The State of Western Australia v Renfrey
[2022] WADC 58
•21 JUNE 2022
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- RENFREY [2022] WADC 58
CORAM: RUSSELL DCJ
HEARD: 28 MARCH 2022
DELIVERED : 21 JUNE 2022
FILE NO/S: IND 1892 of 2021
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
NATHAN JAMES RENFREY
Catchwords:
Sentencing - Trial of issues - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Whether offender intended to sell or supply prohibited drug
Legislation:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 34(1)(a)
Result:
Defence failed in part to prove issue in dispute as a mitigating factor
Representation:
Counsel:
| The State of Western Australia | : | Mr S J Bedells |
| Accused | : | Mr V C Evangel |
Solicitors:
| The State of Western Australia | : | State Director of Public Prosecutions |
| Accused | : | Evangel Legal |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193
R v Lobban [2001] SASC 392; (2001) 80 SASR 550
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
The State of Western Australia v Thompson [2014] WASCA 108
RUSSELL DCJ:
Introduction
Mr Nathan James Renfrey was charged on indictment 1892 of 2021, that on 9 February 2021 at Herne Hill he had in his possession a prohibited drug, namely a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply it to another, contrary to s 6(1)(a) and s 34(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) (MDA).
Mr Renfrey was convicted of that offence on 28 March 2022 on his plea of guilty.
There was a dispute as to the facts relating to Mr Renfrey's intent under s 6(1)(a) of the MDA for the purpose of sentencing, and I heard a trial of the issues on 28 March 2022.
For the following reasons, on the disputed issue of fact tried on 28 March 2022, I find that of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in Mr Renfrey's possession:
1.Mr Renfrey intended to sell or supply most of the 47.6 grams (that was found in the black glove) to others to support his own illicit drug use; and
2.the majority of the remaining 5.78 grams was for Mr Renfrey's personal use.
The facts relied upon by the State
The facts relied upon by the State are those set out in the amended statement of material facts dated 28 January 2022, which were read out by counsel for the State. They are as follows:
Search on 11 January 2021
At 8.15pm on Monday, 11 January 2021, police officers executed a Senior Officer Order (order) at [address stated in the amended statement of material facts] (offender's address), in relation to an unrelated matter.
When police arrived at the offender's address, the offender was at the house, together with [others named in the amended statement of material facts].
When police officers first arrived, the offender, who was sitting on the couch, tried to conceal something in between two couch seats. Police officers searched the spot, and under the seat cushion, they found a clip‑seal bag containing 1.18 grams of a substance later analysed and found to be methylamphetamine.
In a bedroom wardrobe, police officers found:
a.three clip-seal bags in the back compartment of a clock, which contained 1.73 grams, 1.72 grams, and 1.72 grams respectively of a substance later analysed and found to be methylamphetamine; and
b.$400 in $50 notes, in the same compartment of the clock.
Elsewhere in the bedroom, police officers found:
a.10.66 grams of a cutting agent;
b.two sets of digital scales (one on the bed, one in the corner of the bedroom);
c.an additional quantity of $350 cash (on the bed); and
d.a box of unused clip-seal bags.
In the garage, police officers found a shotgun and ammunition.
The total quantity of methylamphetamine seized as part of the order was 7.14 grams. (The State ultimately didn't pursue the offender for the entire amount of methylamphetamine seized at the search on 11 January 2021 - only the 1.18 grams.)
Police officers seized the offender's mobile telephone. He was served with a data access order on 25 January 2021, but to date has not provided police officers with access to his mobile telephone.
Search on 9 February 2021
At 8.05 am on Tuesday, 9 February 2021, police officers executed a Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) search warrant (search warrant) at the offender's address in relation to an unrelated matter.
When police officers arrived at the address, the offender was in bed. Also at the house were [others named in the amended statement of material facts].
The three adults present were arrested, and the house was searched.
On the kitchen bench, police officers located a black satchel bag, which contained 3.59 grams of a substance later analysed and found to be methylamphetamine at 82% purity in a clip-seal bag. The offender's wallet and the offender's loose VISA bank card were also in the black satchel bag.
The offender admitted that the wallet and the VISA bank card were his, but that the bag and all other contents in it belonged to his friend 'Brayden', who he said had been over the previous day and left the bag there.
The offender's wallet contained what appeared to be a tick list, with two names next to dollar amounts of $2,000 and $3,000 respectively, and addresses. The offender said that the list was in relation to his tattooing business, and listed people who owed him money for tattoos he had done.
In the main bedroom, on the windowsill behind the bed, on the side of the bed where the offender had been lying when police officers entered the house, police officers located a clip-seal bag containing 2.19 grams of a substance later analysed and found to be methylamphetamine at 82% purity and a black glove.
The black glove contained two clip-seal bags, which contained:
a.20.4 grams of a substance later analysed and found to be methylamphetamine at 81 % purity; and
b.27.2 grams of a substance later analysed and found to be methylamphetamine at 80% purity.
The total quantity of methylamphetamine in the black glove was 47.6 grams.
Those facts are broadly accepted.
Disputed issue of fact
Mr Renfrey's plea of guilty necessarily involves admissions by him of the elements of the offence the subject of the charge. It is not disputed that he had in his possession the quantities of methylamphetamine alleged. Nor is there any dispute as to the purity of the drugs.
The disputed issue of fact giving rise to the trial of issues in this matter relates to Mr Renfrey's intention with respect to the drugs the subject of the charge.
The State position is that Mr Renfrey intended to sell a portion (the vast majority) of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine, supply a portion of it, and keep a portion of it for his personal use.
The defence position is that, of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in Mr Renfrey's possession:
1.the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine found in the black glove had been left there by a friend of Mr Renfrey's. Mr Renfrey took a small amount of the methylamphetamine from the glove for his own use, and he intended to supply the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine left in the glove to his friend by returning it to him for no commercial gain; and
2.the majority of the remaining 5.78 grams was for his personal use.
Principles applicable to the trial of issues
The principles relating to the basis upon which a sentencing judge must impose sentence where the offender pleads guilty were set out by the Court of Appeal in Law v The State of Western Australia.[1] Those principles include the following:
1.If the prosecution seeks to have a sentencing judge take a matter into account as an aggravating circumstance, it will be for the prosecution to bring that matter to the judge's attention and, if necessary, call evidence about it: R v Olbrich.[2]
2.If the offender seeks to have the sentencing judge take a matter into account as a mitigating circumstance, it will be for the offender to bring that matter to the judge's attention and, if necessary, call evidence about it: R v Olbrich[25].
3.It will only be necessary for the prosecution or the offender to call evidence about an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, as the case may be, if the asserted matter is controverted by the other party or if the sentencing judge is not prepared to act on the assertion, even though not controverted by the other party: Olbrich[25].
4.The prosecution must prove an aggravating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The offender must prove a mitigating circumstance on the balance of probabilities: Olbrich[25]; R v Storey.[3]
5.If a sentencing judge is not persuaded of the existence of a particular fact, whether aggravating or mitigating, the absence of that fact does not prove the converse fact, adverse to or in favour of the offender, as the case may be. Where the sentencing judge is not persuaded of the existence of a fact, that fact does not exist for the purposes of sentencing: R v Lobban.[4]
[1] Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193 [25] - [34].
[2] R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 [25].
[3] R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359, 369.
[4] R v Lobban [2001] SASC 392; (2001) 80 SASR 550 [32].
In The State of Western Australia v Thompson,[5] McLure P said:
The identification of the offender's precise intention under s 6(1)(a) of the Act is not an essential aspect of the sentencing process (Olbrich [13]), just as the quantity of the drug in the respondent's possession intended for his own use as distinct from its sale and/or supply is not an essential aspect: Duong v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 110 [6]; Marker v The Queen (2002) 135 A Crim R 55 [114] - [116]. If the evidence does not enable the sentencing judge to make positive findings on these matters, the offender must be sentenced for the offence he committed, which is in terms of 'sale or supply'.
[5] The State of Western Australia v Thompson [2014] WASCA 108 [26].
Relevantly, in this trial of the issues, Mr Renfrey seeks to prove as a mitigating circumstance that, of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in his possession:
1.he intended to supply 47.6 grams (the amount left in the black glove) to his friend, who owned it, by returning it to him for no commercial gain; and
2.the majority of the remaining 5.78 grams was for Mr Renfrey's personal use.
The defence accepted that Mr Renfrey bears the onus of proving this as a mitigating circumstance, on the balance of probabilities.
The evidence
Evidence relied upon by the defence
Evidence of Nathan James Renfrey
Mr Renfrey gave evidence on his own behalf. His evidence was, in summary, as follows:
1.In early 2021, he was living at the address at Herne Hill stated in the amended statement of material facts. The house had three bedrooms. He was living in the main bedroom of the house. He lived there at that time with his then partner, Ms Besh, and her 2-year-old son. They also had two friends that stayed at the house 'quite a bit' and they always had friends coming over. When those friends came over to the house, Mr Renfrey said 'we would sometimes take recreational drugs'.
2.Mr Renfrey started using cannabis when he was 18 years old and he progressed to using methylamphetamine. In early 2021, he was heavily using both cannabis and methylamphetamine. He described his habit at that time as 'a very bad habit'. He said he was using a gram, if not more, of methylamphetamine a day.
3.For a period of about 9 or 10 months in 2016, when his partner at the time was pregnant with his son, he stayed away from drugs. He then started again, and his habit became progressively worse.
4.In early 2021, Mr Renfrey was working as a tattooist.
5.In relation to the search of the property in Herne Hill, on 11 January 2021:
(a)Mr Renfrey's friend Brayden was arrested at the property and then police came back and searched the property. He said the police found just over a gram of drugs on the couch Mr Renfrey was on, a firearm in the shed out the back and some drugs and $400 cash in the main bedroom. He was not 100% sure if the cash belonged to him or Ms Besh.
(b)The police seized the drugs and cash and a pair of scales that were in the house and some small clip seal bags, which Mr Renfrey said were his and his partner's. He said they were both using drugs at the time. He used the clip seal bags for his personal use to put his drugs in individual bags so that he did not use it all at the same time. He used the scales for his personal use so he did not 'get ripped off' and so that he knew what he was getting for his money.
(c)He said that his friend, Brayden, brought the firearm, a sawn‑off shotgun, to the house when he came to stay with them after breaking up with his partner. Mr Renfrey said that he took it off Brayden and put it in the shed because he had received some suicidal text messages from him. He said the shotgun had been there for some time.
(d)Mr Renfrey said he did not replace the scales or stuff the police took, but he could not speak for anyone else in the house.
(e)He said he did not comply with the data access order in relation to his mobile phone seized by the police because he and his partner were arguing all the time and he would always change his password because she would go through his stuff.
6.In relation to the drugs the subject of the charge in the indictment seized in the search on 9 February 2022:
(a)On the Sunday before the search on Tuesday, 9 February 2021, Mr Renfrey and Ms Besh had gone to visit Ms Besh's mother and brother in Bullsbrook. When they got back to their house in Herne Hill, he saw his friend, Matthew Maslin, leaving the house. He said he was not really surprised to see him.
(b)When Mr Renfrey went into his bedroom to put his phone on charge, he saw the glove sitting on the windowsill of the bedroom. He opened the glove up. There was methylamphetamine in it. He took roughly 3 grams out of it and then tied it back up and left it where he found it. When asked why he took the drugs out of the glove, he said he had a bad habit at the time.
(c)Mr Renfrey initially said he tried to contact the person he believed the drugs belonged to, and later in his evidence said that he did contact that person. He said he could not return it because the person did not come.
7.On 9 February 2021, when the police searched the house, they found the drugs and Mr Renfrey's wallet, which had a bit of paper in it, with $2,000 and $3,000 marked against each of two names on the piece of paper. Mr Renfrey said it was the names of people who owed him money for tattoos he had previously done. He said that at that time he was earning about $200 an hour from tattooing. He did 5 ‑ 8 hour sessions. He earned about $1,000 for 5 hours.
8.In cross-examination, Mr Renfrey accepted that his recollection of 2021 had faded a bit. He could not remember the number of the house he was living in at the time of the police searches or the exact date of the first search. He also accepted that the amount of cash that was seized by police in the first raid was $750, not $400 as he said in his examination-in-chief.
9.At the time of the searches in 2021, Mr Renfrey was 27 years old and had been using methylamphetamine for about eight years. He said that he was never dealing in methylamphetamine. He paid the street price for it. In 2021, he paid $100 a point, $1,000 a gram. He bought it by the gram, usually one day's methylamphetamine at a time. When asked how many days he used methylamphetamine, he said every day.
10.He said that over the time he was using, the price fluctuated. When he started, it was about $50 a point. It went from $50 to $100. He said that it went up and down all the time 'it just depends who and how you'd buy it'. When asked how he bought it, he said it depends how much money he had, but it would not be more than a couple of days at a time. He used the clip seal bags to spread it out between the days, putting one day's supply in one bag.
11.He started tattooing when he was aged 17, doing it part‑time as well as other jobs. His previous jobs include truck driving as a courier, forklift driving, trades assistant and doing magnetic particle inspections for a mining company. When he worked as a courier, forklift driver and trades assistant, he earned $800 ‑ $900 per week and did about 12 or 13 hours a week at a tattoo shop 'on the side'. After about five years, in 2016, he went out on his own doing tattoos for 3 or 4 hours a night after he finished his normal job, earning $600 - $800 a night.
12.He had no other source of income and no money in the bank. Every now and again he would buy a dirt bike or something and sell it for around $5,000 or a bit less. The money he earned from doing tattoos at night was all cash. He was not doing any work other than tattoos in early 2021.
13.He said he paid some tax on the money he earned from doing tattoos at the start but, in 2019 and 2020, he was just doing friends and they would just give him some money for tattooing them.
14.As to Mr Renfrey's expenses in 2021:
(a)he paid about $150 per week child support for his 5‑year-old son, depending on how much work he had done;
(b)he owned a car and was not paying anything off for that (there was no evidence as to the running expenses for the car);
(c)he had bank loan repayments of about $130 per fortnight, but stopped paying those in about 2019 when his drug habit got really bad as he was not financially stable; and
(d)he paid $200 per week towards rent.
15.As to funding his drug use, Mr Renfrey used a gram or more of methylamphetamine a day. He agreed in cross‑examination that would cost about $1,000 a day. He accepted that most of the time he was using methylamphetamine he paid about $100 a point. He said he did not buy it every day. He tried to make it last and said when friends came, 'we would smoke their drugs'. He said people would give him drugs. When asked if he would give them drugs, he said no, he would not. When asked how many times a week people would come to his house and give him drugs, he said he did not know, then said 'twice a week, three times a week'.
16.He did not accept the suggestion that he was buying larger quantities of drugs and selling them on and that was how he was funding his habit. He denied there were records on his phone that indicated he was selling drugs and that is why he did not comply with the data access order.
17.As to the piece of paper found in his wallet[6] during the search on 9 February 2021, Mr Renfrey's evidence in cross‑examination was, in summary, that it looked like a note he would write for money that was owing to him for a tattoo. He said that he had done tattoos for the people named in the note. He said they could not afford to pay him the whole lot and would be paying it off. He could not remember how much they had paid or how much they owed.
18.When it was put to him that he took care to write a note with their name, address and the amount they owed, but did not take care to write down how much they had paid him, he said 'No', and 'I guess I forgot'. He denied that the truth was that they owed him money for drugs.
19.He denied that the shot gun found in the shed was his and that he had it on his premises to defend himself because he had significant quantities of drugs and cash in the house. He denied that he intended to sell the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine in the black glove for profit.
Evidence relied upon by the State
[6] State brief, page 120.
The State tendered and relied on the contents of the State brief and a copy of the electronic record of interview of Mr Renfrey, and incorporated those into the amended statement of material facts read in at the beginning of the trial of issues.
Evidence of Gregg Robson
The State also adduced evidence from First Class Constable Gregg Robson. His evidence was as follows:
1.Officer Robson executed the search warrants at the property in Herne Hill referred to in the amended statement of material facts on 11 January 2021 and 9 February 2021. He was the investigating officer in charge of executing the search warrants.
2.On 11 January 2021, Mr Renfrey was charged with possession of a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, which was found between some seat cushions. Mr Renfrey's mobile phone was seized. Officer Robson was present when another officer, First Class Constable Jones, asked Mr Renfrey to provide a PIN code to the phone. Mr Renfrey refused to provide the PIN code for his mobile phone.
3.Officer Robson subsequently personally served Mr Renfrey with a data access order while he was at the Midland Police Station.
4.During the search on 9 February 2021, a shot gun was located in a spiderman bag in the floor of an unlocked shed in the backyard of the property. Also found in the search was a black glove on the windowsill of the main bedroom, which was scrunched up and next to the glove was a clip seal bag with a white, crystal substance inside it.
5.Officer Robson identified the exhibit log and stated that the items recorded in it were located in the search,[7] including the black glove.[8] Inside the black glove were two more clip seal bags with a substantial amount of a large, crystal substance. A further clip seal bag with a white, crystal substance[9] was located in a black satchel bag in the kitchen.
6.Officer Robson identified the piece of paper shown at page 120 of the State brief as a piece of paper that was found in the black satchel bag. He could not recall if it was in the wallet in the bag or just inside the bag. (This is the same piece of paper with the two names on it referred to in Mr Renfrey's evidence.)
Agreed fact as to value of methylamphetamine
[7] State brief, pages 24 - 25.
[8] Recorded in the exhibit log as item 16; State brief, page 25.
[9] Recorded in the exhibit log as item 2; State brief, page 24.
The State and defence agreed as a fact that the approximate value of 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine between January 2021 and March 2021 would have been between $11,000 and $16,200.[10]
[10] As stated at par 58 of the statement of Detective Senior Constable Brandon Stuart Jeffries dated 25 March 2022; State brief, page 118.
Submissions made on behalf of Mr Renfrey
In summary, the following submissions were made on behalf of Mr Renfrey:
1.Mr Renfrey had provided plausible explanations which are consistent with personal use of methylamphetamine and there is no evidence to indicate any ongoing, trade in or sale of drugs by Mr Renfrey. This included Mr Renfrey's explanations and evidence:
(a)that the piece of paper the State alleges to be a tick list[11] recorded money owed to Mr Renfrey by people he had done tattoos for, and did not relate to the sale of drugs;
(b)that he genuinely intended to return the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine found in the glove to a particular individual that he claims had left it at the premises;
(c)as to the difficulty he had complying with the data access order in respect of his mobile phone, he had been frequently changing phones and codes due to issues with his partner at the time and could not recall the code;
(d)he was a heavy user of methylamphetamine at the time;
(e)he was earning reasonable cash money from his work as a tattoo artist; and
(f)he funded his drug use from the proceeds of his tattoo work and also shared drugs with others who would visit his home, which supplemented his use beyond what he could afford at the time.
2.The scales and clip seal bags were seized in the first search on 11 January 2021. There were no such items at the property at the time of the second search on 9 February 2021 when the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine was found in the glove. As such, I should not draw any inference as to Mr Renfrey's intention in relation to those drugs from the fact that such items were present at the time of the earlier search.
3.There is an alternative inference that can be drawn, which is that Mr Renfrey was not going to sell any of the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine found in the glove in his possession.
[11] State brief, page 120.
Submissions made on behalf of the State
In essence, the State submitted that, having regard to the following, the court can be satisfied that the only reasonable inference is that Mr Renfrey was selling drugs to fund his own habit and his suggestion that he was not, and was to return the drugs in the glove, is completely uncorroborated and should not be accepted:
1.Mr Renfrey's evidence is that he was using a gram, if not more, of methylamphetamine a day, for which he was paying $100 a point, or $1,000 a day. He says he was funding his $1,000 per day habit and his other outgoings from his tattoo business.
2.Mr Renfrey's outgoings were in excess of what he could reasonably have expected to earn, which on his own evidence was two or three hours a night (at $200 per hour) with occasional extra work. He was in financial difficulty prior to February 2021 and had cut back on his child support payments. The suggestion that some people would come to his house and give him drugs for free a number of times a week does not account for the shortfall. To correct the financial imbalance and fund his lifestysle and drug use, Mr Renfrey was selling drugs.
3.It is to be implied from his failure to comply with the data access order or provide the police with access to his phone that he was covering up drug messages on his phone and did not want to incriminate himself.
4.The inconsistency in his evidence about not recalling when asked by his lawyers who he had tattooed and his explanation that the note in his wallet was not a tick list but a list of people who owed him money for tattoos.
5.His poor recollection of details as to the address of his house, the amount of money taken by police, the dates of the raids, compared to his clear recollection that the drugs were another person's.
6.The suggestion that the drugs in Mr Renfrey's possession, which were worth between $11,000 and $16,000 and, if sold by the point worth near to $50,000, had been left on the windowsill of the main bedroom by a third party to whom Mr Renfrey was to return them, is purely illusory and self-serving.
Assessment of the evidence
I remind myself that I can accept some of Mr Renfrey's evidence and reject other parts of his evidence.
I accept that at the time of the police searches in early 2021, Mr Renfrey had a longstanding addiction to methylamphetamine and was using a gram or more of methylamphetamine a day.
However, I did not find Mr Renfrey to be an honest, accurate and reliable witness. His evidence was vague in parts and he did not have a clear recollection of matters of significance. I do not accept Mr Renfrey's evidence, and I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Renfrey intended to return the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine found in the black glove on the windowsill in his bedroom to a friend.
It is implausible that his friend (or any third party) would have left about 50 grams of methylamphetamine,[12] valued at between about $10,000 to $15,000 (if bought in that quantity) out in the open on Mr Renfrey's bedroom windowsill.
[12] Taking into account approximately 3 grams that Mr Renfrey said he removed from the glove when he found it.
Also, Mr Renfrey's evidence as to his income and expenses lacked credibility. I find it implausible that he was supporting his methylamphetamine habit of 1 gram or more a day (at a cost of about $1,000 a day) and his other expenses from his available income from doing tattoos for friends, or by being given drugs for free by friends up to three times a week. His evidence changed from saying when friends came round they would sometimes take recreational drugs to saying when friends came over he smoked their drugs, which they gave him for free, and that they came over twice, three times a week. I find it is implausible that people would supply him with such significant quantities of methylamphetamine (to a value of up to $3,000 a week) for no payment or for nothing in return from Mr Renfrey.
Further, Mr Renfrey's evidence about the note found in his wallet being a record of people who owed him money for tattoos lacked credibility. I do not accept his evidence that it was a list of people who owed him money for tattoos. His evidence was unconvincing, particularly given his account that they were paying him off over time, but he must have forgotten to keep a note of how much they had paid and how much they still owed him.
His denials of the suggestions that the drugs were his and that he intended to sell some of the methylamphetamine in the glove for profit were also unconvincing and lacking in credibility.
In considering the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in his possession, Mr Renfrey intended to supply 47.6 grams (the amount left in the black glove) to his friend, who owned it, by returning it to him for no commercial gain. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, given the amount of methylamphetamine Mr Renfrey was using at that time, most of the remaining 5.78 grams was for his personal use.
Even allowing that some of the methylamphetamine was to be used by Mr Renfrey personally, I find that he intended to sell or supply a significant portion of the methylamphetamine in his possession to others to support his drug habit. I am unable to determine the precise amount. Mr Renfrey did not have the financial means to fund the purchase of 7 or more grams of methylamphetamine per week at a cost of about $7,000 per week.
It is accepted that the value of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in Mr Renfrey's possession was, at that time, between $11,000 and $16,200. This is significantly less than the cost of buying methylamphetamine by the gram at that time, which on Mr Renfrey's evidence was about $1,000 per gram.
Taking into account all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that Mr Renfrey did not intend to sell or supply the 47.6 grams of methylamphetamine in his possession (or a significant amount of it) to fund his own drug use.
Findings of fact on the trial of the issues
The facts I find for the purpose of sentence are:
1.As at February 2021:
(a)Mr Renfrey had a longstanding addiction to methylamphetamine and was using a gram or more of methylamphetamine a day;
(b)the price that Mr Renfrey paid for methylamphetamine was about $100 a point (0.1 grams), or $1,000 per gram;
(c)Mr Renfrey's income was insufficient to meet the cost of his drug use of 1 gram or more of methylamphetamine per day and his other expenses; and
(d)the value of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in Mr Renfrey's possession was, if bought or sold at that weight, between $11,000 and $16,200 and, if bought or sold by the point or gram, about $53,000.
2.Of the 53.38 grams of methylamphetamine in Mr Renfrey's possession on 9 February 2021:
(a)Mr Renfrey intended to sell or supply most of the 47.6 grams found in the black glove to others to support his drug habit; and
(b)the majority of the remaining 5.78 grams was for Mr Renfrey's personal use.
3.Given the quantity and purity of the drugs in Mr Renfrey's possession:
(a)I find that Mr Renfrey's involvement in drug dealing was that of a low to mid-level user/dealer.
(b)distribution of those drugs, or a significant portion of them, would cause significant harm to the community.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.
AD
Associate to Judge Russell
21 JUNE 2022
0
5
1