after that arrest, Jimmy rang you, Walter Foletti, and arranged to meet you to conclude the balance of the purchase of 19,500 tablets. That phone call having been made, Walter and Pablo Foletti drove back to the McDonalds car park where Jimmy was waiting in his car. However, before you, Walter Foletti, could meet up with Jimmy a series of phone calls took place whereby you were advised that Carl and Roberta Williams had just been arrested at the Watergardens Shopping Centre. Immediately thereafter, police arrested you and Pablo Foletti.
Thereafter, you, Walter Foletti, were interviewed by police. You made full admissions as to your part in the crime. You, Carl Williams, were also interviewed but chose to exercise your rights and declined to answer any questions.
Each of these cases is a serious case of drug trafficking. The charges of trafficking MDMA and methylamphetamine in a commercial quantity are particularly serious. Over a period of five weeks a total of 10,500 Ecstasy tablets were sold to the undercover operative for the sum of $134,500. It is apparent that on 19 May 2001, a further 19,500 Ecstasy tablets, stored at your house, Foletti, were intended to be sold for $218,000 and it was only your arrest on that date that circumvented that sale. On any view, these offences involved trafficking in substantial quantities of drugs, and in quantities which greatly exceeded the then applicable commercial quantity of 1.25 kilograms of mixed substances under s.11 of the Act. There can be no argument but that the trafficking of such substances does enormous harm to the youth of the community.
I note that in your case, Foletti, it is contended by your counsel that you intended to sell only Ecstasy, that is, MDMA, and that you were unaware of the fact that the tablets sold by you as Ecstasy tablets, in fact contained methylamphetamine. However, that fact does not, in my mind, render your conduct substantially less culpable. The fact that you were selling tablets of Ecstasy, which in fact contained methylamphetamine, is a clear example of the great danger that the criminal sale of such substances creates for the young people in our community who are the end purchasers.
You, Foletti, were a wholesaler of drugs supplied to you by Carl Williams. It is not contended that you were in partnership with him, but rather that you were at a lower level in the chain of supply. Nevertheless, you played an active and important part in the trafficking of dangerous drugs of addiction.
Clearly you, Carl Williams, were the supplier of drugs to Foletti. I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the actual position you occupied in the chain of supply save to say that clearly you had ready access to substantial quantities of drugs which could be supplied at short notice to your wholesaler, Foletti. Without doubt the motive of each of you was the commercial motive of profit.
The nature of drug trafficking established by the evidence is that over a five week period you each engaged in an extensive, and repetitive business of trafficking drugs. The trafficking of such drugs by each of you was in cynical disregard of the welfare of those who would finally purchase and use the pernicious goods in which you traded during this time.
However, in each of your cases, as has been pointed out by your counsel, there are a number of mitigating factors. First, in each case you have pleaded guilty. You are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour and I do so. The community has, by your plea, been spared the time and the cost of a complicated trial.
I turn now to matters that are of a particular relevance in relation to you, Walter Foletti. You are aged 42 years. At the time of the offences you were 39 years old. You have no prior convictions although you were granted a good behaviour bond in March of 1983 in relation to a matter of theft. The nature of that matter and its age is such that I treat that matter as having no relevance to my task of sentencing you today.
A report prepared by psychologist, Mr Bernard Healey, was tendered before me upon your plea. That report was prepared on 16 September 2004. It contains a history of your background. You were born in Uruguay and came to Australia in 1976 when you were aged 15. You completed Year 9 at school and your employment has included laying drainage pipes, welding, plastering and car detailing, but in general over the years you have worked mostly as a tiler. You married your present wife and co‑defendant, Olivian Foletti, in 1992 and you have three children, daughters aged 10 and six and a son aged eight. You have a 17 year old son from an earlier marriage.
In recent years you have suffered some ill‑health. In particular, in 2001 you suffered a dislocated left shoulder which continues to give you some difficulty in use of that left shoulder. You have also been diagnosed with arthritis in the right elbow which makes your tiling work difficult for you. Mr Healey stated that specific testing revealed you to have “dull intellectual capacity” and he expressed the opinion that you were suffering depression and anxiety, particularly by reason of the consequences which your involvement in the offences which bring you before this court have caused for you and for your family.
Your co-accused, Pablo Foletti, is your nephew, being the son of your sister, Shirley. Shirley was married at age 17 but her marriage broke down within a period of three years and Pablo was left essentially without a father. Your counsel submits that at that time in 1982 you took on the role of substitute father to Pablo for a period of some five years during which time you lived with your sister and Pablo from 1982. You were married when you were 25 but your own marriage broke down after approximately three years and you again returned to live with your sister Shirley and her son Pablo Foletti. Subsequently, you met your present wife, Olivian Foletti, and married her in 1993. In 1996 your nephew, Pablo, was living with his partner but working for you as a tiler’s assistant. You found out that Pablo Foletti had a heroin habit. I was informed by your counsel that from that time on you displayed considerable interest in and provided care to Pablo. At that time, Pablo had commenced to live on the streets and you saw what you described to your counsel as “the desperate life of an addict”. By 1999 Pablo’s heroin habit was substantial and it was suggested by a family friend that treatment involving the use of Naltrexone be tried. The cost of that treatment was paid for through money borrowed by Pablo’s mother and initially it appeared to be successful although you observed him to be suffering withdrawal symptoms. You spoke to the clinical psychologist in charge of Pablo’s care and your counsel tells me that the psychologist gave the surprising advice that “if Pablo were to smoke a small joint of cannabis it would stem the symptoms” of his withdrawal. For that reason you located cannabis for Pablo. You did that through your friendship with Roberta Stevens whose daughter was a friend of one of your daughters. Your perception was that she was seeking to be of assistance in obtaining the cannabis you required for your nephew’s “medication”. Regrettably, there were a number of attempts to cure Pablo’s habit which over a period of time failed. Those attempts involved a period of detoxification followed by medication with Naltrexone, the cost of which was paid for by Pablo’s family, some of which was contributed to by you.
Throughout 2000 you continued to assist Pablo by providing Ecstasy tablets in exchange for cannabis which could be used by Pablo to, it is said by your counsel, “self‑medicate, to try and keep him off the heroin”. At first you swapped cannabis for Ecstasy with a person known as Michael who was subsequently arrested by police and who then introduced undercover police to you, who in turn introduced the undercover operative Jimmy to you. It is submitted by your counsel that your decision to sell large amounts of drugs to Jimmy had “a lot to do with (you) sister and nephew being homeless and broke”. It should be noted that at about the time of these events Pablo’s mother, her mother and young son, aged four, together with Pablo, were made homeless and were taken in to your home by you and your wife. However, as your counsel concedes, you also told police (at question 425) that you needed money at the time to pay off debts. As your counsel concedes “My client knew what he was doing and wanted to assist Pablo and his family, but was also clearly assisting himself”. That concession was clearly correct. For example you told police[3] that you derived “five or six thousand from the sum of $26,000 paid to you by Jimmy on 3 May 2001.
[3]At question 520.
Your arrest has brought you and your co-accused considerable notoriety. You have been concerned about the safety of your family and you have moved home on numerous occasions.
Concerns for your security continue. After your plea was heard your counsel, Mr Marin, contacted my Associate seeking to make additional submissions relating to your security. Last Friday and with the consent of the DPP, your solicitor provided to me a letter signed by Detective Senior Constable McCann which advises that you have been placed in protective custody in prison. That involves your being confined to your cell for a period of 23 hours per day which circumstance is likely to apply for a period of some indeterminate time into the future. I accept that your circumstances of imprisonment will bring greater hardship to bear upon you than might otherwise be the case and that that is a relevant matter in mitigation of sentence.
You are well‑regarded as a tiler and currently you are sub-contracted to three substantial building companies. Two building contracts were tendered before me on the occasion of your plea. In addition, written references from Alby Anfuso, Fernando Nieves and Stephen Minett were tendered before me. I have read those references and take the contents into account. You have, throughout your life, been active in sport, having played for Heidelberg City for a period of many years and having coached under nine soccer teams in your local area in recent times.
There has been very considerable delay in this matter coming on for hearing between May of 2001 and now. I accept that during the delay you have been in a state of uncertainty not knowing what your fate would be and trying to raise young children and keep your business extant whilst you waited for the matter to come to hearing.
You have been in no further trouble since this matter arose and I accept that your general reputation is one of good character. However, as well as matters personal to you such as the chances of your rehabilitation and special deterrence, I must, among other things, take into account the issue of general deterrence. This is particularly important in this case. You decided to engage in a series of transactions for personal financial gain. You were a wholesaler of drugs supplied to you by Carl Williams with a view to making substantial sums of money. You were not a drug addict selling drugs to fund that habit. You took the risk of selling drugs in circumstances where large profits were to have been made. It is indeed, as submitted by the learned prosecutor, a curious irony that you, with the first‑hand knowledge of the misery that drugs bring upon the community by reason of your observations of the effect that the drug habit of Pablo had upon both him and his family, nevertheless chose to engage in a vile trade. In all the circumstances, this is a serious offence and there is no alternative other than to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon you.
I turn to the personal matters relevant to you, Carl Williams. Your counsel, Mr Faris QC, submits that there are a number of matters which must be taken into account on your behalf. First, as I have already observed, you have pleaded guilty. I accept that the trial against you would have been complex and that the community has thus been saved the time, inconvenience and cost of such a trial by your plea. I take that matter into account in your favour.
Secondly, your counsel submits that although your plea in relation to this matter was entered only shortly before trial, the fact that you were being tried consecutively in relation to drug charges arising out of your arrest in 1999 should be taken into account. He submits that it is significant that in August this year a nolle prosequi was entered in relation to the 1999 matters and that you pleaded guilty to the matters now before me upon that notice being entered. He submits that your plea is not the “usual last minute door of the court plea” because it depended upon the prosecution’s position in relation to the other matters. I note that you did plead guilty to the presentment now before the Court upon the prosecution deciding not to proceed with the 1999 charges. However, and whilst I intend to discount your sentence by reason of your plea, that matter does not appear to me to be overwhelming in all the circumstances as a matter of mitigation or as an explanation for your relatively late decision to plead guilty.
Thirdly, Mr Faris relies upon the factor of mitigation by way of delay in the matter being brought to trial. Both the trial of the 1999 allegations and the trial of the matters now before me were listed for trial in the County Court of Victoria just over two years ago in September 2002. In July 2002, the DPP applied to adjourn those trials principally by reason of the investigation of police corruption. I accept that the issue of delay is mitigatory in all the circumstances and that for a period of approximately two years beyond the time at which one would ordinarily have expected these matters to be resolved you have had to live with the uncertainty that the prolonged delay has caused. I accept that that delay has been caused by factors outside your control.
Furthermore, Mr Faris submits that the period of imprisonment which you will serve will be served in conditions of hardship. A letter from the Commissioner of Corrections dated 28 September 2004 was tendered before me whereby the Commissioner stated that for the foreseeable future you are likely to be retained in the Acacia High Security Unit at Barwon Prison. I accept that the circumstances under which you will be held in the Acacia Unit are oppressive indeed and that those circumstances are unrelated to the matter which brings you for sentence before me. You are being held, and have in recent times been held, in maximum security which has significant consequences upon your freedom of movement. It does appear to me to be unlikely that for the foreseeable future you will proceed into the mainstream prison environment which would give you the opportunity to reduce your classification, engage in work and other activities. In this regard, two psychological reports, the first from Mr Jeffrey Cummins, dated 21 September 2004, and the second from forensic psychologist, Mr Ian Joblin, dated 22 September 2004 were tendered before me. Mr Cummins expressed the view that you were reporting symptoms indicative of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, the principal trigger for which would appear to be the circumstances of your incarceration in the Acacia Unit about which you are both obsessed and preoccupied. Mr Joblin expressed a similar opinion. He has reviewed the research in relation to confinement of prisoners in maximum security conditions and notes that you describe a psychological state “entirely consistent with that outlined in the material”. He has concluded that your psychological state may deteriorate under a continuation of the present conditions of detention.
A further matter raised by Mr Faris relates to pre-sentence detention. You were arrested on 25 November 1999 and bailed on 27 January 2000 in relation to the matters which have now been the subject of a nolle prosequi. Thus, you were held in custody for a period of two months on matters which will not now proceed. I am, as a matter of law, entitled to take that matter into account in a global sense together with all the other circumstances relevant to the sentence[4].
[4]R v Kotzmann [1999] 2 VR 123 at para 42.
In relation to the issue of parity, I conclude that your position in the hierarchy of supply was higher than that of Foletti but I am unable, on the evidence before me, to form any view as to your responsibility for the provision of the drugs other than that you supplied at short notice such drugs as Foletti required. Clearly you had access to substantial quantities of drugs which you were able to supply to him as required. Save for this matter, I am unable to determine any other significant distinction which establishes substantial difference between you and him in your responsibility for the crimes themselves.
The psychological reports tendered before me reveal something of your personal history and your circumstances. You are aged 34 years, having been born in Melbourne on 13 October 1970. You married your wife, Roberta, on 14 January 2001. You and Roberta Williams have a daughter who is aged approximately three and a half years. You were educated to Year 11 at Broadmeadows West Technical School. Thereafter you had a number of short term labouring jobs and in the late 1990s you and your wife established a children’s clothing shop which closed down in 1998. You have worked intermittently with your father in the building industry. You have admitted before me to a number of prior convictions. In May 1990 you were convicted of handling stolen goods and being in possession of goods suspected of being stolen, and failing to answer bail and were fined a total of $400 on those charges. You were placed on a community based order in March 1993 on the charge of criminal damage and throwing a missile to the danger of persons. Those convictions are of marginal, if any, relevance to the matters now before me. Of more significance however, is the fact that you were convicted at the County Court at Melbourne on 13 December 1994 of attempting to traffic amphetamine. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court you were sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 months, six months of such sentence to be suspended for two years.
In the course of your plea, your counsel raised the issue of the high profile you have attained by reason of the interest of the media in you. I note that you expressed concern to Mr Cummins about whether you will be sentenced fairly on the charges which are before the Court. It should be clear to you and to others that the task which is before me is to impose a sentence upon you for the two counts to which you have pleaded guilty before me and to nothing else. It is true, as Mr Faris submits, that you probably do have the highest media profile of any person before the courts in this State at this time. However, the matters which have been published and which have resulted in such a profile are totally irrelevant to the task before me which is to sentence you according to law on the material legitimately placed before me in this Court.
I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community’s denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment. I must take into account issues such as the chance of your rehabilitation and special deterrence. The fact that you have a prior conviction for matters related to drug trafficking is an issue not without importance in relation to the question of special deterrence. However, of greater significance in my view is the question of general deterrence. For that reason the courts have repeatedly stated that those who take the risk of trafficking in drugs for profit, should expect to receive severe punishment if they are apprehended. Furthermore, those like you who play for high stakes and are detected conducting the business of trafficking in drugs of addition for profit can expect condign punishment for their conduct. Likewise with your co‑accused, there is no alternative but to impose a sentence of imprisonment.
On Count 1, I sentence you, Carl Anthony Williams, to seven years’ imprisonment. On Count 2, I sentence you, Carl Anthony Williams, to one year imprisonment. I accept the submissions of your counsel, Mr Faris, that both Counts 1 and 2 are co‑related in that your conduct involved a Giretti-type trafficking in two types of drugs over a period of five weeks. Both drugs were supplied by you to Foletti. Both drugs were supplied by Foletti to an undercover agent and I accept the submission that the conduct related to the one business of dealing in drugs and that the sentences both in your case and in the case of Foletti should be concurrent. Accordingly, that makes a total effective sentence of seven years. I direct that you be imprisoned for a period of five years before you become eligible for parole and pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act I declare that in your case, Carl Williams, you have served 457 days in relation to this matter as pre-sentence detention and I direct that the same be noted in the records of the Court.
On Count 1, I sentence you, Walter Foletti, to five years and six months’ imprisonment. On Count 2, I sentence you, Walter Foletti, to one year imprisonment. As stated above, I accept the submissions made on your behalf that the sentences on both counts should be concurrent and thus the total effective sentence is five years and six months. I direct you serve four years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. I declare pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act that you have served 104 days pre-sentence detention in relation to these matters and I direct that the same be noted in the records of the Court.
Remove the prisoners.
0
0
0