STATE OF TASMANIA v ZACHARY JAMES ANDJELKOVIC 1 OCTOBER 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Mr Andjelkovic, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to summary offences of supplying amphetamine and using amphetamine. These charges relate to the defendant’s activities leading up to and at a music festival at Carrick on a weekend in early February 2024. The defendant was at the festival in a campsite area with friends. Police presence included a dog handling unit. At about 9.30am on the Friday, a positive indication from a dog led to the search of a female’s motor vehicle parked near the campsite. A search of the vehicle revealed a bag in the footwell of the front passenger’s seat. It contained several bags of a yellow powder and of a white powder both of which later proved to be amphetamine, along with some MDMA powder both loose and in capsules, small empty snap lock bags, small digital scales and empty gel capsules. The defendant approached police and told them that the bag belonged to him. He was arrested and interviewed. He admitted the bag contained “speed” (amphetamine) and MDMA. He said he was not going sell the drugs but distribute them to his friends. He said he used the gel caps to put the MDA in, so as to make ingestion easier. He was taken to the Launceston Police Station and further interviewed. The State relies on his admissions as constituting the facts against him. The further facts that emerge are as follows. The defendant had arrived at the festival the day before and was camping with others. He had concealed the bag in his clothing when he came in. About 10 to 15 friends of his had pooled their money– to a total of about $2,000 – and he had purchased the yellow powder amphetamine from a person he knew. He did not put any money into the pool as he was carrying the risk of buying the drug and bringing it into the festival. He received the MDMA powder as a bonus from the seller. He was not going to sell the yellow amphetamine but was just going to distribute the friends’ share to them by way of packaging the amphetamine in the small bags, each to contain one gram. Nor was he going to sell the MDMA; he had been putting that into 0.1 gram capsules and was also going to distribute those among his friends. The white amphetamine powder belonged to a friend who asked him to bring it into the festival and, he said, he “stupidly” agreed. It was to be passed on to that person the next day. He told police that he was a user of amphetamine but not MDMA.
As to the weights of the substances, there were 17.4 grams of the yellow amphetamine powder and 26 grams of the white amphetamine powder, with a total of 2.6 grams of MDMA which included 16 capsules and one gram of loose powder. In relation to the yellow powder, the State’s case is that the defendant was knowingly involved in the movement of drugs from the seller to the consumer; that is, collecting money, taking it to the seller, collecting the drugs and delivering it to the buyers. The law is clear that trafficking activity is any movement between source and consumer in a commercial setting. Purchase from one person and delivery to another is an act of trafficking. The State accepts that the defendant was not going to profit from his activity, although the defendant’s counsel frankly told the Court that he was to receive about $130 to $200 worth of the drugs because, as the defendant had intimated to police, it was he who was taking the risk. The offence of supply a controlled substance is made out by the defendant’s possession of the 26 grams of amphetamine having agreed to give it to someone. In this case, of course, the defendant was simply going to give it back to the owner.
The defendant is now 22; 21 at the time of the offending. He has some traffic convictions but no convictions for offences of any significant offending and no recorded history of drug offending at all. He is a single man and lives with his parents. I was told that he has a good industrial record. He owns a property which he is in the process of or hoping to renovate. He left school after year 11 and started an apprenticeship as a builder working for a large construction company. At the time of the offending, he was in his fourth year of his apprenticeship but media publicity that he had been charged with trafficking in methamphetamine, as distinct from amphetamine, seems to have largely contributed to his dismissal. He has found other employment with a contracting company. He is on a casual basis at the moment but working full-time hours – six days a week – and hopes to recommence his apprenticeship in the not too distance future. His present employer is involved in mining work and that involves him being screened for drugs. It was put and I accept that the defendant’s involvement in drugs was for recreational use, and he became involved in the group buying in bulk and subsequent distribution. The distribution of the drugs obtained was only to be to the group of friends who had contributed and who were established users, and not to persons outside that circle. I pause to observe, however, that he had no control over what those persons did with it after he had given it to them, but he seems to have accepted that they would personally use it. I also take into account that the price paid for the amphetamine purchased for the defendant’s friends was a relatively low amount. I can infer that the value of the amount which he was carrying solely for a friend would be roughly of the same value, to the extent that such an assessment is relevant. There is no material relating to the value of the MDMA. The defendant’s counsel submitted that the circumstances of this offending put it at the lowest level of the scale of seriousness and reminded the Court of the long-term consequences of a conviction for such an offence.
Trafficking in a controlled substance is generally a serious crime and mostly met by terms of imprisonment, although the execution of such terms is not uncommonly suspended. The types of drugs involved in this case can cause much harm in the community. Deterrence and condemnation are important factors. In this case, as I have explained, the trafficking only relates to the yellow amphetamine powder and the MDMA, Supplying the white powder involved carrying for a friend with the intention of giving it back. I accept that this case is at the low end of the scale of seriousness of both the indictable offence and the summary “minor” offence of supply. I take into account that the defendant approached the police and volunteered his ownership of the drugs which had yet to be distributed by him in accordance with the arrangements made. I take into account the plea of guilty. It can be regarded as an early plea in the sense that although he pleaded not guilty to the original complainant, that was because of the misdescription of the drug involved. On the same day as his plea of not guilty his lawyer wrote to the State pointing out that the defendant’s position as to the drug involved. Once an indictment was filed alleging the correct substance, the plea was entered.
Mr Andjelkovic, I have set out the facts, your personal circumstances and relevant sentencing factors. Although I generally take the view that your offending is not of a high level of seriousness, the fact is that you involved yourself to a significant degree in obtaining and distributing illicit substances. You agreed to carry 27 grams of amphetamine for a friend so that he would avoid detection. Overall, you displayed a very casual attitude, to say the least to the legal prohibitions relating to the acquisition, movement and use of illicit substances. I have come to the view that convictions are necessary. However, for the crime of trafficking I do not believe a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate, and accordingly it would be wrong of me to impose a term and then to suspend its execution. The matter can be appropriately dealt with by way of a fine. You are convicted of that crime and fined the sum of $2,000. On the supply charge you are convicted and fined the sum of $250. The law is I have no option but to order those amounts be paid within 28 days. I record a conviction on the charge of using a controlled drug, but I do not consider any further penalty to be necessary and I order your discharge. Lastly, I order that items number 6, 7, 8, and 9 as listed on the Police property seizure record (receipt) no 223052 be fortified.