STATE OF TASMANIA v JARRYD SLATER and JORDAN HOLMES
15 OCTOBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Mr Slater and Ms Holmes, you have each pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in controlled substances, in particular methylamphetamine and cannabis. In addition, you have both pleaded guilty to some summary offences, namely joint charges of possessing a smoking device and one count of being in possession of stolen property. Mr Slater, you have also pleaded guilty to the charges of using cannabis and two further counts of possessing smoking devices. Ms Holmes you have pleaded guilty to two further counts of possession of smoking devices.
The crime and offences all arise from your joint conduct of a drug trafficking business between 1 December 2022 and 22 November 2023. You both accept that you each contributed to the conduct of and benefitted from the business but you assert different and conflicting facts concerning your respective participation. The prosecution does not dispute the facts asserted by each of you, despite the conflicts, and all counsel agree that I should therefore sentence each of you on the basis of the factual scenario asserted by you individually. I agree that it is appropriate to proceed in this way and I will do so.
The trafficking commenced when you formed a relationship in November 2022. Ms Holmes had for some years a significant addiction to methylamphetamine and Mr Slater had regularly used cannabis from a young age. You were both in receipt of Centrelink benefits and in financial difficulty. In particular, Ms Holmes was finding it difficult to simultaneously sustain her methylamphetamine habit and support her three children. You commenced the business by selling both methylamphetamine and cannabis to some established drug users known to both of you. As with any business, it started relatively modestly but grew as time went on, both in terms of the quantity of drugs and profitability. The prosecution is not in a position to quantify the extent of the trafficking but you both accept that you made a considerable profit, which was largely spent on general living expenses and the purchase of methylamphetamine for Ms Holmes.
This description of the trafficking is consistent with the evidence located by police during two separate searches. The first was conducted at your residence on 21 September 2023. Police found considerable amounts of both methylamphetamine and cannabis as well as various drug paraphernalia. They also located cash in the sum of $66,150. $750 of this was on Ms Holmes person and the balance was hidden under a bed and located in a safe. During interview, Mr Slater admitted that he was purchasing 28 g of methylamphetamine every 2 to 3 weeks. He estimated that he had sold approximately $75,000 worth of drugs over the previous 4 to 5 months. After this search both of you were charged with drug offences. You both appeared in court and were admitted to bail on 18 October 2023.
On 22 November 2023, about a month later, police conducted a further search of your home. They again found significant quantities of methylamphetamine and cannabis and as well as smoking devices and drug paraphernalia. They also located $12,930 in cash. A search of Mr Slater’s phone confirmed communications consistent with drug trafficking from 30 June 2023 up to the date of the search. It is clear and accepted by both of you that you continued the trafficking business after being charged and released on bail after the first search.
The extent of the trafficking business can be gauged to some extent by the financial benefits derived by you during the relevant period. Bank records reveal that between December 2022 and November 2023, Mr Slater received $120,000 from 903 individual transactions. The majority of these transactions were between $50 and $500. The prosecution acknowledges that a small portion of this was acquired legitimately but $103,000 was from the sale of methylamphetamine or cannabis. Ms Holmes’ bank records reveal that she received $47,000 from 191 individual transactions during the relevant period. The prosecution asserts that $15,000 of that sum was money acquired from the sale of drugs. The money found by police is included in these sums. The records also reveal that Ms Holmes was regularly transferring money from her account to Mr Slater’s account. Approximately, $38,000 was transferred in this way on 325 individual transactions, the majority of which range between $50 and $500. I note that the prosecution have applied for confiscation orders in respect of the seized cash and for Mr Slater to pay a pecuniary penalty calculated by the difference between the aggregate received by him and the seized money. Although you both told police a large proportion of this money was obtained from gambling on poker machines, neither of you dispute the orders sought by the State.
My assessment of the overall extent of the business is that it was significant and profitable and was operated on a continuous basis over the entire period. I accept that you were largely selling to established drug users but there is still considerable culpability involved in this because trafficking facilitates the distribution of drugs, including methylamphetamine, throughout the community. Methylamphetamine is a dangerous and pervasive drug. I accept that neither of you acquired any significant wealth from the business and further that a significant amount of the income was used to sustain Ms Holmes’ drug addiction. Having said that, the location by police of significant quantities of cash demonstrates the profitability of the enterprise. Further, this is not a case where either of you voluntarily desisted from the illegal activity, you were stopped by the intervention of the authorities. In fact, the moral culpability of each of you is significantly increased by the fact that after the first search, and being charged by the court and granted bail, you continued the trafficking. Having regard to the cash found by police during the second search, I infer that it was business as usual.
The factual differences between you concern your respective contribution to and benefit from the business. Ms Holmes does not dispute that profits from the trafficking were used to sustain her methylamphetamine habit. However, she says she was subject to family violence from Mr Slater during the conduct of the business and was also subject to his direction and control. According to her, he would become aggressive and violent with her if she did not comply with his directions, and she was scared of him. She only sold to a small group of known drug users. The majority of money gained by her from the trafficking was given to Mr Slater or placed in the safe. Although she had a key to the safe, she was prohibited from accessing the money in it. In other words, although the business paid for her methylamphetamine and provided living expenses for both of them, Mr Slater had control of and presumably the benefit of the majority of profits from the business.
Mr Slater denies this. His position is that their involvement in the trafficking business was a joint enterprise in all respects. He denies the family violence and says that they were both fully involved in the conduct of the joint business. The point is also made that the business was originally set up for and did actually provide Ms Holmes with methylamphetamine.
I will now deal separately with each of you. Mr Slater, you are 33 years of age. You have shared care of your two children, aged 11 and 10. Since leaving school after year 11, you worked sporadically but do not seem to have had permanent work. Your drug use commenced before you become a teenager. It consists substantially of the use of cannabis and you have not used methylamphetamine. You have a lengthy criminal history which commences when you were 12 years of age. There is consistent offending throughout your youth and into adulthood, continuing up to when you were charged with these offences. You have a number of convictions related to family violence and other forms of violence and have been sentenced to imprisonment on a number of occasions. However, apart from a small number of minor drug offences committed some years ago and which were obviously related to your own use of drugs, probably cannabis, you have no prior convictions for serious drug offences. I reiterate that you became involved in this conduct after the formation of the relationship with Ms Holmes, and you were partly motivated by the need to provide her with both money and methylamphetamine. However, you do not dispute that this was a significant trafficking activity and that irrespective of Ms Holmes’ involvement, you were substantially involved in the conduct of the business. I intend to sentence you on the basis that this was a joint activity, and your culpability for the crime will take account of the fact that you were a full and enthusiastic participant in it. It is accepted that you indicated and entered a plea of guilty at an early time and that this has had significant utilitarian value.
Ms Holmes, you are 31 years of age and the mother of three children aged 13,12 and 6. Your children presently live with other family members. Your criminal history contains some minor dishonesty matters as a youth but as an adult consists exclusively of driving offences. You acknowledge that you have had a serious problem with methylamphetamine for some years but since being charged with these offences, you have been trying to do something about that. In October 2024, you went into residential rehabilitation with the Bridge program. Reports from the program indicate that you completed the course and engaged in your treatment “to a high degree”. You are currently involved in follow up care including that which is addressing ongoing mental health problems. You claim to have been drug-free since completing the rehabilitation, and there is no allegation of further offending. My assessment of your culpability must take into account that although you participated actively in the trafficking, your motivation was driven by financial need and your methylamphetamine addiction. I will also sentence you on the basis that you were to an extent subject to the direction of Mr Slater. This will not be the basis on which he is sentenced, but it is relevant to my assessment of your individual culpability for the crime. In your case, I also take into account that there was an early plea of guilty.
Given the differences in the factual bases, and your respective personal circumstances, including your criminal history, I intend to impose different sentences. In any case involving trafficking, there is a need to emphasise general deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. However, the balance between this and the requirement to consider specific deterrence and rehabilitation is different in each case. Mr Slater, in your case, the emphasis must be on general deterrence. Although you do not have any prior convictions for drug offending, your general disregard for the law which is demonstrated by your criminal history indicates that there is also a need to place some emphasis on specific deterrence. In my view, the only appropriate sentence in your case, is a significant term of imprisonment. I will however modify that term and provide for parole at an early opportunity having regard to your early plea of guilty and the impact of the pecuniary penalty order. Ms Holmes, while general and specific deterrence are also important sentencing considerations, in your case I think there is a need to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation. I intend to impose a suspended sentence but to make that sentence subject to ongoing supervision. A suspended sentence will also take account of the factual basis of sentence applicable to you which reflects a modestly lower level of personal culpability.
Accordingly, the orders I make are as follows:
Mr Slater
- You are convicted of the crime and the offences to which you have pleaded guilty;
- For the crime of trafficking in a controlled substance, I impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years and six months. The sentence will be backdated to 19 September 2025. You are not eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence.
- For the summary offences, I impose no further punishment.
- You have not disputed the State’s application for a pecuniary penalty order pursuant to the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, nor the proposed assessment of the quantum of that order in the sum of $23,000. Having regard to the provisions of the said Act, it is appropriate to make the order. Further, having regard to the provisions of s 22 of the Act, I am satisfied that the amount asserted by the State is a proper assessment of the value of the commercial benefits derived by you from the commission of the crime. Accordingly, pursuant to s 21 of the said Act, I assess the value of the benefits derived by you from the commission of the offence in the sum of $103,000, which after deduction for the value of cash seized by police leaves a balance of $23,000. I order that you pay to the State a pecuniary penalty in that sum.
Ms Holmes
- You are convicted of the crime and the offences to which you have pleaded guilty;
- For the crime of trafficking in a controlled substance, I impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 18 months. The whole of the sentence will be suspended for a period of 2 years on the following conditions:
- that you are not to commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during that period.
- that you will be subject to the supervision of a probation officer. You must comply with this condition for a period of two years. That period will commence from today. The Court notes that the conditions referred to in s 24(5B) of the Sentencing Act apply to this condition. These include that you must report to a probation officer within three clear days of In addition to the core conditions the order shall also include the following special conditions:
(a) you must, during the operational period of the order,
- attend educational and other programs as directed by the Court or a probation officer;
- submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probation officer;
- submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer;
- attend, participate in and complete the EQUIPS addiction program as directed
- For the summary offences, I impose no further punishment.
In respect of both of you jointly and severally, I make the following orders:
- (a) I am satisfied that the cash which was seized by Tasmania Police in the sum of $79,090 is tainted property within the meaning of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993. Pursuant to s 16 of that Act, I order that the said cash be forfeited to the State of Tasmania.
- (b) Pursuant to S 36B to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, I order that the defendants pay as part of the costs of the prosecutor, the sum of $1,970 assessed as the costs of analysis of the methylamphetamine seized by police.
- (c) I make the forfeiture orders in respect of the drug paraphernalia seized by police in the terms specified by the prosecutor.