STATE OF TASMANIA v XAVIER JACKSON CROUCH ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 3 JULY 2019
The defendant, Xavier Jackson Crouch aged 25 has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking, and I have agreed pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code to deal with pleas of guilty to charges on two complaints, namely of using controlled drugs and possessing a prohibited firearm to which a firearm’s licence may not be issued, namely a taser.
At approximately 2:30pm on 16 July 2018, police were asked to attend the defendant’s residence. The defendant informed police that he had taken eight Valium tablets and two Xanax tablets, and that he was upset about ongoing issues with his ex-girlfriend and his business, which had recently failed. He outlined to police that he had attempted self-harm the previous week, but on this occasion he had taken more tablets.
The defendant invited police inside the house while they waited for the ambulance to attend, and police asked to see the tablets that he had taken. The defendant took police into his bedroom, and then took a set of keys from inside a plastic tub under his bed, before unlocking a small lock box near his computer desk.
He provided from the box 278 Valium (diazepam 10mg) tablets and 11 full and two half Xanax tablets. As he did so, police saw inside the lock box, and noted a bundle of $100 notes.
The ambulance arrived and checked the defendant, although were unable to transport him to hospital at that time. The defendant was offered transport to hospital with police and agreed. At that time, he opened a different lock box within his bedroom and from within that, he removed $50 notes and some further medication (32 tablets containing Oxazepam in two blister packs).
At that time, attending police formed the belief that there were further drugs inside the bedroom which were hidden within the lock boxes. The defendant was asked whether he would consent to a search of his room. He declined to consent. A telephone search warrant was obtained and a search of the property commenced.
While police searched, a smash was heard from where the defendant had been standing. Police saw the defendant standing next to his broken mobile phone.
The defendant was submitted for a blood test. The result of that blood test showed a concentration of methylamphetamine and amphetamine (as a metabolite) in his blood.
In total, 65.2g of amphetamine, 38.5g of MDMA was located in the defendant’s bedroom, and 450.7g of cannabis was located in the shed along with other items which included a taser.
The methylamphetamine, if sold in point (0.1g) form at a price of $100, had a potential street value of $65,200. The MDMA, similarly had a potential total street value of $7,680. The value of the cannabis, so assessed, would have been $4800.
The Crown asserts that in respect of each of the quantities of methylamphetamine, MDMA and cannabis, the defendant trafficked in those substances. The defendant has no relevant prior convictions.
He recognises the seriousness of his conduct and is remorseful. He has made significant changes in his life, and as I have noted, he has pleaded guilty to this charge. He is a qualified carpenter and has worked in joinery with his father. He ran a successful business which he sold, and purchased another business which failed as a result of which he became depressed.
He has been employed at recent times as a waiter. As his business deteriorated he turned to drugs, in particular, MDMA and Ice, and became addicted. He had debt to the Commonwealth Bank which still totalled some $50,000. He turned to drugs and became addicted. He became suicidal as a result and during the course of one such attempt on his life, police were called and attended at his home as described.
Since being arrested, and spending time in the cells, he has taken stock of his situation and engaged in counselling with a psychologist and his health has been restored. He is earning money and he is optimistic as to his future, the experience has had a significant effect on him, and apart from this offending and some other offending which is not relevant, he has otherwise been a good citizen.
In DPP v Williamson [2013] TASCCA 6, a case which involved a plea of guilty to a “commercial operation”, although the particulars related to a single day. The defendant was in possession of a large amount of cash and a large number of capsules. The sentence was increased on appeal from two years’ imprisonment to four and a half years’ imprisonment.
In that case the Chief Justice said that: “Sentences of less than 3 years’ imprisonment are a little more common in trafficking cases. I think it is fair to say that sentences in the vicinity of 2 years’ imprisonment are generally attracted by involvement in commercial operations of a substantially smaller scale than the operation that is the subject of this appeal.”
The defendant is convicted of each of the charges to which he has pleaded guilty.
The Crown has made application for forfeiture pursuant to s 38 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 for the following items of property on Property Seizure (Record) Receipts 168240 – 168245:
- 1, 4, 5, 8-12, 14, 16, 29-34, 42-45, 48, 50, 52-53, 67-71, 73-85, 89-91, 91(a), 91(b), 91(c), 91(d)
The Crown makes application pursuant to s 11(1)(a) of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993 for an order pursuant to s 16 of that Act that $255 seized by police from the defendant on 16 July 2018 be forfeited to the State of Tasmania as tainted property. I make that order. I make the forfeiture order as well.
As to sentence I note, Pearce J remarked in Sweetman at [53];
“In general, however, those who engage in trafficking in illicit drugs should expect harsh punishment. The Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 (‘the Act’), s 12, provides that trafficking in a controlled substance is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 years. The penalty provision reveals a legislative intention that those who traffic in illicit drugs may be subject to heavy penalties.”
Crystal methylamphetamine, of which part of the drugs seized in the case comprised, is extremely damaging in the community in terms of human and personal costs. It is a highly addictive drug, as the defendant has found, and it leads to the commission of crime for funding the user’s habit. Use of the drug is also often responsible for violence.
In the case, the defendant has been positively assessed by Community Corrections as having minimum risk/needs. This is as a result of him having addressed his risk factors himself following the present offence. He has been assessed as suitable for community service. Due to what the Department has described as having already addressed his criminogenic risk factors Community Corrections have assessed him as not in need of supervision.
Taking all these matters into account, including of course his age and his plea of guilty, I impose a single sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspended for a period of two years on condition that he not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years, and I make a community correction order with the core conditions provided by the statute, plus a condition that the defendant complete 140 hours of community service within a period of two years.