New South Wales District Court CITATION: R v Matthew James HALL [2009] NSWDC 135 HEARING DATE(S): 22 May 2009 JUDGMENT DATE: 22 May 2009 JURISDICTION: Criminal JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ DECISION: See paragraph [12] CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Supply prohibited drug - Form 1 - Reckless damage - Drive while disqualified LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 PARTIES: The Crown Matthew James Hall FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/11/1298 SOLICITORS: NSW DPP Robert Wehbe and Partners SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: Matthew James Hall appears for sentence today having pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to an offence of supplying a prohibited drug. When I sentence him for that matter he asks that I take into account two matters on a Form 1. The first of those matters is a further offence of supplying a prohibited drug. It occurred earlier in time than the matter for which he must be specifically sentenced. The other offence to be taken into account is an offence of recklessly or intentionally damaging the side window of a motor vehicle. Also, I am to deal with two related matters of driving whilst disqualified. 2 The offender was a drug user living in the northern beaches area. He knew a woman by the name of Suzanne Lenton. She had a relationship of supplier and purchaser with an undercover police officer. She of course did not know that he was an undercover police officer. From time to time when the police officer asked her to supply drugs to him, she would obtain them from Mr Hall, the offender. She did this on two occasions, the first on 29 April 2008, that is the matter on the Form 1 and the second on 5 May 2008, that is the matter for which the offender must be specifically sentenced. On the first occasion the offender supplied 0.14 of a gram of methylamphetamine for $70 and on the next occasion 0.9 of a gram for $450. 3 The offender is supported in court today by his father. His parents separated when he was relatively young but he continues to maintain a good relationship with his father. Indeed his father has employed him from time to time and describes him as the best employee he has ever had. 4 The offender left school at fourteen years and nine months and has since then worked in various occupations, but as is commonly the case, his drug use got in the way of being a good employee. He first began experimenting with cannabis at the age of thirteen and his drug use escalated until at the age of twenty-four he was using heroin on a daily basis. 5 The offences of supply committed by the offender were committed by him in order to obtain his own drugs. The offender would skim drugs for his own use from drugs he bought on credit, before on-supplying them to Ms Lenton and her undercover police officer customer. 6 For a while the offender was able to fund his own drug use habit, but after a change in accommodation the money he would have spent on drugs had to be spent on other things. It was in those circumstances that the offender said he was left in the position where he could no longer fund his own drug habit and had to obtain drugs in the way I have described. 7 The offender has something of a criminal history but this is his first offence of supplying drugs. He has spent significant periods of time in custody for various offences and as far as the driving offences are concerned it is to be noted that he regularly received gaol sentences for such offences. His willingness to drive whilst disqualified is evidenced by the fact that he is currently disqualified as a driver until 30 September 2027. 8 He pleaded guilty, as I mentioned, at the first opportunity and so I will reduce the sentence I would otherwise impose by twenty-five percent to reflect that circumstance. He was on a s 9 bond at the time he committed the reckless damage offence on the Form 1. At an earlier time he received a sentence of home detention but failed to take advantage of the leniency that was offered to him on that occasion, breaching (I gather deliberately) the home detention order with the result that he was required to serve his sentence in custody. 9 Whilst in custody in 2003, he was diagnosed as a diabetic although no evidence was put before me today to suggest that the offender will have a harder time of it in prison because of his condition. I will accept that it is entirely possible that that either is the case or will be the case in the future. 10 Upon his release from custody there is work available for him. His father who is a builder has offered him work as have two other people. It is to be hoped that the offender will take advantage of those opportunities available to him. His prospects of rehabilitation are enhanced by the fact that he has work available but of course much would depend on whether he overcomes his drug addiction. As I mentioned before, he has had problems with work in the past because of his use of drugs. In order to assist him to overcome his addiction to drugs I will enlarge the period of eligibility to parole at the expense of the non- parole period to take account of his need for supervision. 11 Ordinarily one deals with the related matters on a Form 166 certificate at the conclusion of sentencing for the major offence. However in this case that would lead to an inappropriate sentencing outcome. The offender needs to receive a significant custodial sentence for his drug supply matter, especially given the circumstances that there is another drug supply matter to be taken into account and to impose a period of custody for the driving whilst disqualified matters accumulative on the non-parole period for the drug supply matter would mean that the period of eligibility for parole, an important part of the offender's rehabilitation would be reduced. I consider that under s 168 of the Criminal Procedure Act it is possible for me to impose sentence on the driving matters first and then impose a sentence on the drug supply matter which is partially accumulative. That is what I will do. 12 For the two offences of driving whilst disqualified the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a fixed term of twelve months for each of those matters. Those sentences are fixed terms because of the sentence I will impose on the drug supply matter and they are to date from 23 July 2008. For the offence of supplying a prohibited drug taking into account the two matters on the Form 1, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment and I set a non-parole period of eighteen months to date from 22 January 2009 with a balance of term of two years. The effective overall sentence is thus two years non-parole period with a four year head sentence. The offender is disqualified from driving on each of the driving matters for twelve months to date from 30 September 2027, that disqualification period in each case being served concurrently with the other. ********** 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.