DEACON, J A

STATE OF TASMANIA v JAKE AARON DEACON                       6 OCTOBER 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                         GEASON J

Mr Deacon, you have pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance contrary to s 12(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001. The facts are that on 11 April 2019 police were contacted by Australia Post with regard to a suspicious package that was to be delivered to the Ulverstone Mail Centre and collected by you. You had attended that Centre on several occasions that day enquiring about its delivery. You left you name and phone number with an employee of Australia Post.

The following day you arrived at the Post Office at about 7.30am making further enquiries about the parcel. Later that morning an Australia Post employee located that package. It was transferred to police. Police opened it. That process was video recorded. The package was found to contain several toys. Examination of the toys found that they contained two packets of methylamphetamine, weighing 27.9 grams each, and a packet of heroine, weighing 13.9 grams. The parcel was returned to Australia Post and a controlled delivery of the product was arranged. You were contacted and attended the Post Office and took possession of the package and you left the building, driven by your wife. Police intercepted that vehicle. You were seen to throw the package into the rear of the car where it was found behind the driver’s seat. A search of the vehicle found cannabis, heroine, methylamphetamine, syringes and miscellaneous items.

You are described as being agitated at the scene. You were arrested. You were taken to the police station. On the way you made a number of comments to the effect that you did not know what was in the parcel, that all you were doing was collecting it and that your name was not on it. You said that if you did not pick it up “they know where my missus lives”. You said to the police that you either had to shut up and wear it and do time for something that was not yours or if you told the police whose it was you “were a dead man”.

You participated in a record of interview wherein you admitted picking up the package, that you had collected other packages before which were not in your name, that you did not know what was in the package, and that you felt like you were being set up. A text message found on your phone contained a request for the price of drugs.

The Crown case is that you trafficked in methylamphetamine and heroine by transporting it for another person in the belief that that person intended to sell it. The value of the methylamphetamine if sold by the point is about $55,000, and the value of the heroine if sold in 1 gram amounts is $9,730.

It is put to me that your conduct is at the lower end of the level of seriousness relevant to drug offending and whilst I accept that, it cannot be ignored that your participation is a link in the chain which brings drugs into the community and disseminates them causing significant harm, hardship and, of course, further crime. General deterrence is thus an important consideration in framing penalty.

It is also submitted to me that you have made significant efforts directed towards overcoming your own drug use issues, and I accept that to be so based upon the materials which have been placed before me. You are described as having shown resilience, perseverance and a willingness to access supports to help you to continue to recover. I give particular weight to your successful completion of the Bridge Residential Program and the Step-up Program. My view is that these successes deal in large part with issues relevant to personal deterrence because they demonstrate a resolve to rehabilitate and desist from future conduct such as this.
The Court processes themselves will have contributed to that result.

But as I have said it is in terms of the need for general deterrence that the imposition of a penalty which discourages others from behaving as you have, is important. In my view, the only way general deterrence can be achieved is by making it clear that conduct of this sort will result inevitably in a harsh penalty. In my view, a term of imprisonment is necessary to reinforce that message.

In fixing that penalty I do not ignore the fact that you appear without prior convictions for similar offending and that you have, as I have noted, taken significant steps towards your own rehabilitation. I have regard to sentences imposed in this Court for this category of offending and your early plea of guilty.

Mr Deacon, I convict you and I sentence you to 11 months’ imprisonment. I turn to consider whether I should suspend all or part of that sentence. Suspension can be an appropriate incentive to rehabilitation. You have taken steps in that direction. That is an ongoing process and I accept the submission made by Mr Wright that actual incarceration may undermine those efforts in your case. You are aged 34. Though you are not a youthful offender you are at a critical stage in your life and my view is that the Court should assist you in your rehabilitation if it can, provided it can also meet the other sentencing considerations which are applicable. It is well settled law that a suspended sentence can and does have a general deterrent effect. This was properly acknowledged by Crown counsel. In the circumstances, I have decided that the relevant sentencing objectives can be achieved even if I suspend the operation of the penalty I have just imposed. I intend to do that. The sentence I have just imposed upon your conviction is suspended for a period of 3 years on condition that you commit no offence punishable by a term of imprisonment during that time.

That means Mr Deacon that you are free to leave the Court today but you do so with a sentence of imprisonment hanging over you and if you offend in a way which could result in the imposition of a term of imprisonment then you are liable to serve the sentence that I have just imposed.

I note that on a previous occasion that I have made the orders sought by the State with respect to the forfeiture of drugs and in respect of the analysis costs in the amount of $1,074, which I have ordered you to pay.