STATE OF TASMANIA v LISA LYN HARWOOD 9 FEBRURARY 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant Lisa Harwood, aged 33 at the time of this crime, has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance, namely methyl amphetamine. Between 21 June 2020 and 9 July 2020 Kellie Maree Umgeher, otherwise known as Rhodes, was in charge of an organised business of trafficking in methyl amphetamine, which operated on a continuous and regular basis. Both the defendant and Joshua Barda assisted Ms Rhodes.
During the period, the defendant played an active role in the drug trafficking business. More specifically, between 21 June 2020 and 24 June 2020, the defendant imported 990 grams of methyl amphetamine into Tasmania. Her activities included the following:
- Travelling with a companion from Hobart to Melbourne on 20 June 2020 to collect methyl amphetamine from Ms Rhodes’ drug supplier;
- Packaging the methyl amphetamine in plastic and cryovac bags and concealing it in various boxes and containers; and
iii. Attending a post office in Melbourne on 21 June 2020 to arrange the delivery of the methyl amphetamine to Ms Rhodes in Tasmania.
On Monday 22nd June 2020, the defendant and her companion travelled from Melbourne to Hobart and upon arrival at the Hobart airport was intercepted by police. After speaking with the defendant at the airport and seeing her with police, Joshua Barda sent a text message to Ms Rhodes telling her to “call as soon as possible”. The State assert that Mr Barda was at the Hobart airport to collect the defendant, but upon seeing the police, alerted Ms Rhodes to a potential problem.
At about 8:00am on 24th June 2020, police attended the Mornington Mail Centre to conduct a search for the three express post parcels, based on the information on the Australia Post receipt located in Ms Harwood’s belongings. The three parcels were located and seized under a search warrant.
Police opened them and found one parcel contained 222 grams of methyl amphetamine, along with 156 grams in a separate container. In the second parcel, the police located 146 grams of methyl amphetamine and 162 grams in a separate container. In the third parcel, there was a brown gift bag inside which were two bath salt jars, which each contained respectively 159 grams and 149 grams of methyl amphetamine. In total, 900 grams of methyl amphetamine was concealed in the parcels.
At 9:15pm that day, police executed a search warrant at the home of Ms Rhodes and the defendant, who were both present. When police arrived, the defendant was located near the toilet at the back of the house where two snap lock bags containing a small amount of what was later confirmed to be methyl amphetamine were found.
The defendant was arrested by police at the conclusion of the search and was taken to the Hobart Police Station and charged with trafficking in a controlled substance.
The value of the methyl amphetamine, had it been sold in its maximum return in one gram lots, is very high indeed. If all the methyl amphetamine that was imported had been sold, the street value would have been between $989,000.00 if sold in one ounce lots, or $1,485,000.00 if sold in .1 gram lots.
The defendant has spent 38 days in custody in relation to this matter and I take that into account, as will be seen shortly.
The defendant has some drug related prior convictions for summary offences going back to July 2019. On 20 March 2020 she was sentenced to a four month period of imprisonment for driving with an illicit drug, namely methyl amphetamine in her oral fluid. The State has asked that I activate that sentence of imprisonment on the basis that the crime of trafficking to which she has pleaded guilty places her in breach of the condition of suspension of that sentence. In my view there is a vast difference in the nature and scale of that summary offence and the crime with which I am dealing today. The only common thread is the presence of methyl amphetamine. In my view it would be unfair to activate the suspended sentence and I make no order.
The State makes application pursuant to s 36B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 that the defendant pay the costs of the drug analysis, being $477.00 and in the absence of contrary submissions, I make that order.
In his plea in mitigation on behalf of the defendant, her counsel, Mr Scott, made the following pertinent submissions:
- The defendant has now been gainfully employed since the beginning of 2022
- Up until then she was addicted to methyl amphetamine since about 2019
- No further offending has occurred since the defendant stopped associating with her co-accused and using methyl amphetamine
- A plea of guilty was indicated to the State in December last year
- Ms Rhodes was the defendant’s dealer – she was living with her and receiving free rent
- She was using up to a gram a day of methyl amphetamine and had quickly become addicted after she started using in 2019
- Her motivation in committing the offence was in return for Ms Rhodes giving her methyl amphetamine
- She was not otherwise profiting from the importation and was not living a lavish lifestyle, or selling the drug
Enough has been said by judges of this Court, including me, as to the hideous nature of methyl amphetamine and its consequences for users and the community but it is unnecessary for me to add to those comments here. It is well known and understood that those who traffic in this drug, no matter where along the supply chain, face heavy prison sentences. Whilst mitigating, the fact that some of those are themselves addicts and traffic to facilitate their own use of the drug, nonetheless prison frequently follows if other sentence options are inappropriate.
I take that factor into account in this case along with the other matters raised by Mr Scott. In particular I take into account the defendant’s plea of guilty. Although late and no doubt an acceptance of the inevitable outcome of a trial, it has utilitarian value nonetheless and warrants a genuine, if limited, discount on an otherwise appropriate sentence. Having said that, and recognising that this crime was committed only on a single occasion, and in some total to feed the defendant’s own addiction, the quantity of methyl amphetamine involved was very large – almost a kilogram. This sets this case apart from, sadly, many others where addicted persons have acted as couriers for those running trafficking businesses.
The defendant is convicted of the crime of trafficking and is sentenced to three years’ and four months’ imprisonment, back dated 38 days to commence on 2 January 2023 to take account of the time the defendant has spent in custody. In view of her rehabilitation I will make the maximum allowance for parole. The defendant is not to be eligible for parole until after she has served half of the sentence I have just imposed.