STATE OF TASMANIA v REBECCA MARIE DYETT 12 JULY 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Ms Dyett, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in a controlled substance. The first count alleges trafficking in methylamphetamine between January 2017 and October 2017. The second count alleges trafficking in cannabis between May 2017 and October 2017. The third count alleges trafficking in heroin on or about 10 May 2017. These charges followed a search of the defendant’s home on 10 May 2017, a place she had been living in for only about two weeks and apparently shared with others. Among the drugs and drug-related items found in the defendant’s bedroom were a snap lock bag containing 14.1 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 72.7%, various small snap lock bags, one of which contained .5 grams of methylamphetamine and heroin, another of which contained .1 grams of heroin, with other bags containing traces of heroin and methylamphetamine. There were also six snap lock bags containing small amounts of cannabis totalling 22.6 grams, sets of scales, and about 100 unused small snap lock bags were found, together with about $4,172 in cash. In the lounge/kitchen area police found a further quantity of small snap lock bags, a small amount of cannabis, a snap lock bag containing Epsom salts, a substance which is known to be used to cut methylamphetamine powder. The defendant’s mobile phone was seized. It contained a number of sent and received text messages plainly suggesting the sale of drugs. The defendant was arrested. When interviewed, she said she had been addicted to opiates for about 30 years and used heroin daily if she could get it. This addiction had cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. For the past year she had also been using the drug ‘ice’ to which she is also addicted, using between .05 and .1 gram a day. She had got to the stage of injecting a combination of the two drugs. She also said she had been using cannabis for about 30 years, and was a daily user. She explained that the sets of scales were hers and she used them to measure the ‘ice’ and heroin before injecting it. She denied selling any drugs, saying she worked as a sex worker to obtain funds. As to the 14.1 grams of methylamphetamine, the defendant said it was brought into the house that morning by someone else and she did not know how it ended up in her bedroom. The Crown does not dispute that this was not hers. The defendant accepts that although it was not hers, she may have used some and some may have been sold. She was charged and bailed. Later on 30 October 2017 the police went back to the defendant’s home. More drugs and drug paraphernalia were found. In particular, police located 24.5 grams of powder which contained methylamphetamine and MDMA, along with 20 grams of cannabis, and some Kapanol on a spoon with a needle. Again, text messages were accessed, and again they were clearly suggestive of drug sales. When interviewed on this occasion, the defendant admitted to using the types of drugs that were found, and admitted to selling cannabis on the weekend before. She said there were two 25 gram deals sold, but she had sold more in the past than she was then selling. More significantly, she admitted selling methylamphetamine for cash, but not as often since the search in May. She said there were about six sales of .1 gram for $60 per point – about six sales to close friends. The defendant told police she was still doing some sex work to pay for her habit. Based on these admissions, the Crown asserts the defendant sold methylamphetamine to a small number of individuals on a regular basis from January 2017 until the second search on 30 October 2017. She also swapped methylamphetamine for other drugs, including Kapanol, again to small number of individuals, and in this respect, the third count relates to an exchange of heroin for another drug. The amount of cash seized during the first search on 10 May was from the sale of drugs. The sales of methylamphetamine were less frequent after the first search, and the defendant sold on about six occasions in point deals for $60 a point. I note that the amount of money seized on 10 May, represents about 70 sales, on that basis, that is, of a point of methylamphetamine. Some of the cannabis seized during the first search was intended to be sold, but some was intended for personal use. Between the first and second searches, she sold cannabis on a regular basis but only to a small number of people. She sold cannabis in $25 deals approximately once per week, equating to about 20 sales. None of this is disputed by the defendant. The Crown accepts the accused sold drugs and exchanged drugs to support her addiction. In all of this, the scale of the defendant’s activities is a matter of broad assessment.
The defendant is now 52 years old, and a disability support pensioner. She has suffered from an entrenched drug addiction, predominantly to heroin, for about 30 years. She has a recorded history of offending going back to 1995, with drug offending first emerging in June 2011 when she was convicted of a number of possession and use charges. Further appearances on multiple use and possession charges followed in March 2014, August 2015 and October 2016, at which time she faced a total of 17 charges of using and possessing controlled drugs or controlled plants. More significantly, she was convicted of two counts of selling controlled drugs and one of selling a controlled plant. By way of sentences imposed and re-sentencing on earlier charges, she was sentenced to a total six months’ imprisonment to commence on 29 July 2016. She was released in late November and her trafficking activities the subject of the present charges commenced shortly afterwards. There is no doubt at all that the defendant is heavily addicted. With some reluctance on her part due to doubts about her acknowledged difficulties with keeping appointments, but after discussion with her counsel and an indication from her that she was “willing to try”, I ordered a drug treatment order (DTO) assessment report. The compilation and provision of that report has proved to be very difficult due to the defendant’s failures to be contactable and attend for interviews. These failures are set out in a report dated 28 June 2019. The inevitable conclusion is that, as she has failed to attend for assessment on four separate occasions, she is unsuitable for the CMD program. I do have copies of pre-sentence reports provided for the lower court appearances in 2011, 2014 and 2015, along with a drug treatment assessment report for the last appearance. The 2014 pre-sentence report shows an unwillingness to do community service or be placed on probation. However, a community service order was made following that report but the 2015 report states that breach action had been taken. The 2015 DTO assessment report noted that the defendant struggled to articulate why she wanted to live a life without drugs, and called for participation in a bail program in order for her to demonstrate willingness to comply with the conditions. As is evident from what I have said, a drug treatment order was not then made. Since then, to her credit, in March 2019 she completed the 10 week Salvation Army Bridge residential rehabilitation program, and made arrangements to continue with another program involving attendance on two days a week, although that does not seem to have been pursued. Unfortunately, I am unable to advance that by way of a DTO. The defendant’s relevant personal circumstances as appear from these reports is as follows. She was born in Sydney but spent her formative years on the Gold Coast, remaining there until she was 18. She started to use alcohol when aged 13, marihuana at 15, and heroin at about 21, a drug to which she very quickly became addicted. She has continued to use cannabis, heroin, morphine and amphetamines. She was able to achieve some success at school and worked for a time before becoming addicted. She has been on and off methadone programs over many years. The reports reveal that in 2011 the defendant revealed witnessing episodes of domestic violence between her mother and her mother’s partner. In 2014 she revealed to the probation officer that the violence witnessed extended to her biological father, and that she was also the subject of physical and emotional abuse by her mother. More relevantly perhaps, there is a revelation of sexual abuse by a family friend at the age of 13, and of being a rape victim at 19. That of course is not long before the drug use escalated from cannabis to heroin. Later, the defendant’s first child died when 10 days old, and there are ongoing grief issues. The defendant has a second child, born in 1998, who has been in the care of her mother because of the defendant’s situation, apart from a period from when the child was between 11 and 14 years old. I take into account the pleas of guilty. I accept that these crimes involved a relatively low level of commercial dealing and I accept, as conceded by the Crown, that the reason for the offending is to fund the defendant’s addiction. Of itself, an addiction is not a mitigatory factor but in some circumstances, leniency might be extended where there is a reasonable explanation in the offender’s past for turning to drug use, with addiction as a consequence. In this case, I take into account that there seem to be circumstances which may explain the defendant’s resort to addictive drugs. However, at the same time, I must recognise that commercial dealing in controlled substances is a serious matter. In particular, crystalline methylamphetamine is highly addictive and very dangerous. It causes considerable harm within the community and is a continuing source of great concern. General deterrence is a prominent factor. It is also recognised that abuse of cannabis can produce a range of destructive effects on the physical and mental health of users. It might be thought that the defendant was selling to established users, but she had no control over what they did with the substances. I must also have regard to the defendant’s recorded history of similar offending, and the fact that, although to a lesser extent, the offending was persisted in after the first police visit, and after being charged and bailed.
Ms Dyett, I have given your case very careful consideration. I have set out what I see to be the relevant facts, and the factors to take into account. Commercial dealings in controlled substances ordinarily attract periods of imprisonment. I acknowledge your addiction and its consequences for you, but I must have regard to all of the circumstances of the case and respond in a way that will hopefully deter other people from trafficking in drugs, and which condemns that sort of conduct. You are convicted of the crimes and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment to commence on 9 July 2019. I order the forfeiture of the total of $4,197.70 seized by police on 10 May 2017 and 30 October 2017, along with all items listed on Police property seizure records 166656, 166657, 157214 and 157215 other than those items which are forfeited by operation of law.