R v Garrick Keith FOORD [2009] NSWDC 256

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Garrick Keith FOORD [2009] NSWDC 256

HEARING DATE(S): 22 May 2009 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 22 May 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment. Non-parole period of eighteen months, a head sentence of three years.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Ongoing supply of prohibited drugs

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

PARTIES: The Crown Garrick Keith Foord

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/11/1207

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1 Garrick Keith Foord is to be sentenced for an offence of ongoing supply of prohibited drugs under s 25A of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is twenty years imprisonment, it does not carry with it a standard non-parole period.

2 The individual supplies encompassed by that offence relate to three acts of supply of relatively small quantities of amphetamine to an undercover officer. They were on 15 April, 17 April and 22 April 2008. They were not isolated acts of supply, however. In the course of his discussions with the undercover officer, the offender told him that he was supplying to others as well. The offender was doing this because he was able by that means to fund his own drug use. He was not making money out of his activities, but merely supplying drugs so that he could get his drugs for free.

3 He appeared in court today with three others, Matthew Hall, Edward Elelman and Suzanne Lenton. I did propose at one stage to sentence all of them together, but the evidence revealed that the only connection between Mr Foord, this offender, and the other three, was that some time before his arrest he moved into a home at which Ms Lenton also lived. There is no suggestion that he was involved in Ms Lenton's activities, or those of Mr Elelman or Mr Hall. It is appropriate therefore that he be sentenced separately. I should also add that the principles of parity seemed to have no impact upon him as far as those other three are concerned. A matter of significance in assessing the offender's criminality is that the last of his supplies, that is, 22 April 2008, was one month before his arrest. In evidence today he said that he himself stopped supplying because he was concerned of the consequences for him of being caught. Given the month which elapsed between his last supply to the undercover officer and his arrest, I am prepared to accept what the offender says.