District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chartres-Abbott; R v Phillips; R v Mulholland [2020] NSWDC 703 Hearing dates: 3 July 2020 Date of orders: 28 August 2020 Decision date: 28 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bright DCJ Decision: Chartres-Abbott - Aggregate sentence of 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months. Phillips - Aggregate sentence of 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 10 months. Mulholland - Intensive correction order for 11 months and 17 days. Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity — Knowingly take part in supply — Possess prohibited drug CRIME — Firearms offences — Use/Possess prohibited pistol/firearm SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Joint sentence proceedings — Parity Legislation Cited: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General's application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1991, No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 A Crim R 1 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156 R v Campbell, R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1 Trurong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Mark Chartres-Abbott (Offender) Dean Phillips (Offender) Deborah Mulholland (Offender) Representation: Counsel: Mr S Healy (Offender Mulholland) Mr C F Vulpeanu (Offender Chartres-Abbott) Solicitors: Ms A Gunn (Crown) Mr D Kelly (Offender Phillips) File Number(s): 2019/00163701 2019/00298235 2019/00200152 2019/00163699 Judgment 1. Mark William Chartres-Abbott (65 years), Dean William Phillips (39 years) and Deborah Mulholland (54 years) appear for sentence in relation to offences concerning the supply of prohibited drugs in the Woy Woy area on the Central Coast. 2. In November 2018, the Gosford Drug Unit commenced Strikeforce Basic. The Strikeforce utilised an undercover operative to purchase prohibited drugs between March and May 2019. A number of mobile telephones were also analysed. The evidence establishes that the offender Chartres-Abbott was the up-line supplier of prohibited drugs to the offender Dean Phillips. 3. At the time of the offending, the offender Deborah Mulholland was living with the offender Chartres-Abbott who was her former partner. She had a much less significant and limited role in relation to the distribution of prohibited drugs. 4. As part of the investigation, search warrants were executed at the residences of the offenders Chartres-Abbott and Dean Phillips. A number of firearms were found. 5. Between March and May 2019, the offender Dean Phillips had also sold three firearms to the undercover operative. 6. The offender Chartres-Abbott appears for sentence in relation to the following five offences: 1. Sequence 1 (H275081796) - Supply more than large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (888.79 grams of methylamphetamine), an offence pursuant to s 25(2), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is life imprisonment. There is a prescribed standard non-parole period of 15 years. When dealing with the offender Chartres-Abbott for that offence, the Court is taking into account a further five offences on a Form 1 as follows: 1. Sequence 11 - Possess prohibited drug (Alprazolam 23.8 grams), an offence pursuant to s 10(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. 2. Sequence 12 - Possess prohibited drug (1.47 grams of MDMA), an offence pursuant to s 10(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. 3. Sequence 13 - Possess prohibited drug (Sustanon, an anabolic steroid), an offence pursuant to s 10(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. 4. Sequence 14 - Possess prohibited drug (1.29 grams of cocaine), an offence pursuant to s 10(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty in relation to each of those offences is 2 years imprisonment. 1. Sequence 10 - Deal with proceeds of crime ($94,285 cash), an offence pursuant to s 193C(2), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 3 years imprisonment. 1. Sequence 2 (H275018796) - Supply more than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (368.8 grams of heroin), an offence pursuant to s 25(2), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is a prescribed standard non-parole period of 10 years. 2. Sequence 6 (H104946590) - Supply more than the commercial quantity of prohibited drug (372.63 grams of methylamphetamine), an offence pursuant to s 25(2), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is also 20 years imprisonment. There is a prescribed standard non-parole period of 10 years. 3. Sequence 3 (H275018796) - Possess shortened firearm (Sportco.22 rifle with magazine), an offence pursuant to s 62(1)(b), Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non-parole period. When dealing with the offender for that offence, the Court is taking into account two further offences on a Form 1 as follows: 1. Sequence 4 - Possess shortened firearm (Harrington & Richardson 12 gauge firearm), an offence pursuant to s 62(1)(b), Firearms Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non‑parole period. 2. Sequence 8 - Possess ammunition being .22 rounds, an offence pursuant to s 65(3), Firearms Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 50 penalty units. 1. Sequence 19 (H275018796) - Possess shortened firearm (Sterling model .22 firearm), an offence pursuant to s 62(1)(b), Firearms Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non-parole period. 1. The offender Chartres-Abbott pleaded guilty on 17 January 2020 at the Gosford Local Court. Having regard to the timing of the plea, I propose to allow a discount on sentence of 25%. 2. The offender Chartres-Abbott has been in custody since his arrest on 25 May 2019. Accordingly, the sentence imposed today will date from that date. 3. The offender Dean Phillips appears for sentence in relation to the following three offences: 1. Sequence 4 (H73707516) - Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (232.93 grams of methylamphetamine) pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non‑parole period. When dealing with the offender for that offence, the Court is taking into account one further offence on a Form 1 of supply prohibited drug (6.75 grams of methylamphetamine), an offence pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment and there is no prescribed standard non‑parole period. 1. Sequence 10 (H73707516) - Unlawfully sell firearms three times or more within 12 months, an offence pursuant to s 51B(1), Firearms Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is a prescribed standard non-parole period of 10 years. When dealing with the offender for that offence, the Court is taking into account one further offence on a Form 1 of possess unregistered firearm (a shortened .22 calibre rifle) pursuant to s 36(1), Firearms Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non‑parole period. 1. Sequence 15 (H73707516) - Supply prohibited drug (130.37 grams of methylamphetamine), an offence pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non-parole period. When dealing with the offender Phillips for that offence, the Court is taking into account one further offence on a Form 1 of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (1.75 grams of heroin) pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty is 15 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non-parole period. 1. The offender Phillips pleaded guilty on 21 February 2020 at the Gosford Local Court. Having regard to the timing of the plea, I propose to allow a discount on sentence of 25%. 2. The offender Phillips has been in custody since his arrest on 21 June 2019. Whilst in custody, he has served a period of 6 months and 24 days in relation to the revocation of an intensive correction order. I will say more about the commencement date of the sentence later in my remarks. 3. Deborah Mulholland appears for sentence in relation to one offence as follows: 1. Sequence 4 (H71247646) - Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (154.3 grams of methylamphetamine), an offence pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non-parole period. When dealing with the offender for that offence, the Court is taking into account two further offences as follows: 1. Sequence 5 - Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (167.1 grams of methylamphetamine), an offence pursuant to s 25(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is a prescribed standard non-parole period. 2. Sequence 6 - Possess prohibited drug (17 grams of cannabis), an offence pursuant to s 10(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 2 years imprisonment. 1. The offender Mulholland pleaded guilty on 31 January 2020 at the Gosford Local Court. Having regard to the timing of the plea, I propose to allow a discount on sentence of 25%. 2. The offender Mulholland has spent 6 months and 12 days in custody, between the date of arrest on 25 May 2019 until 6 December 2019 when she was granted bail. The Agreed Facts 1. Whilst the sentence proceedings in respect of the three offenders were heard together, the Crown tendered three separate statements of facts which in combination extend to 34 pages. For the purposes of my sentencing remarks I propose to summarise the facts relevant to each offender and offence. The offender Chartres-Abbott Sequence 1: Supply more than the large commercial quantity of prohibited drug (888.79 grams methylamphetamine) 1. During the execution of a search warrant on 24 May 2019 at the offender Chartres-Abbott's premises, police found the following quantities of methylamphetamine: 1. 699 grams (79% pure); 2. 94.8 grams; 3. 91.1 grams (79.5% pure); and 4. 3.89 grams. Form 1 offences (attaching to Sequence 1) 1. During the execution of the search warrant, police also found $94,285 in cash (Sequence 5 - Deal with Proceeds of Crime), 23.8 grams of Alprazolam (Sequence 11 - Possess Prohibited Drugs), 1.4 grams of MDMA (Sequence 12 - Possess Prohibited Drug), a quantity of Sustanon (Sequence 13 - Possess Prohibited Drug) and 1.29 grams of cocaine (Sequence 14 - Possess Prohibited Drug). Sequence 2 - Supply more than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (368.8 grams heroin) 1. During the execution of the search warrant at the offender Chartres-Abbott's premises, police also found the following quantities of heroin: 1. 251.8 grams (79% pure); 2. 28.3 grams; 3. 18.2 grams (76.5% pure); and 4. 70.5 grams. Sequences 3 and 19 and Form 1 attaching to Sequence 3 (Sequences 4 and 8) - Possess shortened firearms 1. During the execution of the search warrant, police also found the following three firearms in PVC tubing inside a hole in the garden: 1. A Sportco Model .22 cut-down rifle (Sequence 3); 2. A Stirling model .22 firearm wrapped inside a blanket (Sequence 19); 3. A Harrington & Richard .12 gauge firearm in two separate pieces with the butt cut down (Sequence 4 Form 1). 1. Police also located 12 .22 rounds of ammunition suitable for use in the Sportco .22 rifle (Sequence 8). Nine of the rounds were found in a magazine. 2. It is agreed between the parties that the firearms the subject of Sequences 3 and 19 were in working order. Sequence 6: Supply more than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (372.63 grams methylamphetamine) 1. Between 17 April and 24 May 2019, the offender Chartres-Abbott supplied the following prohibited drug either to his co-offender Phillips who immediately supplied them to the undercover operative, or to the undercover operative directly: 1. 17 April 2019 - 12.5 grams of methylamphetamine (77.5% pure) and 12.5 grams of methylamphetamine (79% pure) for $3,900; 2. 3 May 2019 - 25.8 grams of methylamphetamine (79% pure) for $3,900; 3. 10 May 2019 - 154.3 grams of methylamphetamine (78.5% pure) for $23,400. 4. 24 May 2019 - 167.1 grams of methylamphetamine (77.5% pure) for $23,600. The total quantity supplied was 372.63 grams for an amount of $54,800. 1. During the execution of the search warrant the offender Chartres-Abbott told police, inter alia: * That he resided at 20A Lentara Road, Umina Beach and is a carer for his co-offender Deborah Mulholland; * That there were prohibited drugs in the house including amphetamines and some heroin; * That he does not consume prohibited drugs and that he and his co-offender Mulholland are on methadone; * That "the boys dropped it off for me to get rid of" referring to the prohibited drugs but he would not say who "did the drop" as he knew "what's going to fucking happen to him if he said anything"; * That the money located was "money for them to come and collect" and that it had not been there for very long; * That "the local boys" were coming to pick up the money; * That he had not sold any of the "ice" in a container on the kitchen bench as a bloke was going to come "this morning" and he was going to "sell the whole thing at once"; * That he had nothing to do with determining the price of the prohibited drugs, stating "I just give it to him and I don't touch it"; and * That the items are dropped to him and he gives them "to the next guy", stating "I just give them the containers, give them all the stuff back". 1. On 25 May 2019, the offender Chartres-Abbott participated in an interview with police after his arrest. He told police, inter alia: * That he resided at his address with his co-offender Mulholland with whom he has two children and he is also her carer. They had resided at the premises since 2 March 2019 paying approximately $1,100 a fortnight in rent; * That he was presently unemployed but he used to work for himself and had his own company, doing roofing; * That "people" gave him the $94,285 that was found in his bedroom but he did not know exactly who they were; * That he had been involved in supply activities for a few months and had "only just started doing it"; and * That he knew about the three PVC pipes in the rear yard of the house next to the garden shed. 1. In relation to the two .22 calibre rifles and the shotgun, he told the police that "people brought those things to me" and that he had "never fired any firearms or shot anyone" but accepted that they were at his premises. He also told police that he had put the firearms in the pipes as he "didn't know what else to do with them", continuing "I didn't want the bloody things but the people bloody brought them to me" and that he did not know where they had come from. 2. He further told police that he attends a private clinic to obtain methadone and in the past has supplied people he meets at the clinic with prohibited drugs. He further told police that the person who "brings the stuff" is named Adrian and that bikies who he would not name would drop off "the stuff". 3. The Crown tendered the following material on sentence in relation to the offender Chartres-Abbott: 1. Exhibit A - Crown sentence summary; and 2. Exhibit B - Crown written submissions. The offender Dean Phillips Sequence 4: Knowingly take part in the supply of prohibited drugs (232.93 grams methylamphetamine) Form 1 Sequence 2: Supply prohibited drug (6.75 grams methylamphetamine) 1. Between 28 March 2019 and 10 May 2019 the offender Phillips knowingly took part in the supply of the following prohibited drugs to an undercover operative: * 28 March 2019 - 27.4 grams of methylamphetamine (72% pure) for $4,000. The offender Phillips introduced the undercover operative to a person by the name of Campbell. * 17 April 2019 - 25.4 grams of methylamphetamine (77 to 79% pure) for $3,900. On this occasion, he acted as a middleman between the undercover operative and his co-offender Chartres-Abbott. * 30 April 2019 - 35.83 grams of methylamphetamine (79% pure) for $3,900. On this occasion he again acted as a middleman between the undercover operative and his co-offender Chartres-Abbott. * 10 May 2019 - 154.3 grams of methylamphetamine (78.5% pure) for $23,400. Again, he arranged for the undercover operative to attend Chartres-Abbott's premises. 1. The total quantity supplied in relation to this offence was 232.93 grams of methylamphetamine for a total amount of $35,200. 2. On 25 March 2019 the offender supplied to the undercover operative 6.75 grams of methylamphetamine (58.5% pure) for $1,200 (Sequence 2). Sequence 10: Unlawfully sell firearms three times or more within 12 months Form 1 Sequence 13: Possess unregistered firearm (.22 rifle) 1. Between 12 March 2019 and 11 May 2019 the offender Phillips supplied the following firearms: 1. 25 March 2019 - Supply of an imitation self-loading pistol of $1,100. 2. Between 27 and 28 March 2019 - Supply of a shortened .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire Stirling model repeating rifle for $2,500. This firearm was in working order. 3. 9 May 2019 - Supply of an imitation self-loading pistol for $800. 1. On 27 June 2019, during the execution of a search warrant at the offender Phillips' residence, police located an unregistered shortened self-loading .22 calibre rifle inside a black sock located in the oven in the kitchen (Sequence 13). Sequence 15 - Supply prohibited drug (130.37 grams methylamphetamine) Form 1 Sequence 14 - Knowingly take part in the supply of prohibited drug (1.75 grams of heroin) 1. During the investigation, police analysed a phone used by the offender Phillips and identified 82 transactions from text messages for the supply of methylamphetamines by Phillips between 31 March 2019 and 27 April 2019. The quantities sold ranged from 0.1 grams for $50 to 7 grams for $1,250. The text messages are set out in the Agreed Facts at paragraph 93. 2. On 2 April 2019, the offender Phillips arranged via SMS for the supply of 1.75 grams of heroin for $650 (Form 1 Sequence 14). 3. The offender Phillips participated in an interview with police on 27 June 2020. Whilst he initially denied selling guns, he ultimately admitted selling a firearm to the undercover operative. In relation to the supply of drugs, he said he was "selling it for the price he was getting it for and he was just helping people". He told police that he had never made any money selling a gun. 4. The Crown tendered the following material on sentence in relation to the offender Dean Phillips: * Exhibit A - Crown sentence summary; and * Exhibit B - Crown's written submissions. The offender Deborah Mulholland Sequence 4: Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (154.3 grams methylamphetamine) 1. On 8 May 2019, the offender Mulholland was with the co-offender Chartres‑Abbott at their residence in Umina Beach when the co-offender Phillips attended the house with the undercover operative to purchase methylamphetamine. Whilst the co-offender Chartres-Abbott was weighing a bag of methylamphetamine on a set of scales, the offender Mulholland assisted Chartres-Abbott to work out the weight, stating "168 exactly in the bag". The undercover operative paid $23,400 to Chartres-Abbott for 154.3 grams of methylamphetamine, the purity being 78.5%. Form 1 Sequence 5: Knowingly take part in the supply of prohibited drugs (167.1 grams methylamphetamine) and Sequence 6: Possess prohibited drug (cannabis) 1. On 24 May 2019, the undercover operative made a telephone call to Chartres-Abbott and spoke with the offender Mulholland. The undercover operative advised Mulholland that he had spoken with Chartres-Abbott yesterday but he had missed the call, and Mulholland enquired "Um what was it about?" The undercover operative said "I was gunna come up and see you today about those things what I saw you last time about". Mulholland advised the undercover operative, "He's not with me at the moment" and said she would get the co-offender Chartres-Abbott to ring the undercover operative once he was back. The undercover operative clarified, "Maybe he doesn't remember, I came with Deano last time" being a reference to Dean Phillips. Mulholland stated, "All right darl". 2. Later that same day, the undercover operative made a telephone call to the co-offender Chartres-Abbott and organised to attend his home in approximately one hour. When the undercover operative attended the premises in Umina Beach, the co-offender Chartres-Abbott was present. The co‑offender Phillips was also present and the offender Mulholland was standing in the kitchen. The co-offender Chartres-Abbott walked to the rear of the house and called out to the undercover operative who walked to the bedroom at the rear of the house. At that stage he was supplied with a quantity of methylamphetamine. The quantity of that methylamphetamine was 167.1 grams for an amount of $23,600. 3. Those Agreed Facts clearly disclosed very serious objective criminality. The crimes of supplying prohibited drugs are regarded by the Courts as extremely serious in circumstances where there are very significant detrimental effects to the community. The supply of prohibited drugs destroys the lives of individuals, it disrupts families and generates a significant cost to the community, both socially and financially. The community expects that persons who commit these offences will face condign punishment. 4. The sentences imposed for such offending must ensure the offenders are adequately punished and made accountable for their conduct, reflect the need for denunciation of the conduct and ensure each offender and others are deterred from committing similar offence. 5. The offender's role and the level of criminality involved is more important in determining a sentence than the quantity of the drug involved. In Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156 at [42] Price J with whom Spigelman J and Hidden agreed, stated as follows: "It is well established that the quantity of drugs is not the sole or even the principal determinant of sentencing in relation to drug offences. As was pointed out by Wood CJ at Common Law in R v McDonald (2002) 128 A Crim R 44 at [33]: What is more important is the role of the offender, and the level of his or her participation in the offence; subject of course to the fact that, in relation to supply offences under State law, there is a gradation of seriousness reflected by an increase in penalty as the quantity involved moves into those levels which answer the descriptions of a commercial quantity, or of a large commercial quantity'." 1. In sentencing for the firearm offences, general deterrence has an important role to play. Members of the community must well understand that courts will impose very significant punishment upon individuals who illegally possess firearms. The courts are concerned to ensure that the penalties imposed deter members of the community from the illegal possession of firearms. This promotes the protection and safety of the community. 2. In R v Campbell, R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1 Rothman J observed as follows at [9]: "The possession and use of firearms in society is an extremely troubling aspect for which general deterrence and specific deterrence loom large. The possession of weapons generally, by which I include knives, has become far too common in society. The possession of such weapons undermines the fabric of society and, when possessed for the purpose of other criminal activity, puts at risk the rule of law and the appropriate relationship between members of society". 1. In relation to offences involving the sale of firearms, in Trurong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36, Button J stated as follows at [66]: "In short Mr Trurong engaged in the business of the professional supply of deadly weapons, every single one of the firearms that Mr Trurong supplied or offered to supply or conspired to supply could have fallen into the hands of a hardened criminal or a desperate drug addict or a mentally disturbed person, but for the interposition of the police. In any of those cases the outcome could have been fatal, indeed catastrophic. Events in Australia and overseas demonstrate the ghastly consequence of illicit lethal weapons being at large in the community. Parliament has indicated by way of the maximum penalty and standard non-parole periods, that those who profit from trading in lethal weapons should receive condign punishment. Semi-automatic pistols are especially pernicious, not only because they are able to be readily concealed but because they are capable of firing projectiles in quick succession". Assessment of objective seriousness - Chartres-Abbott Sequence 1: Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug (888.79 grams methylamphetamine) 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 1, I have taken into the account the following factors: 1. The quantity of the prohibited drug, namely 888.79 grams. The prescribed large commercial quantity for methylamphetamine is 500 grams. The commercial quantity is 250 grams. The quantity found during the execution of the search warrant is well in excess of the prescribed large commercial quantity, recognising that the quantity of prohibited drug that falls within this offence is unlimited. 2. A significant quantity of the methylamphetamine had a very high purity. 699 grams had a purity of 79% and was of a very significant financial value based upon the value of sales to the undercover operative. 3. The role of the offender - In the Agreed Facts the offender's role is characterised as the up-line supplier for the offender Phillips. Notwithstanding the limited sophistication of the business, the offender was significantly involved in the drug supply business, having the capacity to regularly source and supply large quantities of prohibited drugs. They were supplied for significant financial reward. The offender Chartres-Abbott told police that he received the prohibited drugs in his possession from others for the purpose of distribution. It is not possible to determine precisely where the offender Chartres-Abbott fits in terms of an overall drug supply hierarchy. 4. At the time of the offending, the offender Chartres-Abbott was a long-time user of both heroin and methylamphetamines. These circumstances are distinguished from a drug supplier who is involved in a drug supply enterprise solely for commercial gain. 1. The Crown submitted that this offending was in the mid-range of objective seriousness. It was submitted by Mr Tyler-Stott on behalf of the offender Chartres-Abbott, that the offending was below the mid-range, recognising that the quantity for this offence has no limit. Having regard to the factors outlined above, I assess the objective seriousness in the lower end of the middle of the range. Sequence 2: Supply more than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (368.8 grams heroin) 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 2, I have taken into account the following factors together with my previous observations in relation to the role of the offender: 1. The quantity of the prohibited drug, 368.8 grams of heroin. The prescribed commercial quantity of heroin is 250 grams, the large commercial quantity is 1 kilogram. The quantity of heroin found during the execution of the search warrant is towards the lower end of the quantity that falls within this offence. 2. A portion of the heroin had a very high purity, 76.5 grams was of 79% purity. 1. The Crown submitted that this offending was in the mid-range of objective seriousness. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that this offence was below the mid-range in circumstances where the quantity was towards the lower end of the commercial range. Having regard to the factors outlined above, I assess the objective seriousness as below the middle of the range. Sequence 6: Supply more than the commercial quantity of prohibited drug (372.63 grams methylamphetamine) 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 6, I have taken into account the following factors, again in addition to my observations regarding the offender's role: 1. The quantity of the prohibited drug supplied was 372.63 grams of methylamphetamine. The prescribed commercial quantity is 250 grams and the large commercial quantity is 500 grams. 2. The transactions were actual supplies to an undercover operative on four separate occasions for an amount of $54,800. 3. Each of the supplies involved prohibited drugs with a very high purity, between 77.5 and 79%. 1. Both the Crown and Mr Tyler-Stott on behalf of the offender agreed that this offending was within the mid-range of objective seriousness. Having regard to the factors outlined above, I accept that this offending is in the middle of the range. Sequences 3 and 19: Possess shortened firearm 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of each of these offences I have taken into account the following factors: 1. The firearms found were a shortened Sportco .22 rifle and a shortened Stirling .22 firearm. 2. Each firearm was in PVC tubing inside a hole in the garden in a residential area and was not properly secured. 3. There is no evidence in relation to the purpose of possession of each firearm. The offender told police during his record of interview that other persons had brought the firearms to him and that he had put them in the PVC tubing because "he didn't know what else to do with them". The Crown submitted that the Court would be satisfied that a reasonable inference is that they were kept in connection with his activities as a drug supplier. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that the Court would be unable to draw this inference beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances where it is unclear how the buried firearms would have been used in connection with his activities as a drug supplier. In the absence of any further evidence in relation to the offender's purpose for the possession of the firearms, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was intending to use the firearms in relation to his drug supply business. However, I am satisfied that when an individual who possesses firearms is also otherwise engaged in illegal activity, it does increase the likelihood that the firearm will come into the hands of persons for criminal purposes. 1. Each of the firearms was in working order which created a significant risk to community safety. 2. Ammunition was also found at the same location, that was suitable for use in the firearms. 1. The Crown submitted that these offences were each below the mid-range of objective seriousness. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that these offences fall at the lower end of the range of objective seriousness. Having regard to the above factors, I assess the objective seriousness as being in the middle of the range. Important factors in that assessment are that each firearm was in working order and was located with ammunition. Subjective circumstances - Chartres-Abbott 1. The offender Chartres-Abbott is now 65 years of age. He has a criminal history commencing in 1975. He has been dealt with for various offences of possess prohibited drugs. In 1982 he was dealt with for an offence of armed robbery and also an offence of robbery. The total term of imprisonment was six years. In 1984 he was dealt with for a further offence of armed robbery. The total term of imprisonment was eight years. In 2008, he was dealt with for offences of common assault (domestic violence) and entering inclosed lands and was placed on a s 9 bond. 2. The offender also has a Queensland criminal history, having been sentenced for five offences between 1975 and 1993, the most serious offence being stealing whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. The date of that offence was 9 June 1998. The offender was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. 3. Having regard to the offender Chartres-Abbott's criminal history, I am satisfied that it disentitles him to any leniency on sentence. 4. The following material was tendered on behalf of the offender Chartres-Abbott: 1. Exhibit 1: Report of Dr Conroy, dated 17 June 2020; 2. Exhibit 2: COVID-19 response, Corrective Services New South Wales; 3. Exhibit 3: A letter under the hand of the offender, undated; and 4. Exhibit 4: Defence written submissions. 1. The offender Chartres-Abbott's background is outlined in the report of Dr Conroy. Dr Conroy assessed the offender on 29 May 2020 and 2 June 2020. 2. The offender reported to Dr Conroy that he had a traumatic childhood. His parents separated when he was young and his mother commenced a new relationship. The offender reported that his stepfather regularly hit him and verbally abused him. He also suspected his sister was sexually assaulted. 3. The offender reported a normal adjustment to school with no indication of any learning issues, behavioural concerns or childhood disorders. He reported that he left school in Year 9 to join the Navy. After leaving the Navy, he reported that he obtained a builder's licence through technical college and managed two roofing companies. He ceased employment after being incarcerated in the 1980's and 1990's. 4. Dr Conroy was of the opinion that his employment history may not be accurate given that he had previously reported to the Royal Rehabilitation Centre that he had worked in different settings such as retail and the stock market. Circumstances at the time of arrest 1. At the time of his arrest the offender reported that he was living with his co-offender Ms Mulholland. They were not in a relationship and he described himself as her carer. The offender had told police during his interview that he was in receipt of a carer's payment, receiving approximately $580 per fortnight. 2. The offender reported that he had previously been in a relationship with Ms Mulholland and they have two children who have been taken into foster care from a young age. The offender reported that he has supervised access to those children a few times a year. Substance use history 1. The offender reported lifelong use of cannabis and heroin, having commenced using those drugs when he was 19 or 20 years of age. He continued to use heroin up until his arrest in 2019. This was despite having commenced methadone treatment in 1997 or 1998. He had told police that prior to his arrest he was attending a private clinic to obtain methadone. He reported that he commenced using amphetamines about five years ago. He also reported use of benzodiazepine to help manage his anxiety and also to help him sleep after the use of amphetamines. Medical and psychiatric history 1. Dr Conroy reviewed correspondence provided by Royal North Shore hospital (dated 21 March 2012) and the Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney (dated 17 April 2012). Those records provided the following information: The offender had been found naked and unconscious on 1 March 2012. He was given Naloxone. Upon examination at Hornsby Hospital, the indications were that he had sustained a very severe traumatic brain injury. On 2 March 2012, he was transferred to the Royal North Shore Hospital for neurosurgical management. He underwent urgent surgery for the brain injury. On 21 March 2012, he was transferred to the Royal Rehabilitation Centre in Sydney. He undertook a rehabilitation program until being discharged on 17 April 2012. A number of cognitive deficits were noted upon his discharge. 1. Upon review by a clinical psychologist on 13 April 2012 it was noted that the offender had indicated he had magical thinking, some paranoid ideation, grandiose ideation and a propensity for delusional thought patterns. The clinical psychologist was of the opinion that he had suffered from possible mania-like symptoms but he did not meet the criteria for a clear diagnosis at that time. He was referred for follow-up at the Royal North Shore Hospital Neurosurgical Clinic but was not linked to any community rehabilitation. Assessment by Dr Conroy 1. Dr Conroy assessed the offender over two sessions, one via audio visual link and the other in person at Long Bay Hospital. He summarised his findings as follows: "In the context of adequate effort his intellectual abilities, attention and memory of visual spatial material all fell within the expected average range. His executive functioning on testing and questionnaire were all within normal limits, however there was evidence of a reduction in processing speed and in his ability to learn and recall auditory and verbal information. This profile of impairments is consistent with the general sequelae of a very severe traumatic brain injury. Furthermore, these deficits are consistent with specific brain lesions identified on imaging immediately following his traumatic brain injury. The scans revealed that the majority of damage was located within the left hemisphere and specifically the left temporal region. Verbal memory deficits are strongly associated with damage to the left temporal lobe. On scans, his right hemisphere is relatively free of damage and on testing his visual spatial processing was preserved". 1. In the opinion of Dr Conroy, the offender's traumatic brain injury is the primary cause of his neuropsychological deficits. Further, in the opinion of Dr Conroy his traumatic brain injury would make imprisonment more onerous. It was noted that the offender is currently housed in the Long Bay Hospital and that the additional structure and routine provided in this setting would reduce to some extent the burden placed upon him. Nevertheless, Dr Conroy was of the opinion that his traumatic brain injury does make him a vulnerable person in custody. 2. Having regard to the evidence of Dr Conroy, I am satisfied that custody will be more onerous for the offender Chartres-Abbott and there will be some moderation of the otherwise appropriate sentence. Other material tendered on behalf of the offender - Chartres-Abbott 1. The COVID-19 response document prepared by New South Wales Corrective Services (Exhibit 2) indicates that all social visits to inmates in New South Wales Correctional Centres have been suspended. As a consequence, there is now increased access to telephone calls and arrangements are being made, or were being made at the time, for AVL technology to be used. I now understand AVL technology is being used within Correctional Centres in New South Wales to facilitate visits. I accept that the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have created additional onerous conditions for New South Wales inmates. 2. The offender provided a letter to the Court (Exhibit 3). The offender acknowledged that he had made a lot of mistakes in his life and he indicated he was sorry for most of them. He is hopeful that he can use his time in custody to reflect upon his actions and realise his mistakes that he has made in the past. He outlined that he became involved in the offending as a result of a chance meeting with someone from his past. He became indebted because of his drug addiction and continued to be involved in the offending to repay a debt. Submissions of the parties in relation to the offender - Chartres-Abbott 1. The Crown relied upon oral and written submissions. Mr Tyler-Stott of Counsel on behalf of the offender also relied upon written submissions supplemented by oral submissions. I have taken into account those submissions in determining the appropriate sentence. Prospects of rehabilitation – Chartres-Abbott 1. At this stage any view of the offender Chartres-Abbott's prospects of rehabilitation must necessarily be guarded given his lengthy criminal history and his lifelong addiction to illicit substances. The Court is hopeful that the offender can gain some assistance whilst in custody to address his addiction issues. At this stage, I do consider it is unlikely he will re-offend, given he will be of very advanced years when he is released from custody. Remorse – Chartres-Abbott 1. Whilst there was an expression of remorse in a letter prepared by the offender, I give such expressions of remorse limited weight in circumstances where those expressions of remorse were not on oath (see generally Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 per Wilson J at [57]). Special circumstances – Chartres-Abbott 1. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that the Court would make a finding of special circumstance having regard to the offender's age, the COVID-19 pandemic, the offender's traumatic brain injury making imprisonment more onerous, accumulation of sentence and his drug addiction which will mean he requires a lengthy period under supervision upon release from custody. 2. The Crown conceded that a finding of special circumstances was open to the Court. I am satisfied special circumstance is established and I propose to vary the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the parole period pursuant to s 44(2B), Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Assessment of objective seriousness - Phillips Sequence 4: Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (232.93 grams methylamphetamine) 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 4, I have taken into account the following factors: 1. The quantity of prohibited drug supplied was 232.93 grams. The prescribed commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is 250 grams. The prohibited drugs were supplied to an undercover operative. 2. The methylamphetamine was of a high purity (between 72 and 79%). 3. The role of the offender Phillips. Phillips was a street-level dealer actively involved in negotiating supplies, arranging for delivery of the prohibited drugs and arranging for payments and, on some occasions, collecting payments. He can properly be described as actively taking part in the supply by the co-offender Chartres-Abbott and others. 4. At the time of the offending, the offender was a drug user engaged in dealing in prohibited drugs. His circumstance is distinguishable from a person who is supplying drugs solely for the purpose of commercial gain. 1. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of this offence was in the mid-range. Mr Kelly on behalf of the offender Phillips, submitted that the offending was just below the mid-range. Having regard to the above factors, I assess the objective seriousness as just below the mid-range. Sequence 15: Supply prohibited drug (130.37 grams methylamphetamine) 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 15, I have taken into account the following factors: 1. The quantity of prohibited drug supplied was 130.37 grams. Again, the prescribed commercial quantity is 250 grams. 2. This offence relates to 82 transactions between 31 March 2019 and 27 April 2019 that were detected after an examination of a mobile phone used by the offender Phillips. The quantity sold ranged from 0.1 grams for $50 to 7 grams for $1,250. 3. The offender Phillips' role can properly be described as being significantly involved in the street-level supply of methylamphetamine. 1. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of this offence was also in the mid-range. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that it was just below mid-range. Having regard to the above factors, I assess the objective seriousness as just below the mid-range. Sequence 10: Unlawfully sell firearms three times or more within 12 months 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 10, I have taken into account the following factors: 1. The type of firearms supplied, namely two imitation self-loading pistols and a shortened .22 Winchester Magnum repeating rifle. 2. The .22 Winchester Magnum repeating rifle was in working order. Whilst the other two firearms were imitation pistols, they still had the capacity to be used in the commission of further criminal offences and also created a significant risk to community safety. 3. The firearms were supplied for financial reward. I am unable to determine whether the offender Phillips actually received any of the proceeds of the sale. 4. The number of transactions that occurred during the 12 month period was three. That is the minimum required to establish the offence. 1. The Crown submitted that the objectives seriousness of this offence was below the mid-range. It was conceded on behalf of the offender Phillips that this was a proper assessment of the objective seriousness. Having regard to the above factors, I am satisfied that the objective seriousness of this offence is below the middle of the range. Aggravating factors - Phillips 1. At the time of the commission of the offences, the offender Phillips was on conditional liberty. He had been placed on a community correction order on 10 July 2018 at the Gosford Local Court. That community correction order dated from July 2018 until December 2019. Subjective circumstances - Phillips 1. The offender Phillips is now 39 years of age. 2. He has a criminal history commencing in 1999 when he was dealt with for offences of possess prohibited drug and self-administer prohibited drug. In respect to each of these matters he was fined. 3. In 2011, he was dealt with for an offence of common assault and received a s 9 bond. In that same year he was dealt with for an offence of use carriage service to menace, harass or offend and was also fined. 4. In 2018 and 2019, he was dealt with for offences of goods in custody and received a fine and a community correction order for two years. In 2019 he was also dealt with at the Gosford Local Court for the following offences: possess prohibited drug; contravene apprehended violence order (two counts, call up); common assault (call up); and stalk and intimidate (two counts, call up). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of seven months to be served by way of an intensive correction order to date from 20 June 2019 and expire on 19 January 2019. 5. The intensive correction order was revoked by the State Parole Authority on 27 June 2019 due to the offending for which the offender is to be sentenced today. The offender was ordered to serve the balance of the term in custody until 19 January 2020 being a period of six months and 24 days. 6. The sentences imposed today will be the first full-time custodial sentences that the offender has served. Having regard to the offender's criminal history, I am satisfied it disentitles him to any leniency on sentence that would otherwise be available to a person with no previous convictions. 7. The following material was tendered on behalf of the offender Phillips: 1. Exhibit 1 - Report of Mr Knight, clinical nurse consultant, dated 30 June 2020. 1. The offender's Phillip's background is outlined in the report of Mr Knight. Mr Knight assessed the offender on 10 April 2020 by audio visual link whilst he was in custody at the Metropolitan Special Program Centre. 2. The offender reported that he was born in Gosford. He is the only child of his biological parents. His parents separated before his birth. He has never met his father. His mother remarried when he was three and he has younger half-siblings. His stepfather was in his life between the ages of 3 to 16. He reported he was physically and emotionally abused by his stepfather, the physical abuse occurring at least three times per week. 3. The physical abuse included being held down and punched in the face. He also alleged that his stepfather was violent towards his mother and he had witnessed a particular event which is disclosed in the report. The offender also reported being sexually assaulted on a number of occasions as a child. 4. His younger brother died of SIDS at around 11 months. He reported that a post-mortem examination showed that his brother had cigarette butts, peanuts and beans in his stomach. He told Mr Knight that his mother told authorities that he was responsible, despite only being four years of age at the time. He reported to Mr Knight that he continues to be distressed about this abuse and accusation. Education and employment 1. The offender reported that he was schooled in a special learning class, otherwise his time at school was unremarkable. He left school midway through Year 12. 2. At 17 years of age, he commenced employment in metal fabrication. At 18 years of age, he commenced employment as a landscaper. He held that employment for a period of 16 years. At 37 years of age, he ceased all employment and commenced illicit drug use. He has not had any meaningful employment since that time. Relationships 1. The offender has three children to two partners. Circumstances at the time of arrest 1. The offender reported that before being arrested in June 2019 he was living with his ex-partner Amy. Approximately 16 months before the offending, he had commenced to use methylamphetamine (ice) daily with his ex-partner. His use began against the background of a breakdown in a previous relationship. His GP at the time had recommended that he see a mental health clinician, however he did not arrange any appointments. He reported that he became involved in the offending in order to obtain prohibited drugs. 2. Mr Knight noted as follows: "He stated that at the time of the offending he was 'unable to see the wrong' in his actions. He stated that he did 'not see the crime just the need to get drugs'. He reported that he obtained around $50 for his part in the offending". 1. He told Mr Knight he was "sorry" for his offending and understands the harm and the cost to society caused by prohibited drugs and firearms. He said at the time of the offending he was "only thinking about drugs". He told Mr Knight he was willing to do "whatever it takes" to ensure that he does not offend again in the future. 2. He reported he was committed to maintaining his abstinence from prohibited drugs. He was unemployed, however was not claiming any form of benefits from Centrelink. The offender advised that he has supportive friends in the community and is able to secure full-time employment in a supermarket upon release from custody and has accommodation with a friend. Substance use history 1. The offender Phillips reported that he commenced smoking cannabis on a daily basis at around 22 years of age until 37 years of age. At 37 years of age, he commenced using ice daily, after being introduced to it by his ex‑girlfriend. He had also tried cocaine and used ecstasy and GBH. He reported that he has never attended any form of drug and alcohol counselling. 2. The offender reported that he has been abstinent from prohibited drugs since being in custody. Medical and psychiatric history 1. The offender reported an unremarkable medical history. He told Mr Knight that he was stabbed in the left cheek and ear by another inmate whilst in custody. The wounds were bandaged. He denied any ongoing issues as a result of those injuries. Since that time he has been on limited association. 2. The offender reported that he has never been admitted to a psychiatric hospital. He has never received any formal treatment from a community mental health team. The offender Phillips reported that he has been reviewed by a mental health nurse whilst in custody and has been prescribed an oral antipsychotic medication. He indicated he had told the mental health nurse that he had been experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations before being incarcerated. He has recently been reviewed by a psychiatrist who prescribed a number of oral antipsychotic medications. 3. At the time of seeing Mr Knight, the offender had been taking medication for around 11 months. The offender reported that despite taking medication he continued to "hear and see things". Assessment by Mr Knight 1. Mr Knight was of the opinion that the offender was full oriented in time and place and person. He reported poor short-term memory since being in custody and that his concentration was mildly impaired. The offender described to Mr Knight that his mood was depressed. He described that he frequently dissociates and experiences auditory hallucinations. He presented with a number of anxiety symptoms. He reported that he frequently remembers his childhood physical and sexual abuse and his brother dying. Opinion of Mr Knight 1. Mr Knight was of the opinion that the offender appears to have suffered from a substance induced psychotic illness with ongoing psychotic symptoms. Mr Knight noted that the offender is prescribed a reasonably high dose of antipsychotic medication and recommended a longitudinal assessment in order to determine if he suffers from an ongoing psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. Whilst Mr Knight was of the opinion that the offender does not currently meet the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, he was of the opinion that this may become evident during the course of ongoing treatment. 2. Mr Knight was also of the opinion that the offender suffers from amphetamine use disorder in partial remission. Mr Knight concluded as follows: "Whilst Mr Phillips' diagnosis remains somewhat unclear, he certainly requires ongoing treatment and follow-up when released from custody. He will require ongoing assessment, psychological treatment and regular review of his psych-pharmaco therapy". Treatment recommendations 1. Mr Knight recommended that the offender Phillips engage with a mental health clinician immediately upon release from custody and that he should continue to take medication. He also recommended that he attend all drug and alcohol counselling as recommended by his treating team and that he should abstain from alcohol and prohibited drugs. 2. Having regard to the evidence of Mr Knight, I am satisfied that the offender Phillips is suffering from ongoing mental health issues and that custody will be more onerous for him (see generally Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 A Crim R 1 commencing at [177]). Accordingly, I propose some moderation of the otherwise appropriate sentence. Submissions on behalf of the offender - Phillips 1. It was submitted on behalf of the offender Phillips that there was a connection between his drug addiction and the offending and that the Court would be satisfied that he received no financial gain with respect to the supply of drugs and firearms. It was submitted that the offender was a dealer, used by others, to commit the offences. It was submitted that whilst his mental health was an issue at the time, due to his addiction he did not follow up with recommended treatment. 2. In relation to the offender's childhood circumstances, whilst it was not submitted that the Bugmy principles were engaged (a reference to Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571), it was submitted that such circumstances remain relevant to the overall assessment of the appropriate sentence. I accept that submission. The Court was reminded that the offender is currently on protection in circumstances where he was assaulted in March 2020. It was conceded on behalf of the offender Phillips that the Court would likely find that his prospects of rehabilitation were guarded. 3. It was accepted that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time that he committed these offences. In relation to the sentences to be imposed it was submitted there could be some concurrency between the revocation of the intensive correction order and the sentences imposed today. 4. The Crown relied upon written submissions. In relation to the commencement date for the sentence, the Crown reminded the Court that it was the offender's arrest for the firearm offences that caused the revocation of the intensive correction order. In those circumstances the Crown conceded that the Court has discretion to backdate the commencement date of the sentence to sometime during the revocation of the intensive correction order. Prospects of rehabilitation - Phillips 1. Any view of the offender's prospects of rehabilitation must necessarily be very guarded at this stage given his longstanding substance use issues and his ongoing mental health issues. At this stage, I am unable to find that he is unlikely to re-offend. Special circumstances - Phillips 1. It was submitted on behalf of the offender that the Court would make a finding of special circumstances given that it is the offender's first time in custody, and also that custody will be more onerous because of his mental health issues and he will also require a lengthy period under supervision to address his ongoing drug issues. I am satisfied that special circumstances are established and I propose to vary the statutory ratio between the non‑parole period and the parole period pursuant to s 44(2B), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Assessment of objective seriousness - Mulholland Sequence 4: Knowingly take part in the supply or a prohibited drug (154.3 grams methylamphetamine) 1. In assessing the objective seriousness of Sequence 4, I have taken into account the following factors: 1. The quantity of the prohibited drug, namely 154.3 grams of methylamphetamine. The prescribed commercial quantity is 250 grams. 2. The role of the offender was to assist the co-offender Chartres‑Abbott to weigh drugs. There is no evidence of any further involvement of the offender other than her receiving an incoming call on 24 May 2019 which is the evidence that constitutes the Form 1 offence. 1. Having regard to the offender Mulholland's extremely limited role in the supply of the prohibited drugs, it was conceded on behalf of the Crown and also the offender that the offending was towards the lower end of objective seriousness. I accept that submission. Subjective circumstances - Mulholland 1. The offender Mulholland is 54 years of age. 2. She has a criminal history commencing as an adult in 1987 when she was 22 years old, when she was dealt with for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She has multiple convictions for possess prohibited drug in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2012 and 2013. In 2013, she received a s 12 suspended sentence for seven months. That was her most recent offence. 3. Having regard to the offender Mulholland's criminal history, I am satisfied that it disentitles her to any leniency on sentence that would be available to a person of good character. 4. The following material was tendered on behalf of the offender Mulholland during the sentence proceedings: 1. Exhibit 1 - Psychological report of Ms Gina Lattas, dated 30 June 2020; 2. Exhibit 2 - Letter under the hand Dr Emma Verner, a consultant haematologist, dated 3 July 2020; and 3. Exhibit 3 - Written submissions prepared by Mr Healy on behalf of the offender. 1. The offender's background is outlined in the report of Ms Lattas (Exhibit 1). Ms Lattas assessed the offender on 20 March 2020 for a period of two hours. 2. The offender is the youngest of three children born to her parents' union. She reported that her father passed away when she was 18 months old due to a workplace accident. The offender advised that she has never had a close relationship with her mother. 3. She reported that she had a close relationship with her two older brothers who were two and four years older than her. She reported that her mother began her relationship with her stepfather when she was approximately seven or eight years old. She advised that she had a closer relationship with her stepfather than her mother during her childhood. She reported that there was "nothing good" about her childhood and reported that she was exposed to domestic violence, primarily property damage. 4. She also reported being sexually assaulted by her stepfather when she was eight years of age. She advises that her mother remains unaware of this. Education and employment 1. The offender Mulholland reported that she completed year 7 at Asquith Girls High School. She did not report any history of expulsions or suspensions and she said that she was encouraged to leave school during year 8, due to her learning difficulties. She reported a lengthy history of learning difficulties and being placed in special education classes. The offender reported being good at sports and having stable friendships during her schooling. 2. The offender reported an employment history consisting of working in nursing homes, factory work, retail and floor sanding. She indicated that over the past 30 years she has been working on and off. She reported that she is currently receiving a disability support pension. Relationships 1. In relation to her relationships, the offender reported exposure to exploitation and abuse. She gave birth to her first son when she was 16 years old and her partner who was then 19 years old left her after the birth. She reported that they had been together for approximately three years. 2. She then reported being in a volatile relationship for approximately four years. The couple had one daughter now aged 18 years old. That relationship involved significant domestic violence. Her partner was a drug dealer and was addicted to methylamphetamines. Her daughter was removed from her care when she was four years old and placed in the care of her mother and cousin before being placed into foster care. 3. The offender reported that she had a son now 13 years old. He was removed from her care when he was six months old and has been in the care of her mother and cousin. 4. The offender advised that she has been in a relationship with the co-offender Chartres-Abbott for 14 to 15 years and that he has been her carer for her disabilities for the past few years. 5. They have two sons aged 10 and 11. These children were removed from their care at birth by Child Protection Services due to homelessness and substance abuse. One child lives in foster care and the other resides with the offender's cousin. She advised that her contact with her children is restricted to one two hour supervised contact visit every couple of months. Substance use history 1. The offender reported a family history of substance abuse issues including her mother's abuse of prescription medication and her eldest brother's history of methylamphetamine addiction. 2. She reported that she started consuming alcohol when she was 16 years of age. She identified alcohol as a means of coping and would drink regularly from this time until 21 years of age. She advised that she has not consumed alcohol since that time. She reported using cannabis from 15 years of age. Her use became more regular at 21 years of age. She reported an escalation in her use of cannabis approximately 7 to 12 months before the assessment by Ms Lattas. She indicated she uses cannabis to help her sleep and relax. 3. The offender reported using heroin from the age of 31. She identified using heroin as a way of coping from her mid-forties. She reported fluctuations in her use ranging from infrequent use to daily use of between $30 and $200 worth of heroin. She advised that she attempted to cease her heroin use on multiple occasions and has been on methadone for the past seven to eight years. She also advised that she has voluntarily attended a substance use rehabilitation program at Odyssey House in 1996 to help her cease her heroin use. 4. She reported that she began regularly using methylamphetamine approximately 18 years ago. She attributed much of her use to her partner's influence and her attempts to cease using heroin. She did not report any current use of methamphetamine. Medical history 1. The offender Mulholland reported that she has blood clots in her lungs as a result of a fall that she had in custody which damaged her vein. Medical records received by Ms Lattas confirmed that the offender was medicated with anti-coagulant medication. 2. In relation to previous head injuries, the offender reported being punched in the head and losing consciousness when she was 17 or 18 years old. She also reported being slashed with a knife on her neck, face and eye when she was 19 years old. Psychiatric history 1. The offender reported a family history of mental health disorders including her eldest brother's diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. She reported that she has had no formal mental health diagnosis and no prior history of psychological interventions outside of her substance use rehabilitation program. 2. The offender reported that she is not aware of what disabilities she has been diagnosed with. She reported that she has previously been prescribed an anti-depressant medication to help reduce her nightmares and stated that she was unsure if this was also to help manage her withdrawals from cannabis. She is not currently on any medication for her mental health. 3. Ms Lattas reported that the offender indicated she experiences symptoms consistent with a history of trauma including flashbacks, recurrent nightmares, detachment from others, sleep disturbance, loss of interest in activities, avoidance of past memories and reckless and self-destructive behaviour such as substance use. Circumstances at the time of arrest 1. The offender Mulholland reported that in the lead-up to her offending she was experiencing significant financial strain and had been unable to secure stable accommodation which negatively impacted her relationship. The offender reported a relapse in her substance use which she connected to her difficulty coping with the situation. Assessment by Ms Lattas 1. After conducting a psychological assessment, Ms Lattas was of the opinion that the offender presented as an individual who was quite unhappy and pessimistic and noted as follows: "Her drug use has likely led to severe impairment in her ability to maintain her social role expectations and her behaviour has most likely alienated her from any of the people who were once close to her. Such setbacks have left Ms Mulholland with significant guilt and rumination about her life circumstances and the urge to use drugs may be at the centre of many of these ruminations. Her depression and drug use may be related in a number of different ways. The depression could be driving the use of drugs or it could be a consequence of the disruption associated with her substance abuse. Regardless of whether depression is primary or secondary it has probably left her quite pessimistic about her prospects for change or improvement." 1. In the opinion of Ms Lattas, the offender meets the diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, severe opioid use disorder and severe cannabis use disorder. Ms Lattas noted that, "Depression appears to have been a longstanding issue for Ms Mulholland and is likely to be connected to her history of trauma and use of substances as coping". 1. In the opinion of Ms Lattas, the offender was likely suffering from these disorders during the offending period. Ms Lattas noted that unmanaged ADHD can increase risky impulsive decision making and the offender's use of illicit substances may have impacted on her rational decision making capabilities during that time. Treatment recommendations 1. In relation to future treatment Ms Lattas was of the opinion that the offender presents as an individual who has a lower level of motivation than is typical and that her clinical responses suggested possible resistance to the idea that personal change is required. Ms Lattas observed, "Treatment would be fairly challenging with a difficult treatment process and the probability of reversals." 1. Ms Lattas made a number of recommendations for the offender including applying for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, undertaking psychiatric treatment as well as completing a detoxification program for her opioid and methylamphetamine use. Other material tendered on behalf of the offender - Mulholland 1. A letter under the hand of Emma Verner, the offender's treating haematologist was also tendered. Dr Verner outlined the offender's history of bilateral deep venous thrombosis and extensive pulmonary emboli that were provoked during the offender's time in custody. Dr Verner also noted the offender's full compliance with treatment for that condition. Submissions on behalf of the parties - Mulholland 1. The Crown relied upon written submissions supplemented by brief oral submissions. Ultimately, the Crown conceded that an intensive correction order was within range for the offender Mulholland. 2. Mr Healy of Counsel, on behalf of the offender, also relied upon written submissions supplemented by further oral submissions. Ultimately, it was submitted by Mr Healy on behalf of the offender that, taking into account the pre-sentence custody period of 6 months and 12 days, an intensive correction order would be within range. Prospects of rehabilitation - Mulholland 1. It was submitted on behalf of the offender Mulholland that whilst her prospects of full rehabilitation were uncertain given the opinion of Ms Lattas that there may be some difficulty with her commitment to treatment, the Court would be satisfied that it is unlikely that she would reoffend in relation to being involved in drug supply. I accept that submission. 2. The Court is hopeful that the offender Mulholland does accept any professional support and assistance that is provided to her to give her the best chance of achieving a greater degree of stability in her life circumstances. Totality – Chartres-Abbott and Phillips 1. In relation to the offenders Chartres-Abbott and Phillips who appear for sentence in relation to a number of offences, I am required to consider the question of totality. 2. The relevant sentencing principle to consider is whether the sentence for one offence can comprehend and reflect the criminality of the other. If so the sentences should be concurrent but if not, there should be some accumulation (see Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41). 3. In relation to each offender, I am satisfied that there is separate criminality in relation to each of the drug offences and the firearm offences, which warrants partial accumulation to properly reflect the total criminality whilst recognising with respect to the drug offending that it was one criminal enterprise. Parity 1. There is no direct parity between the offenders in circumstances where they are each being dealt with for different offences. Form 1 matters 1. In respect of each offender I have taken into account the Form 1 matters in accordance with the principles enunciated in Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1991, No 1 of 2002, (2002) 56 NSWLR 146. Determination 1. In determining the appropriate sentences I have taken into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. 2. Having considered all possible alternatives, I am satisfied that in respect of each offender and each offence that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. 3. I have had regard to the relevant prescribed maximum penalties and the prescribed standard non-parole periods in accordance with s 54B(2), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Aggregate sentences 1. In relation to the offenders Chartres-Abbott and Phillips, I propose to impose an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A(1), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Indicative terms - Chartres-Abbott 1. In accordance with s 53A(2)(b), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence had separate sentences been opposed are as follows in relation to the offender Chartres-Abbott: 1. Sequence 1 - Supply more than large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug 888.79 grams of methylamphetamine (taking into account five offences on the Form 1) A starting term of 10 years less 25% for the plea of guilty leaving a total term of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. 1. Sequence 2 - Supply more than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (368.8 grams heroin) A starting term of 5 years less 25% for the plea of guilty leaving a total term of 3 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. 1. Sequence 3 - Possess shortened firearm (taking into account two Form 1 offences) A starting term of 4 years and 6 months, less 25% for a plea of guilty leaving a total term of 3 years and 4 months. 1. Sequence 19 - Possess shortened firearm A starting term of 3 years and 6 months discounted by 25% for the plea of guilty leaving a total term of 2 years and 7 months. 1. Sequence 6 - Supply more than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (372.63 grams methylamphetamine) A starting term of six years less 25% for the plea of guilty, leaving a total term of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months. 1. Mr Chartres-Abbott, in relation to each offence you are convicted. 2. Taking into account the Form 1 matters, you are sentenced to a total aggregate sentence of 14 years imprisonment to date from 25 May 2019 and expire on 24 May 2033, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months to date from 25 May 2019 and expire on 24 November 2027. 3. The earliest date upon which you will be eligible for parole is 24 November 2027. Indicative terms - Phillips 1. Sequence 4 - Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (232.93 grams of methylamphetamine) (taking into account one Form 1 offence) A starting term of 4 years less 25% for the plea of guilty leaving a total term of 3 years. 1. Sequence 15 - Supply prohibited drug (130.37 grams methylamphetamine) (taking into account one Form 1 offence) A starting term of 4 years less 25% for the plea of guilty leaving a total term of 3 years. 1. Sequence 10 - Unlawfully sell firearms three times or more within 12 months (taking into account one Form 1 offence) A starting term of 6 years less 25% for the plea of guilty leaving a total term of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months. 1. In relation to the commencement date for the aggregate sentence, I propose to date the aggregate sentence from 27 September 2019 so that the period served between 27 June 2019 and 26 September 2019, a period of three months, will be referable to the revocation of the intensive corrections order. 2. Mr Phillips, in relation to each offence you are convicted. 3. Taking into account the Form 1 matters, I sentence you to a total aggregate sentence of 8 years imprisonment to date from 27 September 2019 and expire on 26 September 2027, with a non-parole period of 4 years 10 months to date from 27 September 2019 and expire on 26 July 2024. 4. The earliest date upon which you will become eligible for parole is 26 July 2024. 5. In relation to the offender Mulholland, I am satisfied that the appropriate term of imprisonment is 18 months. The starting term was 2 years, discounted by 25% for the plea of guilty. That term will be reduced by the pre-sentence custody of 196 days, leaving a total term of 11 months and 17 days. 6. I am satisfied having considered s 66, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act that the term of imprisonment can be served in the community by way of an intensive correction order. Community safety is best addressed in my view if Ms Mulholland can receive appropriate counselling and treatment. 7. Whilst I have not had the benefit of a sentencing assessment report, I am satisfied pursuant to s 17D(1), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act that there is sufficient information before the Court to justify the making of the order without obtaining a report. 8. Ms Mulholland, in relation to one offence of knowingly take part in the supply of prohibited drug being 154.3 grams of methylamphetamine, you are convicted. 9. Taking into account the Form 1 matters, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 11 months and 17 days. 10. I order that that term of imprisonment will date from today 28 August 2020 and expire on 13 August 2021. I order that that term of imprisonment be served by way of an intensive correction order in the community in accordance with s 7, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. 11. The intensive correction order is subject to the following standard conditions: 1. You must not commit any offences. 2. You must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections officer. You must report to Wyong Community Corrections office by telephone by 4 pm on Friday, 4 September 2020. 1. The intensive correction order will also be subject to the following additional conditions: 1. You must attend upon a GP within two months from today for the preparation of a mental health care plan. 2. You must participate in any program, treatment or intervention or related activity as directed by a Community Corrections officer for the period of the intensive correction order. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 November 2020