HAWORTH, J A R

STATE OF TASMANIA v JACOB ALEXANDER RALPH HAWORTH and ANGELINA PALLETT 5 JUNE 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J

Mr Haworth and Ms Pallett, you have each pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine. Ms Pallett, you also pleaded guilty to three summary offences, in particular possessing and using methylamphetamine and possessing an ice pipe used for the consumption of that drug.

On 27 March 2025, I heard evidence and resolved a dispute with respect to facts relevant to sentence. I will now summarise the factual basis of sentence incorporating the findings I made at that hearing.

The trafficking is constituted by each of you importing a quantity of methylamphetamine into Tasmania with the intention of selling it or in the belief that another person intended to sell it. This importation took place on 12 July 2023 when you flew together by commercial flight into Launceston airport. Each of you had cryovac bags containing methylamphetamine strapped to your legs and hidden by clothing. The packages carried by Mr Haworth contained 67.4 g of methylamphetamine and those carried by Ms Pallett 83 g of methylamphetamine. I determined after hearing evidence that each of you was criminally responsible not just for importing the methylamphetamine on your body but also that being carried by the other person. In other words, each of you was responsible for the aggregate amount, the combined weight of which was 150.4 g. That amount is estimated to have a street value of $150,400.

You were both apprehended by police at the airport upon the arrival of the flight. Mr Haworth was also carrying $820 cash in respect of which the State seeks a forfeiture order under the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993. The summary offences against Ms Pallett were based on her admission to police that she had used methylamphetamine on 10 July 2023 and the location by police of a small quantity of methylamphetamine and the ice pipe in her vehicle.

You both became involved in this activity when you were engaged to act as a courier for your drug dealer in order to pay off significant drug debts which each of you had accrued to that person. Each of you claim and I must accept that you did not intend to sell or use any of the drug yourself and that you were acting solely as a courier for the drug dealer. Your sole motive was to pay off the debt and hence avoid repercussions which would flow from non-payment.

Notwithstanding the difficult position each of you found yourself in and which resulted in you committing this crime, the crime you committed was one of considerable seriousness. It is well recognised now that importing this dangerous and addictive drug into Tasmania is a particularly serious form of trafficking and will normally be punished by a period of imprisonment. This is because it is necessary to deter others from becoming involved in such activity. However, in each case I obtained a report in respect of your suitability for a drug treatment order. I have already discussed the recommendations and my view about the recommendations in each case.

Ms Pallett, you are 41 years of age. You have no prior convictions for drug offences, but you have been convicted of a number of driving offences and one common assault. You have not been sentenced to imprisonment before. You have eight children, aged between 24 and 5. The youngest seven children live with you. You were introduced to methylamphetamine by your ex-partner a couple of years ago. You quickly became addicted, and your life spiralled out of control. You have undertaken some counselling in an attempt to get over your drug problem and move on with your life.

The drug treatment order assessment report concludes that you are eligible and suitable for a drug treatment order, except for one matter. That matter is the unresolved charges before the Launceston Magistrates court. The charges relate to driving offences, breaches of bail and possession and use of a controlled drug. The report indicates that it is “CMD’s preference at all matters be resolved prior to being sentenced to a drug treatment order”. I understand why in general terms this may be desirable from a practical point of view, but in my view these pending matters do not affect either your eligibility or suitability for an order. The legislation expressly precludes an order where proceedings are pending against the offender for sexual offences or offences involving the infliction of actual bodily harm. However, it says nothing about an order being precluded where other types of charges are pending. Further, a list of matters which may be the subject of the report includes the circumstances of any other offences of which the defendant has been found guilty. Once again, the relevant provision says nothing about pending matters. I note also that the purpose of the report is to establish whether the defendant is a suitable subject for a drug treatment order. It is difficult to see how unresolved charges can affect this question.

In my view, the existence of such charges does not and should not preclude an order if it is otherwise appropriate. The only real significance of the pending charges is the potential for punishment, in particular both prison and licence disqualification. Each might affect your capacity to participate in the program. As far as transport is concerned, Ms Pallett is already not legally permitted to drive but the report indicates that alternative transportation arrangements can be made. A further consideration is that given that the legislature has specified the type of offences which will preclude an order, that category should not be expanded by an administrative policy intended to apply to all pending charges in every case. In this case, I do not believe that the pending matters are such that they affect your suitability for an order, and I am satisfied that an order is appropriate. I accept that you want to put your drug problem behind you, that you have been taking steps to address the problem and that it is likely that you will benefit from the support offered by a drug treatment order. Such an order will still constitute punishment because there will be a custodial period, which you will be required to serve if you breach the conditions of the order and in any event, engagement in the CMD program itself is onerous and will involve a considerable degree of commitment, inconvenience and hardship.

Accordingly, in your case, I intend to make a drug treatment order. I am satisfied of the following matters:

that you have a demonstrable history of illicit drug use, and that that drug use has contributed to the commission of the crimes for which you are being sentenced;
that were it not for making a drug treatment order, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment and would not have suspended the sentence either in whole or in part;
that there are no proceedings pending against you in any court for sexual offences or offences involving the infliction of actual bodily harm;
that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to make the order and the facilities likely to be used for the treatment and supervision part of the order are reasonably accessible to you;
that there are sufficient staff and resources available to comply with the requirements of s 27B(3)(ba) of the Sentencing Act;
that you will agree in writing to the making of the order and to comply with the treatment and supervision part of the order.

You are sentenced to a drug treatment order. The custodial part of the order will be a term of imprisonment of 12 months. You are not required to serve all or any of the custodial part of the order unless ordered to do so by a court if you do not comply with the conditions of the order. The conditions of the order are as follows:

CORE CONDITIONS:

you must not, in Tasmania or elsewhere, commit another imprisonable offence.
you must attend the Magistrates Court of Tasmania at Launceston at 2.15pm on 8 July 2025, and thereafter appear before that court or the Supreme Court of Tasmania as and when directed.
you must report to a court diversion officer at Community Corrections at Launceston within two clear working days of the making of this order.
you must undergo such treatment of your illicit drug use problem as is specified in this order or from time to time specified by the court.
you must report to, and accept visits from, your case manager or court diversion officers.
you must, unless there are special circumstances, give your case manager at least two clear working days’ notice before any change of address.
you must not leave Tasmania except with the permission, granted either generally or in a particular case, of the court.
you must comply with all lawful directions of the court.
you must comply with all reasonable directions of your case manager and court diversion officers concerning the core conditions and program conditions of this order.

PROGRAM CONDITIONS:

you must submit to drug testing as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers.
you must submit to detoxification or other treatment, whether or not residential in nature, as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers.
you must attend vocational, educational, employment, rehabilitation or other programs or as directed by your case manager of court diversion officers.
you must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers.
you must attend counselling as directed by your case manager.
you must be contactable by telephone at all times and inform your case manager of any change of telephone number.
that you not associate with anyone who uses illicit drugs, synthetic substances, or unidentified drugs that alter mood or perception without the permission of your Court Diversion Officer.
you must reside at ** address** and not change that address without the prior approval of a court. and be at that address between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am daily, and present yourself there to a police officer if directed to do so.
you must not use any illicit drug.
you must not use any non-prescribed drug except in accordance with the direction of your general practitioner, treating medical specialist or case manager.
unless permitted by the court, your court diversion officer or case manager you must not consume alcohol or any other intoxicating substance.
You must submit to testing for the presence of alcohol in your body as directed by your court diversion officer or case manager.
You must attend for assessment and if deemed suitable participate in and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program.

In relation to Mr Haworth, he also has pending matters outstanding. I was concerned about the trafficking matter but I have been told something about that and I do accept the submission made by his counsel that it would be unlikely that he would have a record which would not reflect past offending in respect of drug matters. That is the whole reason why a drug treatment order is being made. I make the same comments as I made in respect of Ms Pallett in respect of the matters pending in respect of Mr Haworth. They do not preclude him from being appropriate for a drug treatment order.

In relation to the other matters that have been raised, as I have indicated, I think it is a close thing. I am concerned about his commitment to past orders, but I do accept that this is again reflective of a past history of drug use and it is precisely the type of person in respect of whom it is appropriate to make an order of this nature. As I have already indicated, I was concerned about the breaches of the suspended sentence, but its seems that they have been dealt with and I think that that is a matter that mitigates in his favour because he has had the experience of prison in respect of those and has had that experience recently. The fact of the matter is that he is either committed to getting off drugs or he is not. If he is not, that will become apparent very early. It will be a matter of regret that he will waste resources that could have been used for someone else more committed. It will certainly be the case that if he commits further offences or does not comply with the requirements of the CMD program, then if he were for example to come back before me, I would have no hesitation in cancelling the order. On the other hand, if he decides to be committed and comply with the requirements, which although onerous are still reasonable he will have a very great opportunity to change his life for the better and the life of his family and everybody else who is close to him.

I think in the circumstances, I certainly take the points made in the report by the author. I think that they are legitimate concerns but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case and will place him on the CMD program.

I am satisfied of the following matters, Mr Haworth has a demonstrable history of illicit drug use and that use has contributed to the commission of the crime for which he is now being sentenced. Were it not for the making of a drug treatment order, I would have sentenced him to a term of imprisonment and would not have suspended the sentence either in whole or in part. There are no proceedings pending against him in other court for sexual offences or offences involving the infliction of actual bodily harm. It is appropriate that in all the circumstances to make the order and facilities likely to be used for the treatment and supervision part of the order are reasonably accessible to him. There are sufficient staff and resources available to comply with the requirements of s 27(b)(3)(ba) of the Sentencing Act and that he will agree in writing to the making of the order.

Mr Haworth is sentenced to a drug treatment order. The custodial part of that order will be a term of imprisonment of 12 months. He is not required to serve all or any of the custodial part of the order unless ordered to do so by a court. If he does not comply with the conditions of the order, the conditions of the order are essentially the same as Ms Pallett, including that he must attend the Magistrate Court at 2:15 pm on 8 July 2025, and thereafter that Court or the Supreme Court as be directed. Mr Haworth is to be at **address** between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am daily and present himself there to a police officer if directed to do so.

In all other respects the conditions will be exactly the same in respect of Ms Pallett.

I make the forfeiture orders under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Crime Confiscation and Profits Act as requested by the prosecution. I decline the prosecution application to have the defendants’ pay the costs of the analysis. Both defendants had pleaded guilty prior to the analysis, although in Ms Pallett’s case, this had not occurred before the samples had been sent for testing. It seems to me however, that the testing could have been abandoned once the plea was entered. Accordingly I will not make this order against either defendant.