District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Swanton [2018] NSWDC 90 Hearing dates: 26 May 2017; 23 February 2018 Date of orders: 23 February 2018 Decision date: 23 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: The offender is referred for assessment as to her suitability to serve her sentence by means on an Intensive Corrections Order Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Form 1 – Offender has been subject to s11 bond - Supply prohibited drug - 1,4-Butanediol – Methylamphetamine – MDMA - Possess prohibited drug – Ketamine – Dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown Stephanie Melissa Swanton Representation: Counsel: Ms S Kluss – The offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Robertson Saxon Osborne – The offender File Number(s): 2015/142824; 2015/124514 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The offences I am about to describe are very common to this Court, but Ms Swanton's offences are made significantly more criminal than normal by two particular circumstances. Firstly, that Ms Swanton was on bail for her first offence at the time she committed her second offence, and secondly, because of the variety of drugs that Ms Swanton supplied and possessed. 2. She was deeply involved in drug supply when she was arrested. I cannot recall any case of similar criminality which has come before me which has not resulted in a sentence of full-time custody but, as foreshadowed, I am going to have Ms Swanton assessed for her suitability to serve her sentence by means of an intensive correction order. The possibility that she will avoid full-time custody is explained by the remarkable change in Ms Swanton after her arrest. 3. On 27 April 2015 when Ms Swanton and another person were seen acting suspiciously police decided to search her and the car she was in. They found a plastic water bottle containing a clear liquid. Later that was analysed and found to be 375 grams of 1,4‑Butanediol. Ms Swanton has pleaded guilty to supplying that drug. 4. They also found 101.9 grams of GBL. Ms Swanton admits supplying that drug too, it is on a Form 1. 5. They found some methylamphetamine. Ms Swanton admits to being in possession of that drug, that is also on a Form 1. 6. And they found some MDMA, 1.99 grams of that drug. Ms Swanton has pleaded guilty to supplying that drug. 7. As well, Ms Swanton had 4.8 grams of ketamine in her possession. She has admitted her guilt to that offence, that offence also being on a Form 1. 8. And she had $1,905 in cash. She has admitted that she was dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime and that also appears on the Form 1. 9. Police also found a number of empty satchels, syringes and small containers as well as books and documents which were apparently drug ledgers. 10. To say that Ms Swanton was deeply involved in drug supply merely on the basis of what was found in her handbag is an understatement. Things got even worse for Ms Swanton a few weeks later. Despite being on bail for the offences I have just described, police when they searched her handbag on 13 May 2015 police found multiple resealable bags containing 8.81 grams of methylamphetamine, that is a third offence of supplying a prohibited drug to which Ms Swanton has pleaded guilty. 11. They also found $775 in cash. Ms Swanton admits that is the proceeds of crime and that she was dealing with that property. That is on a Form 1 attaching to the methylamphetamine supply offence. 12. Police also found a small quantity of Valium that is a restricted substance which Ms Swanton was possessing, that is also on the Form 1. 13. And finally, police found a number of empty resealable bags and another drug ledger. 14. Ordinarily Ms Swanton would have gone to gaol full-time and for a substantial period of time even despite her plea of guilty shortly before trial which will result in a discount of 15% on the sentence I would otherwise have imposed and nine days in custody. However, as I mentioned earlier, Ms Swanton is now a very different person to the person she was in mid‑2015. When she first appeared before me on 26 May 2017 she was showing promise. She was clearly making substantial efforts to put her drug dealing and drug using ways behind her. References attesting to her employment, her underlying personality and her efforts at drug rehabilitation were provided on that occasion. 15. One thing that was not provided however was evidence to back up Ms Swanton's claim that she was no longer a drug user. Accordingly, the matter was remanded under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to today. A condition of Ms Swanton's bail was that she obtain fortnightly urinalysis, if these were not done by Probation and Parole she was to have them arranged herself. I have made many similar orders in the past but Ms Swanton is the first person to come back having done urinalysis absolutely every fortnight for the period of the remand, and most importantly of course there has been no suggestion from that urinalysis that Ms Swanton has used drugs. Ms Kluss provided me with some more references today which show that Ms Swanton is continuing on the path she was on when she first appeared before me last May. 16. Ms Swanton really has no excuse for her criminal behaviour. In contrast to many people appearing in the District Court she had what many would regard as a privileged upbringing. She did not have drug use around her as she grew up. She did not have parents who were in and out of gaol. She led, as I said, a privileged life. She has no real excuse for ending up as a serious drug dealer. Consistent with the change in her behaviour she expresses what I am satisfied is real remorse for the life that she was leading up to her arrest. 17. When I enquired of Ms Kluss who appears for the offender whether she thought that she could make a submission opposing an ICO assessment Ms Kluss indicated that she did not wish to. The Crown also did not oppose such an order being made. Accordingly, I will refer Ms Swanton for assessment as to her suitability to serve her sentence by means of an intensive correction order. It is obvious from that order that I am satisfied that a sentence of two years of less is likely to be imposed. 18. The matter will come back before me on 20 April 2018. 19. ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 20 APRIL 2018 ********** 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: 16 April 2018