R v Zolfonoon - [2015] NSWDC 296

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zolfonoon [2015] NSWDC 296
Date of orders: 11 December 2015
Decision date: 11 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:
I impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 29 August 2013 and expiring 28 August 2017 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 28 May 2024. That is a total effective sentence of 10 years and nine months and a total effective non parole period of four years.

Catchwords: Criminal law – sentence – supply large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kamran Zolfonoon (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Walker SC with Mr Djemal (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Elie Rahme & Associates

File Number(s): 2013/262965

Remarks on sentence

On 17 July 2014, the offender, Mr Kamran Zolfonoon, pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence in this court on two counts of supplying prohibited drugs in a large commercial quantity. The first count concerned the supply of slightly in excess of 3½ kilograms of heroin and the second count concerned the supply of just over 9 kilograms of methylamphetamine. The offender maintained his pleas in this court and appears today for sentence, following a sentence hearing which commenced on 5 June 2015 and was then adjourned for further hearing on 30 October 2015.
The offender asks that when I sentence him in relation to the second of those two counts that I take into account 3 additional offences of possession of prohibited drugs, which are contained on a Form 1. The offender has acknowledged his guilt to the matters on the Form 1 and I consider it appropriate to take them into account, and will do so, when sentencing him in relation to the relevant count.
In November 2011, NSW Police commenced investigations in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs by a number of people including the offender. That investigation was conducted under the name Strike Force Taipan. The Police had 2 registered informers (one male and female) who agreed to provide information and assistance in those investigations. Those informers acted at the direction and upon the instruction of Police.
The male informer arranged to meet the offender on 16 November 2011 and on that day he introduced the female informer to the offender. The male informer told the offender that he and the female informer had been with lawyers all day and that they were under financial pressure on account of exorbitant legal fees. The male informer sought the assistance of the offender to source drugs for the female informer so that she could alleviate her financial difficulties through drug dealing. In the ensuing period, to February 2012, the female informer had numerous contacts with the offender, both by phone and in person. The offender made it clear to the female informer that he did not have the financial capacity to purchase the drugs sought by the female informer and that he did not have much control over the amounts of particular drugs that he could access for the female informer.
On 24 November 2011, the female informer introduced the offender to an undercover police officer (UCO). During this meeting the offender and the UCO discussed the offender’s capacity to supply prohibited drugs. The offender indicated that he had access to large quantities of prohibited drugs including heroin and methylamphetamine. The UCO requested that the offender obtain samples of these drugs so she could assess their quality prior to purchasing larger quantities. Immediately after this meeting the offender contacted a cooffender Hendawi and asked if they could meet and if Hendawi could provide drug samples. Hendawi was unable to comply. The offender met with the UCO and the female informer on 4 occasions over the following weeks and explained delays that were hindering his ability to supply the samples as arranged. Notwithstanding representations about his capacity to access prohibited drugs, including in large quantities, the offender evidently had considerable trouble obtaining access even to samples to provide the UCO.
On 4 January 2012 the female informer met the offender in person. During this meeting the offender and the female informer discussed the price of drugs and the offender stated that there was 3.5 kg heroin available that he could put on hold, but he was unsure of its quality. The female informer urged the offender to try and source suppliers that could provide drugs on an ongoing basis. The offender indicated that he could not guarantee that he could fulfil that request.
On 6 January 2012 the UCO and the female source met with the offender and the offender supplied the UCO 28.35 grams of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 80%), at a cost of $8,500 and 19.83 grams of heroin (with a purity of 47.5%), at a cost of $5,000, a total cost of $13,500.00. This supply took place in a car park underneath the offender’s place of work. The offender told the UCO that he could supply kilogram quantities of methylamphetamine for $220,000 and of heroin for $150,000.
Surveillance disclosed that the offender’s source for the drugs supplied at this meeting was Hendawi and the offender paid Hendawi for the drugs after the supply had taken place.
On 10 January 2012 the female informer placed an order with the offender for one kilogram of heroin, to be purchased by the UCO. Following this conversation the offender met with Hendawi. During that meeting the offender contacted the UCO and indicated that the heroin could be supplied on 17 January.
On 17 January, Hendawi met with another co-accused, Dashti, from whom he obtained a kilogram of heroin. Hendawi then met with the offender and passed the heroin to him. The offender then met with the UCO at a café across the road from the martial arts training facility which he ran at Rozelle, the Wu Shu Academy. The offender and the UCO then went across to the Academy, where the offender supplied the UCO with what was purportedly 1 kilogram of heroin in exchange for $150,000 in controlled monies. Subsequent analysis revealed that the heroin supplied weighed 993 grams (with a purity of 46%).
The offender subsequently met with Hendawi who, in turn, subsequently met with Dashti, all presumably to pass the proceeds of the supply back up the line.
On 1 February 2012 the female informer met the offender and placed an order for a further half kilogram of heroin to be purchased on 6 or 8 February 2012. The offender indicated a desire to supply two and a half kilograms. The female informer indicated that the UCO needed to purchase the half kilogram prior to purchasing the further two kilograms.
Following this meeting the offender placed an order with Hendawi for half a kilogram of heroin.
Hendawi then placed an order with Dashti for that quantity of heroin to be supplied on 6 February, with the possibility of a further two kilograms being supplied on 9 February.
On 6 February, Hendawi obtained the half kilogram of heroin from Dashti and then on-supplied it to the offender at the Wu Shu Academy. The offender then met with the UCO and exchanged the heroin, later analysed to weigh 496 g (with a purity of 31%), for $75,000.
On 8 February 2012 the female informer contacted the offender and placed an order for the remaining 2 kilograms of heroin. The offender then placed the order with Hendawi, who himself subsequently placed an order with Dashti. On 9 February 2012, the offender made arrangements with Hendawi and the UCO in anticipation of the supply later that day. That supply was eventually frustrated by the intervention of police, who arrested Dashti at a storage facility in Artarmon where he stored prohibited drugs. Hendawi’s numerous attempts to contact Dashti that day to arrange the supply of the heroin for on-supply to the offender were fruitless as Dashti was in police custody.
On 24 June 2012 the UCO met with the offender. This meeting was scheduled after the offender had indicated to the female informer, during two meetings she had with him in May 2012, that he currently had access to multiple kilograms of methylamphetamine. At this meeting the offender supplied the UCO with small amount of white crystal substance, as a sample of the available methylamphetamine, and discussed supplying large quantities of the drug. He told the female informer he was leaving to go overseas with family but would be able to return if needed to participate in the supply of drugs. Subsequent analysis indicated that there was 0.48 grams of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 76%) in the sample supplied by the offender to the UCO.
On 25 June 2012 the offender left the country for an extended period of time, returning to Australia on 2 September 2012.
Between September 2012 and May 2013 there were 9 meetings between the male informer and the offender.
On 24 May 2013, the male informer met with the offender at Rozelle. The male informer was provided with a sample of heroin by the offender who stated that he currently had access to between 4 and 10 kilograms of the drug. The male informer indicated that he would make enquiries about the heroin and let the offender know. Subsequent analysis indicated that the sample provided to the male informer by the offender was 0.44 grams of heroin (with a purity of 28.5%).
On 30 May 2013, the male informer again met with the offender in Rozelle. The male informer was provided with a sample of methylamphetamine by the offender who stated he had access to 10 - 15 kilograms of that drug and a quantity of heroin. The offender stated that these drugs were being provided by an associate in Bexley and that the price of the methylamphetamine was $215,000 per kilogram. Subsequent analysis indicated that the sample provided to the male informer by the offender was 0.23 grams of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 74%).
As a result of lawfully intercepted conversations and the two samples supplied to the male informer investigators apprehended that the offender had access to suppliers who could obtain large amounts of prohibited drugs, including heroin and methylamphetamine. Consequently further investigations were commenced into the offender’s activities in an attempt to identify other individuals involved in the supply of prohibited drugs. As a result, investigators identified a co-offender Haissan Saleh (Saleh) as a current up line supplier to the offender.
On July 10 2013, the male and female informer introduced a further undercover police officer (whom I will refer to as UCO 2) to the offender as someone wishing to purchase methylamphetamine. During this meeting the offender indicated that the price of a kilogram of methylamphetamine had increased to $235,000. During this meeting UCO 2 indicated a desire to purchase a kilogram 'sample' of methylamphetamine prior to purchasing multiple kilograms on an ongoing basis. The offender stated that this would not be a problem. Tentative arrangements were made for the offender to supply UCO 2 with the kilogram 'sample' on Friday 19 July 2013.
On 17 July 2013 the female informer met with the offender and they spoke about the possibility of again obtaining heroin for the UCO who had been involved in the heroin supplies in 2012.
The proposed supply of methylamphetamine to UCO 2, originally arranged for 19 July was postponed to 22 July, apparently on account of Saleh being unable to obtain the kilogram sample in sufficient time.
Between 19 July and 22 July 2013 the offender made repeated attempts to source the methylamphetamine sought by UCO 2. He had a number of intercepted conversations concerning a meeting with Saleh on 22 July 2013. It became apparent on 22 July that Saleh had again been unable to source the kilogram of methylamphetamine for the offender to provide to UCO 2. During this same period Saleh was having coded conversations with another co-accused, whom I will simply refer to as AB, enquiring how AB was progressing in obtaining an unidentified item. It became apparent in the afternoon of 22 July that AB was unable to source a promised kilogram of methylamphetamine, indicating it would be at least another day.
On the afternoon of 22 July 2013, in a telephone call with the offender, Saleh indicated that he needed to see the offender in person to show him something. About 3:30pm police observed Saleh and the offender meet on the Pacific Highway, at Artarmon. After approximately 15 minutes of conversation, Saleh and the offender approached Saleh's vehicle where another co-accused, Hijazi, was seated. Hijazi then joined the conversation with the other two.
At about 4:46pm UCO 2 met with the offender at the Wu Shu Academy. The offender told UCO 2 that he had been unable to source the kilogram of methylamphetamine earlier promised. Whilst still in the presence of UCO 2, the offender contacted Saleh by phone. After this call, the offender requested more time and told UCO 2 he was attempting to source the drugs from someone else who he simply identified as a female friend of a friend.
At 4:42 pm another co-accused, Negash, met with Saleh and Hijazi. Negash is the female friend the offender had referred to following his conversation with Saleh. At about 5:05pm Saleh and Hijazi left the meeting in Saleh’s vehicle, with Negash following them in her vehicle.
At 5:05pm Saleh contacted the offender and indicated that he was 10 to 15 minutes away. About 5:38pm Saleh, Hijazi and Negash arrived at Rozelle. Saleh was seen obtaining parking tickets from a nearby meter before speaking with Negash. A short time later Saleh entered the Wu Shu Academy. At 5:52pm the offender contacted UCO 2 and asked him to come to the Wu Shu Academy.
At 6:05pm UCO 2 met with the offender at the Wu Shu Academy. The offender handed UCO 2 a parking ticket that contained a small amount of white crystal substance. This parking ticket was from the location where Saleh had been seen obtaining a parking ticket on his arrival at Rozelle. The offender indicated to UCO 2 that this was a sample of methylamphetamine and an associate had 100 grams nearby to purchase if UCO 2 was interested. UCO 2 indicated that he was interested. The offender then contacted Saleh by phone and told Saleh to “tell her it's okay” and to “just bring it”.
About 6:09pm on 22 July, Saleh and Hijazi got out of Saleh’s vehicle. Hijazi walked to a nearby Thai restaurant where Negash was waiting with a small child, believed to be her daughter. Hijazi then went to Negash’s vehicle and using a key opened the front passenger door. Saleh leant into the vehicle before turning and walking away with a small dark package in his hand. Saleh walked to the Wu Shu Academy where he met with the offender and UCO 2. Saleh handed UCO 2 a black sock containing methylamphetamine. An agreement was reached for UCO 2 to pay $21,000 for these drugs, which were subsequently analysed to be 97.1 grams of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 85.5%). The drugs earlier supplied in the parking ticket weighed 0.21 grams, making a total supply that day of 97.31 grams of methylamphetamine.
On 29 July 2013 the female informer met with the offender to enquire whether heroin supplied to the male informer on 24 May 2013, and said to be available for $60,000 a kilogram, was still available. The offender indicated that the $60,000 per kilogram heroin was no longer available, however he had a new up line supplier with kilograms available for between $210,000 and $220,000 per kilogram. The offender supplied the female informer with a small piece of paper containing a sample, which was analysed to contain 0.4 grams of heroin (with 4.5% purity).
Also on 29 July 2013, UCO 2 and the offender had a telephone conversation in which the offender enquired when UCO 2 would be available to purchase the one kilogram of methylamphetamine previously sought by him. UCO 2 informed the offender that it would most likely be on Monday 5 or Tuesday 6 August 2013.
Intercepted communications revealed subsequent arrangements between the offender and Saleh, and then between Saleh and AB, concerning the possibility of supply of a kilogram of methylamphetamine on 5 or 6 August.
The offender met with Saleh, AB and a man named Kocak on the afternoon of 4 August 2013 at Rozelle. Kocak is described in the statement of facts as a fully patched member of the Eastlakes Chapter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. Later that day, the offender and Saleh spoke on the telephone and discussed how the others were after the meeting. The offender queried specifically how "the guy" was and whether he was happy. Saleh indicated that both men appeared happy with what was discussed at the meeting.
At about noon on 6 August 2013, AB and Kocak met at an address in Greenacre. About half an hour later Saleh, who was in the company of the offender, had a phone conversation with AB in Arabic, in which Saleh informed AB that “it had worked out” and to wait for Saleh to call him.
A few minutes later, AB and Kocak left the Greenacre address with another man named Restom, but police surveillance lost sight of the vehicle after a short period of time.
Shortly before 1pm, UCO 2 met with the offender at Mascot, in accordance with an earlier arrangement. Saleh was also at that location, but remained in his vehicle whilst the offender spoke with UCO 2. The offender told UCO 2 that they had to travel to Greenacre to obtain the kilogram of methylamphetamine. The offender instructed UCO 2 to follow Saleh’s car, which was the vehicle in which the offender would be travelling. In the course of the journey to Greenacre, Saleh, in the presence of the offender, phoned AB twice and told him that they were on their way and to get ready. He called a third time, at about 1:14 pm to tell AB that they were about a minute away. Very soon after that call Saleh and the offender arrived at the Greenacre address with UCO 2 following behind them. Saleh left his vehicle and went into the house. The offender got out of Saleh’s car and spoke to UCO 2. UCO 2 told the offender that he was not prepared to go inside the premises and asked the offender to bring the kilogram of methylamphetamine to his car for the exchange to take place. The offender went into the house and emerged again a short time later carrying a purple bag which contained the drugs and which UCO 2 exchanged for $235,000 in controlled monies. Subsequent analysis indicated that what UCO2 purchased was 999.6 grams of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 59%).
After a short discussion with UCO2 regarding prices for future multi-kilogram purchases of methylamphetamine, the offender went back into the house carrying the pre recorded 'buy' money in a large brown paper bag and UCO 2 drove away.
The whole transaction had been overseen by Kocak who had been sitting in a car nearby. Three minutes after the offender entered the Greenacre house with the money, AB left the house carrying a bag identical in appearance to the brown paper bag supplied by UCO 2 to the offender that contained the controlled money. AB got into his car and drove to another address in a different part of Greenacre. He was followed back to that address by Kocak and both of them went inside the second house.
Whilst the exchange was taking place in his car at Greenacre on 6 August, UCO 2 placed an order with the offender for multiple kilograms of methylamphetamine, specifically 8 - 10 kg. The offender attempted to organise that supply via AB by contacting Saleh. The offender and UCO 2 also subsequently had several phone conversations about this proposed drug supply.
The offender thereafter met twice with AB, Saleh and Kocak. The first meeting was a few days after the 6 August supply. On that occasion Saleh and AB drove Kocak to meet with the offender in Rozelle. The second meeting was in the afternoon of 13 August 2013, also at Rozelle, in a coffee shop near the Wu Shu Academy. In the course of that meeting the offender and Kocak left the others and walked and talked for about 15 minutes before returning to the café to re-join Saleh and AB.

At around 7 pm that night, the offender and UCO 2 spoke by phone about the potential for more drug supplies.
On 18 August 2013, AB left the country. Thereafter the syndicate involving Kocak was no longer accessible to the offender, as he had no means of contacting Kocak directly.
Surveillance revealed that the offender then began making enquiries elsewhere, including through Saleh, trying to locate an alternative source of multiple kilograms of methylamphetamine to sell to UCO 2.
On 26 August 2013, the offender met with UCO 2 and another undercover officer, UCO 3. UCO 2 enquired about the progress of the multiple kilogram order of methylamphetamine he had placed with the offender. The offender indicated that he had located a source of 'ice' different from the source of the previous kilogram. At this meeting the offender supplied UCO 2 a small amount of 'ice' for UCO 2 to sample. Analysis indicated that this sample was 0.31 grams of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 79.5%).
Around 9pm on 27 August 2013, the offender met with Saleh and another co-offender, Kassim Saleh, who is Saleh’s nephew, at the nephew’s house at Padstow. At that meeting the offender was introduced by Saleh to the co-offender Wilson. Enquiries by Saleh and his nephew, had identified Wilson as a prospective alternative source of multiple kilograms of methylamphetamine.
Following this meeting the offender spoke to both UCO 2 and to Saleh concerning the pending drug supply.
Sometime on or about 28 August 2013, Wilson provided the offender with a Nokia mobile phone, similar to one possessed by Wilson. It is not known exactly when or how Wilson obtained the phones or provided one to the offender, but it must have been prior to the evening of 28 August 2013 when the first communication was made. The call charge records for the two phones show that the phone used by the offender was only used to make calls and send text messages to the other phone used by Wilson and was not used to communicate with any other phone. Wilson's phone was used only to contact the offender, with the exception of one call to a taxi driver who drove Wilson to a meeting with the offender on 29 August.
On Thursday 29 August 2013, UCO 2 and the offender met at a warehouse at Kingsgrove to facilitate the supply of 8 kilograms of methylamphetamine to UCO 2 for an agreed price of $1.8 Million dollars.
Wilson subsequently arrived at the warehouse by taxi and met with the offender and UCO 2. In the course of that meeting UCO 2 and Wilson counted the $1.8 million dollars. Once this had been done, Wilson left the warehouse in the taxi and returned in a white Ford he had left parked at Beverley Hills. When he returned to the warehouse at Kingsgrove, Wilson opened the boot of the Ford and removed an orange bucket, which contained the 8 kg of methylamphetamine. Wilson exchanged the drugs for the agreed price of $1.8 million dollars, from which the offender removed $240,000, being his cut from the transaction. Wilson walked out of the warehouse, placed a bag containing the remaining $1.56 million on the back seat of the Ford he had arrived in and attempted to drive away. He was stopped by police and arrested. The offender attempted to hide in the warehouse but was eventually arrested. In the course of his arrest he sustained several bites from a police dog.
Analysis revealed that the orange bucket supplied by Wilson contained 7.977 kilograms of methylamphetamine (with a purity of 68%).
Following the offender’s arrest, search warrants were executed at the Wu Shu Academy. Police gained access to a secured room that led to a small recess located in the roof. In this recess police found small amounts of heroin, opium and methylamphetamine (these substances are the subject of the three offences of possession on the Form 1). Police also found paraphernalia used to ingest drugs.
There is no evidence of any specific large quantity supplies of prohibited drug by the offender to anyone other than undercover officers during the whole period of Strike Force Taipan. Police never located or seized any of the usual indicia of supply such as scales or ledgers and the like.
The seriousness of the charged offences is self evident from the maximum penalty which Parliament has prescribed of life imprisonment and the applicable standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment.
The Crown submitted that the present offending falls well above the mid-range of objective seriousness for offences of this kind, having regard to the frequency of offending and the weight and the purity of the drugs involved.
Without any criticism intended, I should say immediately that whilst I consider the offending serious, I regard that submission as particularly ambitious when one considers the panoply of cases which come before this Court involving the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of drugs. There are numerous matters that must be taken into account in assessing the objective gravity of offending of this kind. I accept that minds might reasonably differ on the weight that should be attributed to those matters, both individually and collectively. However, in my assessment, an appropriate balance of the various applicable considerations, which I will outline shortly, justifies a conclusion that the present offending falls below the mid-range of conduct that might be caught by the offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of drugs. There are considerations which realistically pull in opposite directions when considering the objective gravity of the offending.
The offending occurred over an extended period of time, relevantly commencing on 6 January 2012 and ceasing upon arrest on 29 August 2013.
The amounts involved in each case are not insignificant. In the case of the charge relating to heroin supply, 3.5 kgs (including the agreement to supply 2 kg never in fact supplied) and in the case of the charge concerning methylamphetamine, just over 9 kgs.
The offending was constituted, in the case of the heroin charge, by 6 discrete transactions, although three of them were relatively small amounts, provided by way of sample. These samples were provided in pursuit either of the two larger principal transactions that were completed, or transactions in prospect that never occurred. One of the transactions comprised a proposed supply of 2kg, which was never consummated. The two larger supplies of heroin that actually took place involved the supply of just less than 1 kg on 17 January 2012 and just less than half a kilogram on 6 February 2012. The purity in each of those cases was only 46% and 31% respectively. Not high by any means, particularly for wholesale supply.
In the case of all these supplies, the offender was one of several middlemen between the ultimate source of the drugs and the UCO purchasing from the offender. He was not part of an organised group. Rather, he appears to have been acting on his own account, employing connections he had, at least to the person immediately up line from himself in the chain of supply.
In relation to the methyl amphetamine supply charge, there were 7 discrete transactions, 5 of which involved the provision of relatively small samples intended to facilitate larger supplies, which either occurred or were at the relevant time in prospect. The two principal supplies of methylamphetamine involved supply of just less than 1 kg on 6 August 2013 and slightly less than 8 kg on 29 August 2013. The purity of the drugs supplied in the two principal transactions was 59% and 68% respectively. Again, not remarkably high for a wholesale transaction. For example, they are in marked contrast to the purity of the tiny amount, 0.31 g, supplied on 26 August by way of purported sample for the final transaction, the purity of which was analysed to be 79.5%.
In respect of all the methylamphetamine supplies, with the exception of the final, largest, transaction, the offender appears also to have been content to be one of several middlemen in the chain of supply. Again, he does not appear to have operated as part of an organised hierarchy, but rather to have employed his connections to identify sources of the drugs to be supplied to the UCOs. This attitude apparently changed following the 6 August supply. I will turn to consider this shortly.
I agree with the Crown submission that the offender was a willing and enthusiastic participant in the transactions. I accept that one motivation was, at least in part, to assist the male and female informers in their expressed desire to try and raise funds on the ostensible basis that they needed money to pay lawyers for various criminal and family law matters in which they were, or were purportedly, embroiled. However, at least in respect of the two principal methylamphetamine supplies, the evidence points strongly to the primary motivation of the offender being personal financial gain.
It is impossible to conclusively determine how much the offender benefitted from any of the supplies up to and including the 6 August 2013 methylamphetamine supply, however it is apparent that his financial reward in the final transaction was intended to be $240,000. This equates to $30,000 per kilogram and gives considerable force to the Crown submission that the offender’s reward for the 6 August supply was likely $30,000, having regard to the amounts purportedly received by others involved. Whether it was that amount, or less, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his reward for that transaction too was substantial and that it was financial reward more than anything that motivated him in respect of the final two large transactions. On his own account, as captured in the intercept material, the offender was suffering a degree of financial stress throughout the relevant period. This is corroborated by other evidence tendered on behalf of the offender on sentence. The evidence suggests that this financial stress was likely a consequence of a combination of limited success in his legitimate commercial endeavours and possibly maintaining a lifestyle beyond the capacity of his legitimate endeavours to support.
The circumstances of the discrete supplies (by which I include also the agreement to supply the 2 kg of heroin) do not admit of a simplistic attribution to the offender of a particular role in the hierarchy of a broader criminal enterprise. The evidence suggests that he was, in each of the supplies, acting on his own account. However, not one of the supplies could have been ultimately affected without the intervention of others known to the offender who enjoyed immediate access to the ultimate source of the drugs; access that the offender did not himself have.
The intercept material contains numerous instances of the offender representing that he has access to immediate sources of supply, including in large and consistent quantities. However the events which happened point very strongly to the probability that the offender was talking up the extent of his connections and involvement. Repeatedly throughout the chronology, from beginning to end, his confident assurances to the informers and the UCOs that he could obtain samples of drugs, or obtain supplies in large quantities, were frustrated by his own lack of immediate connection to ultimate sources of the drugs. This necessitated much scrambling around on his part, engaging others that he knew, like Hendawi and Saleh in particular, to try and identify sources of drugs that he could supply to the male or female informer or their undercover colleagues.
It appears that the offender was a drug user himself. The nature and extent of that drug use is something I will consider separately in the context of the subjective case put by the offender. However, for present purposes I am satisfied that the offender was at least a user of drugs and, as a consequence, he had connections which he was able to call in aid in locating the ultimate sources of supply of drugs in the gradually escalating quantities sought by those involved in the controlled operations.
Without those middlemen to call upon, it seems to me that the offender’s desire to fulfil the requests of the undercover operatives would in each of the discrete transactions have been entirely fruitless. The offender was not situated in a hierarchy of organised supply acting for or at the behest of the ultimate suppliers. It seems to me that the requests for supply by the male and female informers, and the UCOs that they introduced to the offender, provided the offender with an opportunity, which he willingly accepted, to benefit financially by insinuating himself into the chain of supply between them and the ultimate sources of supply to which his intermediary connections gave him indirect access.
It appears that the offender’s desire to bring himself closer to the sources of ultimate supply escalated towards the end of the sequence of transactions that constitute the two offences. I am satisfied that after the first large methylamphetamine transaction the offender appears to have attempted to move closer to the ultimate source of supply. This seems a reasonable conclusion from the discussion the offender had with Kocak, to the exclusion of Saleh and AB, on 13 August 2013. In the end, however, AB’s departure overseas frustrated any opportunity for the offender to get closer to Kocak because without AB the offender had no means of contact with Kocak.
Even for the purposes of locating a source for the final methylamphetamine transaction the offender was entirely dependent upon the resources or connections of Saleh to identify Wilson. Only once Wilson had been introduced to the offender did the two of them cut Saleh and his nephew out of the transaction, so bringing the offender into direct association with the ultimate source of that supply.
This final transaction seems to me to represent a substantial escalation in objective criminality over the earlier transactions. Not only is the quantity of drugs increased by a significant amount, indeed it is the only single transaction which exceeds the threshold for a large commercial quantity, and it does so by a significant factor. The total financial reward to the offender is also increased by a significant amount in this transaction. In addition, positioning himself next in line to the ultimate source significantly elevates his role. This re-positioning was no doubt designed to secure a substantial increase in his own reward, and possibly also to decrease the risk of detection, by removing intermediate steps in the chain of supply.
In all the earlier transactions, that is all the heroin transactions and the smaller methylamphetamine transactions leading up to and including the 6 August 2013 supply, it appears to me that the offender was prepared simply to be last in a chain of middlemen between the ultimate source and buyer and to take whatever cut of the proceeds was afforded him in that connection. As I have said it is impossible to ascertain quite what those returns might have been, with the possible exception of the 6 August transaction, if one can reasonably rely on the amounts it is asserted were made from the transaction by others associated with it.
There is nothing which permits a conclusion that his reward for any of the earlier transactions approached the return which he appears likely to have derived from the 6 August transaction or that which he certainly would have derived from the 29 August transaction, but for the intervention of the police.
Other aspects of the final transaction also suggest an escalation in the objective criminality. The last transaction involved a degree of sophistication and organisation that seems to have been much less a feature of the earlier transactions. This is evident in particular in the use of the mobile phones used by Wilson and the offender solely to communicate with one another in respect of the transaction. That is not to say that no attempt was made to employ techniques designed to minimise detection in relation to the earlier transactions, however the methods apparently adopted in those earlier transactions appear to have been far more ad hoc and to have depended much more on the dictates of those further up the chain of supply than the offender. Even in the final transaction, the greater organisation and sophistication seems primarily to have been achieved at the instigation of Wilson. It was him that provided the mobile phone to the offender and he was, as I found when sentencing him, associated with a well organised and sophisticated group.
I do not accept the Crown submission that the objective gravity of the present offending far exceeded that of Wilson. In terms of the final transaction, which is the only one in which Wilson was relevantly involved, my assessment is that the objective criminality of the offender was less than that of Wilson’s. A number of matters seem to me to put the objective gravity of Wilson’s offending above that of the offender. First, is the fact of Wilson’s involvement in an apparently sophisticated organised criminal group. Second, the fact that it was Wilson who seemed primarily to dictate the manner of, and to make the arrangements for, the exchange. Third, the fact that Wilson engaged in other deliberate conduct to avoid detection, such as the use of separate vehicles for his initial attendance at the meeting and the subsequent delivery of the drugs. Fourth, the fact that the financial return to Wilson, or the group with which he was associated, appears, consistently with their up-line status, to have been considerably greater than the financial benefit to the offender.
There is a degree of artificiality in attempting a comparison once other transactions are involved, however it seems to me that it is only if one takes into account the additional, smaller, supplies that make up the methylamphetamine supply charge in the present case, that one can sensibly say that the objective criminality in respect of that charge even approximates the criminality of Wilson in relation to the principal transaction involving the supply of nearly 8 kilograms.
All that I have earlier outlined hopefully makes clear that there was frequently an incapacity on the part of the offender to make good his optimistic representations about the extent of his connections and his ability to supply. He was a willing participant, to be sure, but as was submitted on his behalf he was not the man, or even a man, relevantly in control of each of the transactions. He was in every case a petitioner to others who had greater control or better connections than him, and his petitioning was not always successful.
The objective criminality in respect of the heroin supply charge, whilst undoubtedly serious, is in my assessment considerably less than the gravity of the methylamphetamine supply count.
It seems to me that there must be borne in mind in the offender’s favour a number of matters which, at least to a limited extent, mitigate the objective gravity that is otherwise indicated by some of the considerations I have already outlined.
First, the offending proceeded wholly in the course of operations initiated and directed by the authorities. This provides some limited explanation for the offending, particularly the offending up to and including 6 August 2013 at least, in that I have accepted that in addition to financial gain, the offender was in part motivated by a sense of loyalty or obligation to the male and female informer, or at least a desire to assist each of them in their respective asserted financial predicament.
Second, consequential upon that first matter, none of the product supplied made its way into the community. Accordingly, the sort of danger and harm to which the offending might otherwise have given rise was necessarily excluded, albeit, as Senior Counsel for the offender put it, no thanks to the offender.

Third, the offending was promoted and encouraged by the authorities well beyond the point when the police might have intervened and arrested the offender. The conduct in a sense occurs in two distinct periods. That in 2012 and that in 2013, sometime after the offender had returned to Australia from an overseas trip. The resumption of activity in 2013 seems to have been initiated by the employment of a similar tactic as was initially used, of importuning the offender to assist in helping the informer with financial difficulties. The police made an operational decision not to intervene in 2012. It seems that they did so primarily, but perhaps not solely, on account of the fact that the male informer was involved in other ongoing operations, unconnected with the offender, which presumably might have been compromised had intervention in this case occurred earlier in time.
There was tendered on sentence, on the accused’s behalf, a report dated 8 October 2014 prepared by a psychiatrist, Dr Olav Nielssen. There was also a supplementary report by the same doctor, dated 30 May 2015. There were also tendered numerous references, in excess of 15, including some from various family members, and a handwritten letter from the offender. There was also tendered a case note report from the Department of Corrective Services.
It is from a combination of all that material that I have taken what follows concerning the offender’s subjective circumstances.
The offender was born in Iran on 4 October 1968. He is currently 47 years of age. He was the third of four brothers born to his parents, and he also has an older half-brother and half-sister from a previous relationship of his mother. His father was an engineering contractor from a well known family who provided technical services to hospitals prior to the Iranian revolution.
The offender had a happy early life in comfortable circumstances, and lived on the grounds of a large hospital in Tehran. The offender was told he walked and talked at the same time as his siblings and started school at the same time as everyone else, and reported that "I was good in school ... we had a good life ... my father was famous ... but we lost everything with the revolution and the war with Iraq". At the time of the revolution he was aged ten. The family left Iran at the time of the Iran-Iraq war in 1983, and came to Australia as his older half-brother had already settled here and had started a carpet business. The offender said that the family had to leave Iran in hurry and that his father was unable to work after arriving in Australia.
After arriving in Australia, the offender attended an English language school, and then completed years eleven and twelve at Dover Heights High School, in the same years as his two older brothers. He completed high school without any learning or conduct problems. He commenced a degree in electrical engineering at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and did well in the first year. Around this time, he travelled regularly to China to study martial arts and traditional medicine, and was able to speak the Chinese dialect of the region in which he studied and was also able to read some Chinese characters.
The offender has been with his partner, now his wife for twenty-five years. They married in 2000, after ten years together, and have one daughter, now aged eleven. His wife, who owns and runs a retail business with her mother, continues to support the offender notwithstanding his present circumstances.
The material in the psychiatrist’s reports, save to the extent they record benign historical matters, carries limited weight in my view where the offender chose not to give evidence.
Many of the referees have known the offender for years, some for much less time. The observations of all of them however, made in a variety of contexts, describe a man with exceptional qualities. He is widely regarded as mature, caring, loyal, creative, disciplined, highly skilled, hardworking and intelligent. He has deep roots in the Persian community in Sydney. He has devoted considerable time and effort to the needs of others, both within that community and more generally through his martial arts academy. Before his arrest he had owned and operated the Wu Shu Academy for many years in Rozelle. He is apparently among the highest ranking martial arts experts in Sydney, according to one referee. In addition to running the academy, the offender worked as a manager in his brother’s Persian Carpet business at Chatswood.
To all the referees, these offences represent an uncharacteristic aberration on the part of the offender. To some of his referees the offender apparently explained his offending as having its genesis in financial problems arising from gambling. To other referees, particularly but not exclusively his family, the offender has sought to explain his offending by reference to an opium addiction. To the psychiatrist, the offender at first attributed the offending to trying to do the right thing by someone he had met (presumably the male informer), by introducing him to others. In an apparent attempt to distance himself from the offending, or to minimise his involvement, he is recorded by the psychiatrist as saying “I thought I would be introducing someone but it was organised in a way that I would be in the middle of it”. Later he also made reference to poor decision making attributable to the extent of his opium use.
I accept that the offender used opium and other drugs, at least socially. I also have no difficulty accepting that it was as a consequence of that drug use that he made the various connections, like Saleh, that he employed in his efforts to locate sources of drugs to fill the orders placed by the male and female informants and the UCOs. Without some concrete independent support beyond the offender’s own out of court assertions, I do not accept that he was suffering from an opium addiction. A conclusion to that effect seems at odds with his wife’s observations of him. At odds with the description of someone who worked as much as the offender apparently did and who also was active to the extent of regularly playing golf. At odds with the fact that he needed no treatment once in custody and separated from any access to the drug.
It will already be apparent that I accept that at least part of the offender’s motivation was a desire to help out the male and female informer. However, it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable that a significant motivation was a desire for financial reward. This is consistent with the financial stress that the offender was subject to, which appears to have its genesis in a failed business venture with one of his brothers. Aside from some of the referees making reference to this financial stress, the offender’s wife gave evidence consistent with that conclusion and the offender himself, on some of the intercept material, makes reference to financial difficulties.
The offender maintains in the letter to the Court that what he did was not done for greed. Maintenance of that view might be regarded as demonstrating a lack of candour, or at least a lack of insight, either of which might not augur especially well for prospects of rehabilitation.
However, as humans, we tend to have a powerful capacity to rationalise our motives for particular conduct. Having regard to what I consider are substantial indicators in favour of the offender having excellent prospects of rehabilitation, and being unlikely in my instinctive assessment ever to engage again in offending of this character, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt so far as his own assessment of what motivated him is concerned.
There are numerous matters which it seems to me found a conclusion that the offender has excellent prospects of rehabilitation.
First is the depth and strength of support he clearly continues to enjoy, notwithstanding the offending, in particular from his wife and immediate family, but also within the broader community, including among the Persian community and among people who he has trained or otherwise assisted through his martial arts academy. Relatedly, the offender is at an age and stage in his life, and his daughter is at an age and stage in her life, such that the desire to reconnect positively with his daughter will in my assessment be a powerful factor militating against the offender ever again re-offending. He has already deprived himself and his daughter of the experience of his substantial participation in significant years of her development. I apprehend he is well motivated to make appropriate amends for that deprivation.
Second, he has a history of consistent employment and seems universally to be considered by his numerous referees as diligent and hardworking.
Third, the corrective services records show that his conduct in prison has been exemplary. The relevant records are eloquent in their corroboration of much of what the referees observed concerning the positive personal qualities of the offender. It is not simply that the offender has been well behaved in custody, he has in fact made a positive contribution to the life of other prisoners and the conduct of the facilities in which he has been housed. Numerous corrective services case notes attest to the offender demonstrating an outstanding work ethic, being productive and pro-active in the tasks he is assigned. In addition, he is described as polite and respectful to both staff and inmates. One of the jobs he has taken on in prison is providing haircuts to inmates, including inmates in the mental health unit. Case notes expressly reveal that he conducts himself in a professional manner, has good rapport with the inmates, displaying particular patience with inmates presenting with challenging behaviours, treating them with dignity and making a positive contribution to building their self-esteem. The matters revealed in the Corrective Services case notes not only seem to me to provide support for the conclusion as to excellent prospects for rehabilitation, they indicate that there has already been significant progress towards rehabilitation.
Fourth, the time already spent in prison appears to have had a salutary effect upon the offender. My assessment is that he has been well motivated by the experience to ensure that he never again finds himself in that position. It has been stressful for him in some respects, not least among them feeling isolated being among very few openly Shia muslims in an environment where there are reputedly a lot of ISIS supporters among the Sunni muslim population. Among other matters, the offender appears to have been genuinely effected by the significant dislocation and suffering his incarceration has caused for his wife and young daughter. I accept that he has a genuine determination to ensure that they never again have to experience the pain and dislocation which his offending has caused them.
Fifth, beyond one driving related offence, the offender has no prior convictions.
Before returning to the list of matters supporting my conclusions as to prospects of rehabilitation, I should as an aside deal with a matter raised in the course of the sentence hearing. The Crown tendered material described as a summary of brief material referred to in the footnotes of the Crown Statement of Facts. Objection was taken to 9 paragraphs of that document.
The Crown submitted that the material was relevant to three matters. First, whether the offender was a person of prior good character. Second, whether the offender’s involvement in drugs or drug supply was limited to dealings with the informers and UCOs. Third, as going to the question of moral culpability, in particular that the offences were committed for financial gain and not solely due to loyalty and obligation to the informers.
The debate concerning admissibility of that material in substance centred upon the use to which that material might legitimately be put in the present exercise. I propose to admit the material to which objection was taken, but it will be evident from the whole of these reasons that I consider the Crown sought to draw much more from that material than the nature of it admits.
I have already indicated that I consider there is much in the material that appears to demonstrate the offender talking up, or big noting, his involvement in the illicit drug trade. It seems in many respects he could talk the talk, but frequently not walk the walk.
It will be evident from what I have already outlined that I consider there is enough in the material relating to the charged offences to conclude that a primary motivation, at least for the most significant methylamphetamine transactions, was financial gain. There is no need to resort to material of questionable import to bolster that conclusion. Where he has not been charged and there has been no relevant testing of assertions as to other offending, and nothing objective to support those assertions, I consider it neither fair nor appropriate to rely upon that material as positively establishing any particular illegal conduct on the part of the offender. The offender is being sentenced in respect of these offences alone. He has not been charged with other offending. No offending involving supply to anyone other than participants in controlled operations has been proved to a point I could sensibly rely upon it in the way the Crown asserts. I will not do so.
So far as that material is relied upon in some sort of rebuttal of good character, in the sense that expression is conventionally understood in this context, that is, having no, or no relevant convictions, I do not rely upon it. The offender has no relevant prior convictions. I consider I am entitled to, and will, take that history into account in two ways. Firstly in according to him a degree of leniency to which he would otherwise not be entitled. Secondly, by relying upon it as one of many factors supporting my conclusion as to his prospects of rehabilitation. I will return now to the other factors supporting that conclusion.
The sixth matter I rely upon is the offender’s expressed remorse, not just for the consequences for his family, but more broadly. In particular, his time in custody appears to have awoken him to the particular misery that frequently accompanies illicit drug use. He has expressed shame for his participation in the trade of an agent of such misery and destruction.
All these various matters I have outlined point strongly, in my assessment, to the likelihood of the offender making a law abiding return to the community. He has the inclination and the capacity for community service generally. He is motivated to provide for the family he has so horrendously let down by his conduct. I am satisfied on the whole of the material that the prospect of him ever re-offending is at best slight.
Notwithstanding what I have said concerning rehabilitation, that object of sentencing cannot be considered in isolation.
The Crown submitted in this case that general deterrence is a significant factor. Naturally, as in any sentencing exercise, at least whilst it continues to have statutory recognition, appropriate account must be given to the object of general deterrence, along with all the other, some countervailing, objects of sentencing.
However, if the notions of individualised justice, which substantially underpin the exercise of the sentencing discretion, are to be given any more than mere lip service, then the various objects of sentencing must be balanced according to the particular circumstances and features of individual cases.
To dictate in advance that one object has any particular significance over another, divorced from a consideration of the circumstances of any particular case, for example merely by reason of the character of the offence, operates to fetter the discretion in a way that skews the balancing exercise which must necessarily be undertaken in each individual case. So to skew the exercise neither serves the interests of justice, so far as those interests are comprehended by serving the best interests of the community, nor serves the interests of justice so far as an individual offender is concerned.
Indeed, to accord to general deterrence any peculiar significance, without any evidence base to support the proposition that there is any relevant deterrent effect achieved by sentences heavier than they might otherwise be, seems to me to run the significant risk of creating a positive injustice, particularly if other features of a case provide rational support for the proposition that the interests of justice and the community are better served by giving a preponderance of weight to other objects, such as an appropriate mix of rehabilitation and specific deterrence for example.
It may be, in due course, there should be reconsideration of the statutory recognition of some of the presently recognised objects of sentencing, so as to reflect an appropriate evidence base.
Whether it be by advertence to the notion of general deterrence, or by giving due weight to punishment and denunciation, recognition must be given in this exercise to the reasonable community concern about drug trafficking, particularly where it is conducted to take deliberate financial advantage of existing prohibitions. In any event, whatever might have been the motivation for the present offending, and however little thought might have been brought to bear by the offender as to the broader consequences of the offending at the time, one must acknowledge in this sentencing exercise the fact that the offender’s conduct was directed to the introduction into the community of a not insubstantial quantity of these illicit substances. It is besides the point in this respect that none of the substances did make their way into the community.
Appropriate accord must be given to specific deterrence. I am satisfied that the case for the conclusion that the offender has excellent prospects for rehabilitation, and presents a low risk of re-offending, is compelling. However, even where the risk is low, it cannot be discounted entirely. Such risk as might exist can be managed, and the present expressed intentions of the offender for the future fortified, by structuring a sentence which takes account of a degree of specific deterrence.
I do not doubt the offender’s expressed determination to maintain a law-abiding existence in the future. My earlier expressed conclusion as to the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation, together with my assessment that he presents a low risk of re-offending, dictate that appropriate weight must be given to the object of rehabilitation, alongside the other objects of sentencing which I have indicated must also feature in this sentencing exercise.
The various considerations I have outlined must be taken into account in a way that reflects appropriate proportionality between the circumstances of the crime committed and the sentence imposed, taking appropriate account, too, of the subjective circumstances so as to properly reflect the fundamental notion of individualised justice underpinning the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
The nature of this offending is such that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.
However, the best interests of the community, to which the task of sentencing must ultimately be directed, are not served in my view by imposing a sentence which would be both crushing and operate to deny the community the considerable contributions which the offender is capable of making and, in my assessment, determined in the future to make.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the various countervailing objectives of sentencing can be adequately addressed in this exercise by an appropriately structured sentence. Considerations of general deterrence, punishment and denunciation can be well addressed by a head sentence proportionate to, in particular, the objective circumstances of the offending. It seems to me that a head sentence so determined, will also contribute a necessary dimension of specific deterrence. Any risk of re-offending, to the extent it exists, can be well addressed by the knowledge that if he reoffends when he is released to parole, the offender faces the prospect of completing the whole of a substantial term of imprisonment.

As I have sought to make clear, I am satisfied that much of the subjective material points positively to the real likelihood of the offender in the future making a substantial, law abiding contribution to the life of the community and his family. That likelihood needs to be fostered. Other than in recognition of the need for appropriate denunciation and punishment, the community gains nothing from this man’s incarceration. The need for protection of the community does not feature in this exercise. To give predominance to denunciation and punishment for their own sake would operate to perversely undermine the exercise of a discretion which depends upon notions of individualised justice. In the same way that juries are regularly encouraged to bring their common sense and experience of the world and human affairs to bear in the fulfilment of their duty, a judge exercising the sentencing discretion must likewise bring to bear her or his own experiences, both professional and personal, in assessing the likelihood of particular outcomes. That is the nature of the instinctive synthesis which sentencing comprehends. For so long as the offender is incarcerated, the community is denied in the meantime his evident capacity to make a productive and positive contribution to the life of his community and his family. There is also the risk that, if he were denied that opportunity for too long, his motivation and capacity to make a positive return to the community would be defeated, along with the substantial progress which has already been made towards rehabilitation.
Having regard to the various matters I have outlined, I am satisfied that the minimum period that the offender must serve, in order to reflect the objective gravity of his offending in the circumstances in which it was committed, and taking appropriate account, too, of the subjective circumstances so as to properly reflect the fundamental notion of individualised justice to which I have already referred, admits of a significant finding of special circumstances in his favour.
It is an understatement to record that it is unfortunate there is not more flexibility in the options available to a sentencing judge to achieve justice in individual cases. For example, there might be much to be said in the circumstances of the present case, in favour of the availability of some kind of intensive community based corrections order, permitting some at least of a non-parole period to be served by way of intensive supervision and punishment in the community. In the present day our prisons are filled to overflowing. The daily cost to the community of keeping a prisoner in custody is substantial. The adequate resourcing of the criminal justice system seems beyond the fiscal capacity of governments. They naturally have an assortment of priorities to balance in difficult economic times. That environment suggests a time ripe for the community to engage in serious and considered debate concerning appropriate reforms that might better meet the needs of criminal justice in the circumstances of our times. That debate should be informed and inclusive. It should not be driven by the dictates of an hysterical tabloid commentariat. Ultimately rehabilitation is the best protection of the community. There will always be cases, however, where protection of the community requires keeping a person incarcerated. However, where the immediate protection or safety of the community is not otherwise an issue, there seems to be much to recommend alternative forms of punishment. It is difficult to accept that in this day and age it is beyond the wit and wisdom of our community to devise options for imposing effective and appropriate punishment, which meet all the objectives of sentencing generally, and also represent a better application of our economic, intellectual and social capital than simply locking people in a concrete box for a pre-determined period of time.
There was filed after the sentence hearing a supplementary submission on behalf of the offender urging the conclusion that the dog bites he suffered upon his arrest constitute a kind of extra-curial punishment that should be taken into account in his favour. I do not accept that submission. It seems to me that the injuries sustained were far from sufficiently serious to attract that characterisation and, in any event, it seems to me likely that they were occasioned by his own conduct in attempting to evade apprehension at the time.
The Crown submitted that there should be some accumulation between the two sentences, but not to any significant degree. I consider that a realistic and fair submission in all the circumstances of this case. Some accumulation is warranted, as the Crown submitted, to reflect the discrete offending, willingly engaged in, over two distinct periods of time. Otherwise, it seems to me, as the Crown submission accepted, there is an appropriate case for considerable concurrency between the two sentences. Such accumulation as there will be will be implicit, as I propose to impose an aggregate sentence.
There was no issue but that the offender is entitled to a 25% discount in respect of each offence, to reflect the utilitarian value of his pleas.
For the offence of supply a large commercial quantity of heroin, and the offence of supply a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, the offender is convicted.

I impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 29 August 2013 and expiring 28 August 2017 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 28 May 2024. That is a total effective sentence of 10 years and nine months and a total effective non parole period of four years.

Had I not imposed an aggregate sentence I would, after taking into account the discount for the plea in each case, and the matters on the Form 1 in respect of the second offence, imposed the following sentences:

For the offence of supply a large commercial quantity of heroin, a term of imprisonment of 6 years and nine months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 5 months.
For the offence of supply a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, a term of imprisonment of 9 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

********

Decision last updated: 11 December 2015

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Zolfonoon [2015] NSWDC 296
Date of orders:	11 December 2015
Decision date:	11 December 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:	I impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 29 August 2013 and expiring 28 August 2017 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 28 May 2024. That is a total effective sentence of 10 years and nine months and a total effective non parole period of four years.
Catchwords:	Criminal law – sentence – supply large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Kamran Zolfonoon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Walker SC with Mr Djemal (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Elie Rahme & Associates
File Number(s):	2013/262965