R v Valent

[2023] NZHC 1432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-1035

[2023] NZHC 1432

THE KING

v

XAVIER VALENT

Defendant

Hearing:

9 June 2023

Appearances:

FMT Culliney and BN Kirkpatrick for the Crown Mr Valent, Defendant in person

NS Leader and S Thode, stand-by counsel for Mr Valent

Sentencing:

9 June 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors:        Meredith Connell, Auckland

To:N Leader, Auckland S Thode, Auckland X Valent, Auckland

R v VALENT [2023] NZHC 1432 [9 June 2023]

Introduction

[1]    Mr Valent, as you are aware you appear for sentencing today having been unanimously found guilty by a jury of a raft of serious drug offending charges. In all, you were found guilty of 86 charges, spanning the full gambit of importing,1 manufacturing,2 possession for supply,3 and supply of significant quantities of methamphetamine in particular, but also cocaine, MDMA and ephedrine.4

[2]    Given the number of charges for which you were convicted, I do not propose to list them individually in these sentencing notes, and they will be included as a schedule to the written version of what I am saying to you today. However, the amount of drugs involved was very significant indeed. Putting aside the representative charges, counsel have helpfully calculated the quantum of drugs involved as being:

(a)85 to 93 kilograms of methamphetamine;

(b)3 kilograms of cocaine;

(c)at least 43.5 kilograms of MDMA, plus tablets; and

(d)at least 85 kilograms of ephedrine.

[3]    It is clear, however, that these quantities represent only a portion of the drugs handled by the syndicate that you ran. I have no doubt whatsoever, from having listened to and seen all of the evidence at trial, that the actual quantum involved extended significantly beyond this, and into the hundreds of kilograms of controlled drugs, predominantly methamphetamine. I return to this topic later in my sentencing notes.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a), (2)(a) and (b). Class A maximum penalty life imprisonment; Class B maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

2      Sections 6(1)(b) and (2). Class A maximum penalty life imprisonment; Class B maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

3      Sections 6(1)(f), (2)(a) and (b). Class A maximum penalty life imprisonment; Class B maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

4      Sections 6(1)(c), (2)(a) and (b). Class A maximum penalty life imprisonment; Class B maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

[4]    You were also convicted of charges of possession of precursor materials to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine,5 namely approximately 10.5 kilograms of iodine and 2 litres of hypophosphorous acid.

[5]    Despite the jury’s unanimous verdicts, you continue to deny your offending, suggesting that you left New Zealand in 2016 to return to the United Kingdom where your family is from, and to pursue business interests, specifically around crypto- currency trading. You admit that you had a connection with the drug syndicate, but only to the extent of “serving it” with crypto-currency. You also suggest that co- offenders who gave evidence for the Crown at trial effectively “set you up” to save themselves from prosecution.

[6]    Mr Valent, it is entirely your right to continue to deny your offending. However, I am bound to observe that the evidence that you were the head of the drug syndicates involved, first overseeing the importation of significant quantities of ephedrine in Operation Collision, and then overseeing the syndicate the subject of Operation Mystic, was simply overwhelming, even putting aside the cooperating witnesses’ evidence. Ultimately, the Crown’s case as to who was the leader of these enterprises was extremely strong, relying on a range of circumstantial documentary evidence which, in combination, was compelling. This was bolstered by the cooperating witnesses’ evidence. I also add that I found the cooperating witnesses’ evidence to be both credible and reliable, subject only to not unsurprising memory gaps, given the passage of time since the events in question. In short, I fully agreed with the jury’s verdicts.

[7]    In the balance of my sentencing notes, I will say a little bit more about the factual background to your offending, before turning to what the appropriate sentence ought to be. The factual background will be well known to you and to the lawyers here present. However, as I said earlier today sentencing is a public process and therefore it is important the public is aware of the basis upon which I am sentencing you.

5      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 12A(2)(b) and (3)(b). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

Factual background

[8]    The first set of charges you faced related to what was referred to as Operation Collision, and concerned the importation of more than 70 kilograms of ephedrine in 2016. I pause to note that you were only released from prison in April 2015, having served a substantial sentence for earlier drug offending. The importation of ephedrine appears to have been carried out in conjunction with a friend or associate of yours, and once he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, his mother, Ms Morris, stepped into her son’s role, providing you with addresses to which packages of imported drugs could be sent, collecting the packages from those addresses, and delivering them to you in return for cash.

[9]You then left New Zealand at the end of 2016 and based yourself overseas.

[10]   The balance of your offending concerned Operation Mystic, on any scale a very large and sophisticated drug importation and distribution syndicate. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that you were the leader of this syndicate, and you exercised a very high degree of control and oversight over it.

[11]   In terms of the operation of that syndicate, you again enlisted the services of friends or associates, including a M who for a time was your righthand man in New Zealand, and a Mr Macalalad. You also enlisted the services of another gentleman you met while in custody who carried out methamphetamine cooks at your direction at a shack up in Northland. Others were brought into the syndicate as required, to act in various roles such as “catchers” (providing addresses to which imported drugs could be sent, and this included B, and H and N, both of whom acted at various times as “storage” of the drugs and as runners, the latter being tasked with collecting the daily order of drugs from the store and delivering them to the syndicate’s customers. A number of other persons were also co-opted into these roles at times, including R and his mother, who acted at various times as storage and runners, associates of R, and also Mr Al Obidi, and a friend of his, Mr Treasurer.

[12]   There was no suggestion in any of the evidence at trial that there was anyone sitting above you in the hierarchy. It is a most improbable coincidence, for example, that upon your arrest in Italy in early 2020, the instructions to the syndicate members

back in New Zealand abruptly ceased, causing them a great deal of anxiety. It was also clear that you took a very hands on and controlling approach to the syndicate’s day-to-day operations. There was a plethora of examples of “daily lists” sent by you (using the Wickr application and code name handles), instructing members of your syndicate about what they were to do each day. They were usually in the form of instructions to “give” a certain amount of drugs to a customer and “take” a certain amount of cash in return, or vice-versa. You also demanded regular stock-takes, where the syndicate member or members carrying out the role of storage would be required to give a detailed and itemised account of what they had in their possession by way of drugs and cash. You would berate members of the syndicate if they were late in providing responses back to your Wickr communications.

[13]   A rather extraordinary feature of this syndicate, but another example of your close control of it, was your direction that members of the syndicate you suspected had stolen drugs or cash were to be the subject of polygraph testing. You contracted with a private provider of polygraph testing, who gave evidence at your trial. The email correspondence with the polygraph tester was clear that it was you who was directing that testing. The polygraph tester gave compelling evidence of the fear demonstrated by many of those sent to him for testing.

[14]   Other indicia of the scale of the syndicate was the remittance of the proceeds of the syndicate’s drug dealing through a money change shop in Newmarket to various accounts around the world, at your direction. On the basis of that evidence, some

$26 million in cash was delivered by the syndicate members to the money shop over an approximately two year period, for onward direction to various accounts as instructed by you. Some of these were to your own personal accounts, on a couple of occasions to your mother’s account, to a trust associated with M, and then to a variety of other international accounts, including many in China. I infer that some of those remittances will have been to have paid the suppliers of the drugs that you were arranging to have imported into New Zealand and sourcing within New Zealand.

[15]   Another confirmation of the scale of the syndicate was the amount of drugs and cash found in the possession of syndicate members’ upon the termination of the police operation. For example, Ms Ramos-Mazuela, then acting as storage, was found

at termination with more than $800,000 cash in her possession and significant quantities of controlled drugs.

[16]   As well as the scale of the drug syndicate, it was also of some duration, operating from some time in 2017 until February 2020 when the police terminated Operation Mystic. This was not a one-off import of a significant amount of controlled drugs, but the ongoing and regular importation of significant quantities of controlled drugs of varying types, albeit predominantly methamphetamine. The syndicate followed fairly close on the heels of the ephedrine importation ring which you ran while you were still in New Zealand.

Starting point

[17]   I turn now to the appropriate sentence. As you may be aware, the first task is to set a starting point which reflects the culpability of your offending. I will make reference in this context to other comparable cases to which I have been referred.

[18]   I will then turn to personal factors relating to you, to determine whether they mean the starting point should be adjusted upwards or downwards.

[19]   The Court of Appeal has issued a guideline judgment for methamphetamine offending called Zhang v R.6 This has more  recently  been  updated  by  the  Supreme Court in a case called Berkland v R.7 In short, the Court of Appeal in Zhang identified five bands of offending based on the quantity of the drugs involved, with band 5 being the most serious. Band 5 applies to offending where the quantity of the drug exceeds two kilograms, and specifies that an appropriate starting point will generally range from 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the quantity of drugs the subject of the specific charges alone, your offending falls well into band 5 of Zhang. But as I noted earlier, they are only a proportion of the total drugs involved. Once the representative charges are added into the mix, I am sure that the quantity of the drugs extended to at least approximately 200 kilograms, and likely considerably more. Ultimately, it is not possible to be

6      Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.

7      Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509.

precise about the quantity involved. But on any view, the quantities involved exceed the threshold for band 5 of Zhang by a very considerable margin.

[20]   The Court of Appeal in Zhang emphasised that the quantity of drugs, while an important measure of culpability, is not the only relevant factor.8 Another key relevant factor is an offender’s role in the offending.9

[21]   Again, it is not in dispute that on the basis of the jury’s verdicts, you meet the indicia of a “leading” participant in commercial drug offending as explained in Zhang, and updated in Berkland.10 In particular, you were at the top of the drug syndicate, with considerable influence over others in it, and you must have had close links to the original sources of the drugs. There is no suggestion that your offending was driven by addiction, rather than an expectation of substantial financial gain.

[22]   Section 8(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that the court must impose the maximum penalty for an offence if the offending is “within the most serious cases for which that penalty is prescribed”. As you have heard this morning, the Crown urges me to adopt a sentence of life imprisonment. Quite responsibly, and again on the basis of the jury’s verdicts, Mr Leader does not advocate against a starting point at least of life imprisonment, in light of the relevant authorities and the starting point adopted for R.11

[23]   I have no doubt that your offending falls within the most serious of cases for which the penalty of life imprisonment is imposed. As I have already explained, this was a sophisticated, enduring, profitable and substantial drug enterprise. The supply of these drugs into and within New Zealand, and in particular the large-scale importation and supply of methamphetamine, wreaks havoc on New Zealand communities. Your comments to the writer of the cultural report, to the effect that it is only when people “abuse” drugs that harm and negative effects occur, are glib, particularly in the context of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a highly addictive, and lucrative, drug. I think it is fair to say that a significant majority of the

8      Zhang v R, above n 6, at [104].

9      At [104] and [118]. See also Berkland v R, above n 7, at [63]–[64].

10     See Zhang at [126]; and Berkland at [66].

11     R v R [2020] NZHC 2257.

serious crime which passes through this Court is in some way caused or tainted by methamphetamine, be it dealing in methamphetamine; turf wars over methamphetamine; methamphetamine drug deals gone wrong; and those high on methamphetamine inflicting serious violence on others, including death. Those who pedal very significant quantities of methamphetamine into and within this jurisdiction for commercial gain must be aware that there is a very realistic chance of being sentenced to life imprisonment for such conduct.

[24]   In addition to your methamphetamine offending, I take into account that you are also being sentenced for significant dealings in ephedrine, cocaine and MDMA. Looking at the import of ephedrine alone, Ms Morris, who played a much lesser role in Operation Collison than you, was sentenced on the basis  of  a starting point  of  10 years’ imprisonment. Your involvement in that offending alone would therefore attract a starting point well in excess of 10 years.

[25]   Turning to the comparable cases, I have been referred to, they include R v Rhodes,12 R v Leung,13 R v Chen,14 and R v Fakaosilea.15 In Rhodes, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of life imprisonment on the lead charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, Mr Rhodes being responsible for a major drug manufacturing and supply ring. The lead manufacturing charges relating to the manufacture of

1.4 kilograms of methamphetamine and offering to supply over 360 grams. That was a 2009 decision, and the amounts of methamphetamine being imported, and dealt with in New Zealand, have unfortunately grown exponentially since that time. That said however, the quantities involved in this case are still very significantly higher.

[26]   In R v Chen, the Court of Appeal upheld sentences of life imprisonment on two offenders in relation to a lead charge of importing 96 kilograms of methamphetamine. The two offenders were leading players in the drug syndicate, though the head of the syndicate was based overseas. In relation to the two other offenders in that case who had been charged with possession for supply of 40 kilograms of methamphetamine, the Court of Appeal observed that life imprisonment would have been within range.

12     R v Rhodes [2009] NZCA 486.

13     R v Leung [2019] NZHC 3299.

14     R v Chen [2009] NZCA 445, [2010] 2 NZLR 158.

15     R v Fakaosilea [2018] NZHC 3362.

[27]   In R v Leung, a 2019 decision, this Court declined to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and instead adopted a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment, where Mr Leung had been found guilty of importing a total of 267 kilograms of methamphetamine. While the amount of drugs was described as “staggering” and the method of importation as “highly sophisticated, ingenious and obviously transnationally organised”,16 the Court did not consider Mr Leung’s role to be the most senior in the operation, and the mastermind of the operation was kept at arm’s length outside the jurisdiction. This would suggest that a starting point in your case of at least 30 years would be appropriate, and that life imprisonment would be appropriate for the “mastermind of the operation”.

[28]   In R v Fakaosilea, a 2018 decision, two offenders were involved in the importation of a single consignment of 501 kilograms of methamphetamine at 90-Mile Beach in Northland. The importation was, however, somewhat bungled, and the methamphetamine was intercepted before it could reach the market. In that case, this Court adopted preliminary starting points of life imprisonment for both offenders, however determinate sentences were ultimately imposed on both; one, a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment and the other a starting point of 32 years’ imprisonment. The Judge in that case stepped back from a sentence of life imprisonment on the basis that neither offender was at the apex of the syndicate, and because of one of the offender’s background and prospects for rehabilitation. I accept that the known quantity in that case was higher than in this case, but equally it was a one-off import, and as noted, neither offender was considered the leader of their group.

[29]   I have read all of the sentencing notes for your co-offenders.17 None of the sentences imposed are particularly relevant to your sentencing, other than that for R. In sentencing R, Powell J adopted a starting point of life imprisonment on charges involving nearly 40 kilograms of methamphetamine, plus reasonably significant quantities of other drugs such as MDMA. The Judge sentenced R on the basis that, at

16 R v Leung, above n 13, at [49].

17 R v R, above n 11; R v B [2022] NZDC 6554; R v Al-Obidi [2022] NZHC 1274; R v Macalalad [2020] NZHC 2930; R v M [2022] NZDC 4244; R v Maciel [2021] NZHC 836; R v H [2020] NZDC 7291; R v Ramos Mazuela [2021] NZHC 1606; R v Kim [2022] NZHC 952; and R v Edmands [2022] NZHC 246.

least for a time, he was your second-in-command in New Zealand, a description which I consider appropriate in light of the evidence at trial.

[30]   Finally, I also take into account that had a determinate sentence been imposed, there would have needed to have been an uplift for the fact that you have previous convictions for serious drug offending. In particular, you were sentenced in September 2010 by this Court to an overall sentence of five years and three months’ imprisonment.18 An aggravating factor in that case was that your offending occurred while on bail for other serious drugs related charges. The sentencing Judge, Lang J, described your offending as at the wholesale end of the market, buying and selling drugs for hundreds of thousands of dollars. He also gave you a relatively stark warning. He said “It really is over to you Mr Whitehead, as to what you make of your life from this point on. You are a person obviously with considerable ability”. He said that you had a simple choice to make, either you keep doing what you have been doing, in which case “you are going to spend very long periods of what amount to the best years of your life sitting in jail”, or “get  rid of your involvement with  drugs’.19  Lang J’s prediction of you spending very long periods of what amount to the best years of your life sitting in jail has unfortunately come to pass.

[31]   All of these matters confirm to me that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate.

[32]   I therefore turn to personal mitigating factors, and whether they mean it is appropriate to step back from a sentence of life imprisonment. Mr Leader responsibly accepts that in that case, any determinate sentence would attract a starting point of more than 30 years’ imprisonment.

[33]   I have been provided with your letter to the Court, two letters from close friends and a s 27 cultural report. I have also taken into account the Department of Corrections’ PAC report. Starting with the cultural report, it is not necessary for me to recite the detail of that in open court, but it is clear that there were some difficulties in your upbringing. You are estranged from your father. Growing up, and despite your

18     R v Whitehead HC Auckland CRI-2008-004-13858, 17 September 2010.

19     At [31]–[32].

mother doing her best for you, and you having a close relationship with your grandfather, you often felt unsettled, “out of place” and frustrated, especially in the context of wealthier school friends. You began offending as a youth, relatively minor shoplifting and the like to start with, and were excluded from a number of schools. You then spent approximately three years in state care which was understandably difficult for you. But you nevertheless did well academically, and had the opportunity for gainful and lawful employment, but chose not to follow the opportunities presented to you.

[34]   In her eloquent and lengthy letter, one of your friend’s speaks of your personality and demeanour, and what a support you have been to her over the years. Your other friend’s letter makes similar observations.

[35]   Standing back, these materials, and your own letter to the Court, suggest that you are highly intelligent, articulate, very particular in your habits and your environment, that you may suffer from insomnia, that you are entrepreneurial, methodical, and exhibit frustration when you consider people are not making logical or rational choices, or when you are presented with “second rate” materials or programmes. Somewhat ironically, these are characteristics or traits I observed during the trial in the multitude of communications from Global Trading to members of his syndicate.

[36]   Ultimately, there are no mitigating factors which cause me to step back from imposing a sentence of life imprisonment. I am not satisfied that your background and upbringing provides a sufficiently causative contribution to your offending to warrant this.20 Further, even if there were a causative contribution, as the majority of the Supreme Court said in Berkland:

[111] The causative contribution of background may also be displaced, in whole or in part, where the offending is particularly serious. Complex and orchestrated offending is likely to involve careful assessment of the risks of detection and therefore increased agency. The contribution of background to offending with this level of agency may therefore be significantly reduced or even negated and other sentencing goals … may become more important.

20     Berkland v R, above n 7, at [109].

[37]   Those observations are applicable in this case, especially  in  light  of what Mr Leader has submitted today. The sentencing goals of denunciation, accountability and personal and general deterrence are important. Finally, addiction played no role in your offending, and you demonstrate limited insight and remorse.

[38]The overall sentence will accordingly be one of life imprisonment.

[39]   I must then consider whether I have the jurisdiction to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, or whether your non-parole period will automatically be one of 10 years by operation of s 84(3) of the Parole Act 2002. The Crown, in its written submissions, urged me to adopt a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years. But in response to a query from me, counsel now accept it is unlikely the Court has the power to impose a minimum period of imprisonment on a life sentence, other than for murder. Based on the relevant statutory provisions and the authorities to which I have been referred, I consider it is clear that the Court does not have the power to impose a minimum period of imprisonment on a life sentence, other than where the offender is being sentenced for murder.21 Accordingly, your non-parole period will automatically be 10 years, pursuant to s 84 of the Parole Act.

Sentence

[40]   Mr Valent, would you now please stand. It is neither practical nor necessary for me to orally sentence you, now in court, on each of the 86 charges on which you have been convicted. I will instead sentence you on a number of lead charges in relation to methamphetamine dealing, being the most serious charges, and my written

21 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 81 and 86 (the latter gives the Court the power to impose a minimum period of imprisonment on determinate sentences only, and even then, to a maximum of 10 years); sections 103 to 105 of the Act are limited to sentencing for murder. See also Shailer v R [2017] NZCA 38, [2017] 2 NZLR 629 at [4], [30] and [75], which states there is no ability to impose a minimum period of imprisonment for a life sentence other than for murder. I disagree with the Crown submission that the plain wording of s 84(3) of the Parole Act 2002 supports the proposition that the Court has the power to impose a minimum period of imprisonment; it merely notes that when a life sentence is imposed, and unless a judge imposes a higher minimum period of imprisonment, the non-parole period is 10 years. This reflects that in cases of murder, the minimum period of imprisonment may be higher than 10 years. It is not a “freestanding” power to impose a minimum period of imprisonment greater than 10 years. Nor do I consider Clifton v R [2013] NZCA 85 to stand for that proposition. In particular, the Court’s comments at [24] relied on by the Crown merely replicate, and cite to, the text of s 84(3) of the Parole Act. In any event, the Court’s comments were obiter and have been overtaken by the more recent and more direct consideration of the issue in Shailer.

sentencing notes, which will be available shortly, will include a schedule of the individual sentences for each of the remaining charges. They will be shorter determinate sentences, to be served concurrently with your sentence of life imprisonment. Given the sentences to be imposed on the lead charges, those remaining sentences are essentially academic, and are not precedents.

[41]   On each of charges 15, the supply of 10 kilograms of methamphetamine, charge 44, possession for supply of 10 kilograms of methamphetamine, and charge 76, the importation of 19.7 kilograms of methamphetamine, you are sentenced to life imprisonment, obviously each to be served concurrently. You are sentenced to those lesser determinate sentences on each of the remaining charges as set out in the schedule to the written version of these sentencing notes, which are also to be served concurrently.

[42]The end result of this Mr Valent, is that you are sentenced to life imprisonment.

[43]You may now stand down.

Fitzgerald J

SCHEDULE

Methamphetamine offending

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence22
16	Manufacturing	500 grams	9 years
17	Manufacturing (Representative)	At least 2 kilograms	12 years
24	Possession for supply	1 kilogram	10 years
25	Possession for supply	1.31 kilograms	10 years
29	Supply	1 kilogram	10 years
31	Supply	4 ounces	3 years
32	Importing	1 kilogram	10 years
33	Importing	2.224 kilograms	12 years
34	Importing	2 to 3 kilograms	12 years
35	Importing	2.224 kilograms	12 years
36	Supply	1 kilogram	10 years
38	Possession for supply	500 grams	9 years
39	Possession for supply	2 kilograms	12 years
40	Possession for supply	137 grams	3 years
41	Possession for supply	More than 5 grams	1 year
42	Possession for supply	113 grams	3 years
43	Possession for supply	170 grams	4 years
46	Possession for supply	More than 5 grams	1 year
47	Possession for supply	1 kilogram	10 years
48	Importing	2.388 kilograms	12 years
49	Importing	2.434 kilograms	12 years
50	Importing	2.294 kilograms	12 years
55	Possession for supply	More than 5 grams	1 year
56	Possession for supply	500, 28.39, and 468 grams	10 years
57	Possession for supply	28.606 and 28.587 grams	2 years
58	Supply	112.5 grams	3 years
60	Supply	501 grams	9 years
62	Supply	501 grams	9 years

22     All sentences of imprisonment, to be served concurrently with each other, and with the life sentences imposed on each of charges 15, 44 and 76.

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence
64	Supply	7.25 grams	1 year
65	Possession for supply	600 grams	9 years
67	Possession for supply	501 grams	9 years
68	Possession for supply	266 grams	6 years
71	Possession for supply	994.37 grams	10 years
72	Possession for supply	133.17, 110.28, 61.58 and 25.48 grams	6 years
78	Possession for supply	500.82 grams	9 years
79	Possession for supply	250.31 grams	6 years
83	Supply	250 grams	6 years
86	Possession for supply	1.523 kilograms	10 years
88	Possession for supply	7.681 kilograms	15 years
92	Possession for supply	65.1 grams	1 year
95	Possession for supply	70 grams	1 year
97	Importing	1.859 kilograms	10 years
98	Importing (Representative)	12 years
102	Supply (Representative)	12 years

Cocaine offending

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence
13	Importing	1 kilogram	10 years
63	Supply	1,001 grams	10 years
81	Supply	28.5 grams	1 year
84	Possession for supply	1 kilogram	10 years
85	Supply	57 grams	1 year
103	Supply (Representative)	8 years

MDMA offending

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence
18	Supply	2 kilograms	5 years
27	Possession for supply	430 tablets	4 years
37	Supply	1 kilogram	4 years
45	Possession for supply	10 kilograms	10 years
52	Importing	3.98 kilograms	6 years
53	Possession for supply	More than 100 tablets	2 years

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence
54	Possession for supply	More than 5 grams	1 year
59	Supply	107 grams	1 year
75	Importing	19.8 kilograms and 100,192 tablets	12 years
77	Importing	3 kilograms	6 years
80	Importing	2.830 kilograms	6 years
82	Supply	1 kilogram	4 years
87	Possession for supply	1.5 kilograms	4 years
89	Possession for supply	5 grams and 100 tablets	1 year
96	Possession for supply	111.8 grams	2 years
100	Importing (Representative)	8 years
104	Supply (Representative)	8 years

Ephedrine offending

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence
2	Importing	7 kilograms	10 years
3	Importing	6.594 kilograms	10 years
4	Importing	10.549 kilograms	12 years
5	Importing	4.458 kilograms	6 years
6	Importing	6.495 kilograms	10 years
7	Importing	9.895 kilograms	12 years
9	Importing	4.473kilograms	6 years
10	Importing	9.337 kilograms	12 years
11	Possession for supply	11.312 kilograms	13 years
26	Possession for supply	661 grams	1 year
61	Possession for supply	2.3 kilograms	5 years
69	Possession for supply	1.705 kilograms	4 years
90	Possession for supply	14.136 kilograms	12 years

Materials used to manufacture methamphetamine offending

Charge	Dealing	Quantity	Sentence
28	Possession	2 kilograms of iodine and 2 litres of hypophosphorus acid	2 years
91	Possession	11.375 kilograms (crystals) and 31.1 litres of phosphorous acid, and 8.458 kilograms of iodine	4 years