STATE OF TASMANIA v JMCW 12 SEPTEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
JMCW, you have pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, namely methylamphetamine and heroin, between on or about 1 May 2019 and 28 October 2020.
The conduct, which is the subject of the charge, involved you operating an organised and profitable business of trafficking in significant quantities of methylamphetamine (also known as ‘ice’) during the indictment period. Your commercial activity included arranging for the importation of methylamphetamine into Tasmania from New South Wales. You engaged in your business activities in a regular and systemic way.
Your extensive trafficking business was detected as a result of a police investigation in early 2019, when telephone communications connected to your mobile phone were intercepted.
Your business involved you engaging others to transport or move drugs on your behalf from Sydney to Hobart. One of the people you engaged was a person by the name of Brett Imlach.
In 2017 you and Mr Imlach were both serving a gaol sentence at Risdon Prison in Hobart and were housed together in the same unit. You arranged for Mr Imlach to be a future courier for you, moving methylamphetamine from Sydney to Hobart.
Mr Imlach was released from prison on 10 January 2019. You were released on parole on 6 May 2019 and you returned to live in New South Wales, where you lived with your partner, Ms C, in Hood Street Yagoona. The conditions of your parole allowed you to return to New South Wales but not to leave that State without the written approval of the Director of Community Corrections.
After your release from prison you contacted Mr Imlach using Facebook. The two of you then communicated using Facebook messenger or text message, and you made arrangements for Mr Imlach to act as your drug courier,
These messages commenced on 11 May 2019. The following day you sent him a message about the sale of an ‘eight ball’ of methylamphetamine, which is 3.5 grams for $850.
On 17 May 2019, Mr Imlach took a flight from Hobart to Sydney which was arranged and paid for by you. You met him at Sydney Airport and took him to your home in Yagoona. The next day one of your associates went to your house and you negotiated the purchase price of $18,000 for 7 ounces of ice. First, you purchased an ounce of methylamphetamine for Mr Imlach to try. Once that was tested and found to be acceptable, you then purchased another 6 ounces of ice (a total of 198.447 grams) from your associate.
On 18 May 2019, Mr Imlach left your house in possession of the 7 ounces of ice; he caught a train to Melbourne and then caught the Spirit of Tasmania. On arriving at Devonport, he concealed the drugs in his trousers, and on your instruction delivered the drugs to one of your associates in Glenorchy. Mr Imlach received half an ounce of ice as payment.
You had an agreement with Mr Imlach that if he did two more “runs” for you, carrying two pounds (448 grams per pound, almost a kilogram) of ice each time, then you would give Mr Imlach your customised Harley Davidson motorbike as payment.
On 24 May 2019, you flew from Sydney to Hobart and returned that evening. During this trip you obtained a new SIM card which you began using. You had two SIM cards which you used in one handset.
On 29 May 2019, you contacted Mr Imlach and organised for him to travel to Sydney.
He took a flight from Hobart on 5 June 2019; he was met by you and your partner and stayed overnight at your home in Yagoona. The next day you gave Mr Imlach 8 ounces of ice (226.4 grams). He caught a bus to Melbourne which arrived early the following morning, and travelled by ferry on the Spirit of Tasmania, arriving in Devonport on 8 June 2019. He underwent passenger screening as he disembarked. He was searched and a taped package was located in his underpants containing 8 individual bags of ice, each containing an ounce and weighing approximately 222.9 grams in total. The potential street value of this drug, depending on how it was sold, was between $48,000 and $226,000.
As would be evident from the facts outlined, you arranged, paid for, and co-ordinated the trafficking of quantities of methylamphetamine referred to. In total, Mr Imlach trafficked approximately 421.34 grams of ice on your behalf. In the end, the Harley Davidson promised to Mr Imlach was not given to him.
Another of your business activities involved you arranging for a person by the name of GB to be your courier. The background is as follows.
Between 2007 and 2010, Mr B resided in the apartment flats known as Stainforth Court, at Queens Walk in Cornelian Bay. He met you through a mutual acquaintance, and in around 2010 you became his carer for a period of five years. From November 2013 to May 2015, you received a carer’s payment from Centrelink. You did not provide adequate care for Mr B. In fact, you moved to Sydney and continued to receive a carer’s benefit. This came to an end when Mr B applied to have the payments cease, due to the fact that you were not caring for him.
Mr B would occasionally use ice. During the time that you were Mr B’s so-called carer you sold him ice, usually half a point (0.05 grams).
You kept your ice in a small safe which you would store some of the time in Mr B’s fridge. You had copied his house key and would let yourself into his unit as and when you pleased. Mr B felt he had no choice but to allow the situation to continue because he was intimidated by you.
This situation continued after you stopped being Mr B’s carer. You threatened to hurt Mr B or kill his cats if he didn’t allow you to store your drugs there. Sometimes you accessed your ice supply more than five times a night.
In early September 2019 you approached Mr B and asked him to do a trip to Sydney and bring back ice for you, indicating that he would receive some of the drug in return. Mr B agreed to do so.
On 3 September Mr B flew to Sydney. He was instructed by you to go to a McDonald’s restaurant in Bankstown and meet with Ms C. Mr B met with her in the carpark, and she handed him a cryovacced package which contained methylamphetamine weighing approximately 280 grams. As he sat in Ms C’s vehicle, he concealed the package in his underpants and Ms C gave him some tape to secure it to his leg.
Mr B flew back to Hobart that afternoon, importing the drug concealed in his underpants. He took a taxi to an associate’s unit in Glenorchy where you were waiting for the package to be delivered and controlling what was happening. Mr B gave you the package, and you opened it and gave Mr B three grams of ice as payment.
Approximately a week later, you approached Mr B again and asked him to do another trip. Mr B did not want to and told you so. You threatened Mr B that if he did not do the trip his cats would be killed. Mr B complied because he was intimidated by you and was fearful that you would carry out your threat.
You gave him a mobile phone and a plane ticket in a false name. You arranged for him to be given some cash for the trip. At your direction, he flew from Hobart to Sydney on 26 September 2019. He met Ms C who gave him a package containing ice. It contained no less than approximately 10 ounces (approximately 280 grams). He returned with the package that same day. He went to Mr Fisher’s residence where he handed you the package. You weighed it and gave Mr B his share as before. You took a video of Mr Fisher and Mr B during which you said, “What the fuck am I doing with my life?”. This was said out of a sense of superiority; you had a condescending and arrogant attitude to the men in your company.
There was a significant power imbalance in your relationship with Mr B. You were physically more powerful. Mr B had a hand injury and you were well aware of his physical limitations and disability. You were domineering and controlling of Mr B.
On 1 October 2019, Mr B took a flight from Hobart to Sydney at your direction, and caught a taxi to the same McDonald’s restaurant in Bankstown to meet you. You took him to your home where he stayed overnight and gave him some heroin to help calm him down. You gave him a package containing ice to conceal on his person. The package was a similar size to the others, approximately 10 ounces. He returned to Hobart later that day, transporting the drugs as directed by you.
You arranged for Mr B to do a fourth trip to Sydney. Mr B did not want to and complied because you threatened him.
On 6 October Mr B flew to Sydney at your direction. He went to the same McDonald’s restaurant in Bankstown where you collected him, took him to your home, and supplied him with heroin to calm him down.
You handed him a large package which was cryovacced. It was approximately the size of a kilogram bag of sugar, and it weighed at least 750 grams. You told Mr B that you were flying ahead of him to make sure there were no dogs at the airport. You returned to Hobart on 7 October and met Mr B at a unit at Barossa Road in Glenorchy. You gave him 7 grams of ice as payment, reflecting the much larger size of this package compared to the earlier packages.
Later in October 2019, you forced Mr B to undertake another trip to Sydney. You told him not to tell anyone about the trip and he became suspicious he was being set up, which caused him to be very nervous.
On 26 October 2019, you flew from Sydney to Launceston under a false name. You had collected a large quantity of cash, directly related to your drug trafficking activities. Police located a photograph on your mobile phone of an image dated 26 October 2019 of a duffle bag containing a large quantity of cash (approximately 15 bundles containing $50 and $100 notes).
On 31 October 2019, Mr B took a flight from Hobart to Sydney at your direction. He went to the same McDonald’s Restaurant in Bankstown where he met you, and he stayed overnight at your home. Early the next day you left to fly to Launceston, telling Mr B you would wait for him.
Ms C gave Mr B a package containing methylamphetamine that he was to take with him. He tried to secrete it in his trousers, but it was very large and an awkward shape, and he refused to carry it. It weighed at least 1100 grams. This caused an argument with Ms C, who called you on your mobile phone and put you on loudspeaker. Mr B became fearful and threw the package, then ran from the house.
Ms C chased after Mr B, who, in a frantic state, took a taxi to Sydney Airport, where he approached an Australian Federal Police Officer and disclosed some aspects of what had happened, although he may not have divulged your identity. Mr B was admitted to hospital in Sydney and returned to Hobart on 3 November 2019. You attended his unit on 3 November 2019 and told him he owed you approximately $1700 for the failed Sydney trip. It was arranged that he would pay by instalments of $80 per fortnight, and he made these payments to a third person.
Mr B transported 1.590 kilograms, and in relation to the fifth trip, was directed by you to transport an additional 1100 grams. The total amount transported and attempted to be transported by you using Mr B as a courier was approximately 2.69 kilograms.
Apart from the first trip, Mr B did not willingly agree to courier ice for you and only did so because he felt threatened and intimidated by you. The relationship was one of control and dominance by you, underpinned by threatening behaviour.
In addition to the duffle bag of cash I mentioned, there was an occasion in Sydney at your address, when Mr B saw you counting approximately $60,000 in cash on the lounge room coffee table.
As a result of information received, police commenced mail watches on a number of addresses believed to be the recipients of illicit drugs from the defendant through the post.
On or about 9 April 2020, during the COVID lock-down period, you sent a small express post parcel containing 18 grams of heroin addressed to Craig Fisher in Glenorchy.
It was seized by police at the Australia Post Mail Centre in Mornington. There were no sender details on the parcel. Your DNA was found on the parcel and its contents.
On or about 22 April 2020 you sent a small express post parcel and 10 grams of ice to Mark Chatters at an address in Glenorchy. This was seized by police at the same Mail Centre. Your DNA was found on the contents.
Another aspect of your drug trafficking enterprise was an arrangement with Anthony Young and Frances Young, and Ms Young’s involvement as a courier. This was a different situation to that involving Mr B; they were not pressured to become involved.
In around 2017 you were introduced to Mr Young by his former partner who was friends with your partner at the time, Ms C.
In late November or early December 2019, Mr Young was struggling financially and approached you and asked if he could do something with drugs to make some money. It was decided between you both to embark on a trial: you would test Mr Young and see if things went smoothly, then there would be talk of other things down the track.
An arrangement was put in place that his vehicle would be used as a drop-off point for a package of methylamphetamine for someone else to collect. Mr Young was to leave his BMW parked on his front lawn unlocked. He was to receive approximately half an ounce of methylamphetamine as his payment.
He received a message from you that a package was being delivered. The package was approximately 8 – 16 ounces.
When the package of ice was delivered, Mr Young unwrapped it and removed his share and then placed the package in a Woolworths bag and left it in his unlocked car for collection. He later received a message from you telling him that someone would be there to collect it.
This drop-off and collection arrangement occurred once prior to the COVID lockdowns commencing in 2020. In addition to receiving ice as payment, at some stage Mr Young also received a Breitling watch from you. Mr Young believed it was worth between $8,000 and $12,000. Later, and sometime before April 2022, when Mr Young was struggling financially, he sold it back to you for the sum of $4,000.
Against the background of this arrangement of a trial, you suggested to Mr Young that he travel to Sydney and bring some money over for you. Ms Young was aware that her son was struggling financially. She offered to do it for her son, and you agreed.
This resulted in Ms Young travelling to Sydney on a number of occasions to deliver cash to you, the proceeds of drug sales, and to receive packages of methylamphetamine from you, and bring them into Tasmania for you. You coordinated the exchange of cash and drugs by communicating with Mr Young, who passed on your directions to his mother as to where and when to meet you.
Mr Young and his mother were not strangers to the drug. Before any involvement with you, both had been users and Mr Young had sold small amounts.
Between 27 August and 28 October 2020 there were three occasions when Ms Young transported cash to Sydney, and drugs from Sydney to Tasmania, at your direction. On each occasion the cash was left by an unknown person in Mr Young’s unlocked vehicle parked on his front lawn. On her return she put the methylamphetamine in Mr Young’s car and, as arranged with you, Mr Young removed the dedicated amount as payment.
On 29 August 2020 Ms Young flew from Hobart to Sydney. She was in possession of $13,000 hidden in her luggage, and an amount of $38,000 hidden within the seat cushion of her wheelchair. The following day she met you at the front of a hotel in Paramatta and handed over the cash, except for $1000 which she kept as payment for the trip. On this first trip she did not realise you expected her to transport methylamphetamine back into Tasmania and she thought her role was simply to do a “cash run”. You handed Ms Young a package containing methylamphetamine, estimated to be 226 grams or eight ounces and told her to take it back. She queried what you meant, and you told her that was what she was here for. With this package were a number of a packages, including four smaller packages containing ice weighing approximately 14 grams or half an ounce. You told her that they were hers. She returned to Hobart on 3 September in possession of the drug, secured under her clothing. After arriving in Hobart, Ms Young took the package to her son’s home. The main package was left in Mr Young’s unlocked car where it was collected by an unknown person.
On 24 September 2020 Ms Young flew from Hobart to Sydney with an unknown amount of money to be given to you. On 26 September 2020 Ms Young met you outside a hotel in the suburb of Lidcombe and handed over the money. You drove her to her accommodation in the city and handed her a package containing an estimated 400 grams of methylamphetamine. On 27 September, you went to her hotel and supplied her with two to three points of methylamphetamine for her own personal use.
Ms Young missed her return flight on 26 September and returned on 29 September on a flight to Hobart with the drug concealed on her. She was instructed by you to go to Mr Young’s house straight away and that you would arrange for someone to collect the drugs from Mr Young’s vehicle, which is what she did.
On 24 October 2020 Ms Young flew to Sydney out of Hobart with an unknown amount of money hidden in her belongings. The following day you met her near where she was staying and handed her a package containing methylamphetamine, estimated to be 20 ounces or 566 grams. She flew home the following day and gave her son the package.
Mr Young did one “cash run” for you during this time and transported approximately $50,000 – $60,000. He travelled to Sydney by plane on 12 October. The cash had been left in his unlocked car as it had been for Ms Young when she transported cash for you. Mr Young met you as arranged in a car park in Paramatta. You paid for his expenses but he did not receive other payment in drugs or cash.
In relation to the three trips taken by Ms Young, you arranged for Ms Young and her son to have an amount each as payment for their involvement. Both sold some of their share. Indeed, that had been Mr Young’s intention in becoming involved in the first place, having intended to make some money. Mr Young received three to four ounces. In relation to the second trip, Mr Young arranged with you that he would receive two ounces on credit, and would repay you $20,000, which is what he did.
You enabled Mr Young to: buy a portion of the drugs you arranged to be imported into Tasmania on credit, make some money by selling methylamphetamine, and repay you at a rate that was profitable to you.
In relation to the third trip, the arrangement with you was that he was to have four ounces on credit. However, he did not have the opportunity to sell that amount as it was seized by police in circumstances that brought an abrupt end to his involvement in your business of drug trafficking.
On 27 October 2020, police were called to Mr Young’s home in Chigwell. Mr Young had been the victim of a home invasion and had received several stab wounds to his shoulder and injuries to his head. His motor vehicle was searched by police and a freezer bag containing 419 grams of ice was found. This amount had been placed in the vehicle by Mr Young after he had been attacked, and after he had removed his amount of ice as “payment” from the package. Further, in Mr Young’s home they found two zip lock bags of ice which were concealed containing 68.8 grams and 15.9 grams respectively.
Ms Young’s home in Chigwell was also searched and her mobile phone was seized on 28 October, revealing text messages with her son regarding her trips to Sydney and your involvement. During the search, four small amounts of methylamphetamine were located, weighing a total of 34.4 grams which were received from you as payment for her role as a courier.
A conservative estimate of the total amount of ice imported by Ms Young at your direction is 42 ounces, or 1190.6 grams. Ms Young was handed eight ounces for the first trip, approximately 14 ounces for the second, and 20 ounces for the third. From those amounts Mr Young removed his and his mother’s payments and the amounts he had purchased on credit. He removed 2 ounces from the second amount and four from the third amount, noting that police seized the balance from the car in the order of 15-16 ounces. Ms Young received an ounce per trip as payment for her part.
When Mr Young was interviewed by police he lied to protect you, and named a fictitious person as his supplier.
In terms of the cash: Ms Young transported $50,000 the first trip, and was instructed to take out $1000 to cover her expenses; $50,000 the second trip; and $70,000 the third trip, being $50,000 she transported for you and $20,000 being the amount Mr Young owed you. As mentioned, Mr Young did a cash run of approximately $50,000, less an amount of approximately $1200 for his expenses.
In relation to the Youngs, at your direction Ms Young transported approximately $170,000 in cash – the product of drug sales – to you, and imported approximately 1.19 kilograms of methylamphetamine into the State. In addition, Mr Young transported approximately $50,000 in cash. The business arrangements you had put in place meant that Ms Young assumed the risk of moving the money and importing the drugs, and Mr Young assumed the risk of providing a collection point for the drugs and the money, all of which was at arms-length from yourself.
On 23 March 2022, members of Tasmania Police, Australian Federal Police and New South Wales Police attended an address at Young Street, Paramatta, and executed a search warrant. You were there with your current partner. You had nearby three mobile phones, one of which was encrypted and could not be analysed.
A large amount of valuable property belonging to you was seized, including jewellery, four Rolex watches, a 2011 Ferrari Spider, a 2019 Ferrari Pista, a 1974 Ferrari Dino, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, $13,000 in cash, and 23 pieces of gold bullion. The seized property is the subject of pending “unexplained wealth” civil proceedings before this Court under the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993. These court proceedings reach beyond the property seized and relate to residential properties owned by the defendant.
The potential outcome of these court proceedings is that the defendant is stripped of valuable assets that represent the profits of his business.
Further, an application has been made for a pecuniary penalty order in the sum of $400,850.00.
While the civil proceedings may be contested and the application is yet to be determined, and therefore the outcome and impact of these proceedings upon the defendant is unknown, they have a general relevance to the sentencing task. There is the potential for a financial impact which may be felt by him for many years to come and I take that into account. I consider that the potential consequences are also relevant because others may be deterred by the knowledge that the State can bring such proceedings.
The defendant participated in a video recorded interview confirming his personal details, and then, largely in response to questions, exercised his right to silence. He was arrested and extradited to Tasmania and has remained in custody since. The defendant himself travelled regularly between Tasmania and Sydney during the indictment period, for the purpose of attending to his business, arranging his couriers to take drugs or cash, directing the distribution of the drugs, and collecting cash – the proceeds of drug sales. During this period, he took at least 30 flights between Sydney and Tasmania. It can be seen that there were occasions he travelled on a separate flight from his courier, arriving ahead of them and he would be waiting with a dealer for the drugs to arrive.
Methylamphetamine has a street value of $100 per point (0.1g) and an ounce (28g) has a street value of between $8,000 and $10,000. The total known quantity that was imported or attempted to be imported involved in this case is at least 4.31 kilograms.
Depending on how it was sold, the potential street value of 4.31 kilograms ranges from 1.2 million dollars to an amount in excess of 4.3 million dollars.
It is relevant to mention this value amount as one measure of the gravity of his conduct. It is indicative of the profits made and the high stakes business engaged in by the defendant. However, also relevant is the sheer amount of drug imported and the damage it represented to the Tasmanian community. Having regard to the amount of 4.31 kilograms imported or attempted to be imported, this is equivalent to 43,100 points.
In addition, in the course of your business you trafficked in another amount that was 8 – 16 ounces which was left in Mr Young’s car for collection and no doubt distributed into the market. Therefore, the total amount you trafficked in was at least 4.5 kilograms.
The total amount of heroin trafficked by the defendant is 18 grams. It has the potential street value of $5400 if sold for $300 per gram.
The defendant is 41 years of age. He has had a drug addiction since he was 15, which led to criminal offending at a young age to fund his drug use. Having regard to his offending as an adult, he committed some driving offences in Sydney in 2002 – 2008, and a series of offences of dishonesty in Victoria in 2005. He has also committed offences of dishonesty in Tasmania, with a significant number of offences of forgery, uttering, and dishonesty, which attracted two drug treatment orders in 2009. He has prior convictions for drug offences involving possession, and selling controlled plant or its products and selling controlled drug. For these and other offences, he received a nine month sentence of imprisonment, six months suspended in 2012.
In 2017, he was sentenced by Blow CJ to a term of four years’ imprisonment for the crime of trafficking in a controlled substance, methylamphetamine. He flew from Sydney to Hobart with a package containing half a kilogram of the drug and was intercepted at the airport. His role was as a courier, and he was described as a small participant who transported a large commercial quantity of the drug. He was also described as someone who wished to make use of rehabilitation opportunities.
He was given the opportunity of early parole and a fresh start. Within days of his release on parole he was communicating with Mr Imlach, establishing a lucrative commercial enterprise now as a director of operations and engaging Mr Imlach as his courier.
The fact that he committed the crime of trafficking while on parole for the crime of trafficking is an aggravating factor, showing a persistency of conduct. He was undeterred by the heavy gaol sentence he had just served, and the prospect of revocation of his parole.
I have taken into account the sentences imposed on Mr Anthony Young and Ms Frances Young, their antecedents and circumstances as revealed by Acting Justice Martin’s comments on passing sentence for their involvement in your criminal enterprise. They are not comparable offenders in terms of their very different criminal conduct and their role in the trafficking, and they warrant very different sanctions. Similarly, I take into account the sentence imposed on Mr Imlach, and the comments of Estcourt J in passing sentence. Mr Imlach’s criminal conduct is also not comparable to the defendant’s offending.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to the indictment on 11 December 2023 but there was a substantive disputed facts hearing. This necessitated three civilian witnesses to give evidence, one of whom was particularly vulnerable due to his disadvantaged background, poor health, and fear of the defendant. Nonetheless, there is a saving to the State in his plea of guilty, and his sentence will be discounted to reflect that benefit.
The defendant’s time in custody has been more onerous than it might otherwise have been due to various factors. For the first eight weeks there were COVID-19 protocols in place, which means that time out of his cell was limited to 15 minutes a day. He has spent approximately 26 months of his remand at the Hobart Reception Prison, which has limited facilities and reduced access to sunlight. He was then transferred to the Southern Remand Centre, and his time has been subject to frequent whole or part-day lockdowns due to inadequate staffing levels.
The defendant has still been able to use his time in custody productively. He has been employed in a number of responsible roles; he is classified as a minimum-security remandee; and he has completed courses, namely, “Change on the Inside”, and an Adult Resilience Course. He has been recognised as a peer mentor and has developed skills to help those prisoners who need additional support in the prison. I regard his contribution in this respect as a positive step in his personal development.
As a result of an indication given to the Court by Crown counsel in August last year, JMCW understood that an allegation of trafficking in cocaine that was a particular of this indictment was not being pursued. However, that did not necessarily mean he was not facing future proceedings for that allegation. He now understands – as a result of an indication given on 1 November 2024 – that it is in the hands of another prosecuting agency. He has suffered stress as a consequence, and ongoing anxiety.
The defendant was raised in a caring home environment. His parents continue to be supportive of him. He has worked as a jeweller in his own store. He has a partner and young daughter, born after he was remanded in custody, who are being supported by his parents.
I have the benefit of a report from Dr Georgina O’Donnell dated 25 March 2025. This report is relied on as providing the background of the defendant, rather than a psychological diagnosis or identification of any Verdins principles, which are not indicated in this case.
The defendant has recently disclosed childhood abuse in a school setting, leading to a decline in academic performance, and soon after, at age 16, he commenced taking heroin. He was later the victim of further criminal assaults when in detention. The defendant is pursuing a legal claim with respect to these experiences. His disclosure and consequently, psychological intervention – if he pursues that in the future – may prove to be significant for his rehabilitation. It seems he is someone likely to pursue support in this regard: he is receiving counselling by telephone and consults Therapeutic Services staff as needed.
He has spoken at length to Dr O’Donnell about his care and concern for his daughter and partner. He feels keenly his partner’s situation and guilty for the stress he has caused her and his parents.
He expressed that he will not return to his illicit drug use or drug trafficking because of the impact on his family, and he is focused on doing the right thing for his family in the future.
Dr O’Donnell describes the defendant as an intelligent man, with a charismatic and influential personality. She highlights some of the facts of this case noting he is capable of exercising control over others, and that others have reported feeling intimidated by him at times. In her view he invests in positive impression management and amongst other things, material wealth is an important representation of that to him. Dr O’Donnell notes the defendant’s personality may continue to be a general risk factor with respect to future offending behaviour. Future drug use is another risk factor and he will need to remain resolute not to resume drug use.
The defendant has purported to be motivated to rehabilitate in the past and yet, that was a false assurance. It is appropriate for the Court to be cautious in assessing his prospects. However, I am prepared to accept that his current assurances of an intention to reform are genuine. I accept there is the prospect that on his release his new circumstances, including his relationship with his partner, the plans they share for the future, and, as stated by her, “the growth he has experienced as a father”, will provide a significant incentive to lead a law-abiding life.
Character references provided by the defendant’s partner and father, speak of the impact of a lengthy gaol term on his family. The law makes it clear that I may not mitigate the sentence by taking into account the impact on family members, unless the circumstances are exceptional. These circumstances are not exceptional.
The hardship results from the defendant’s crime and the impact on people close to him was a calculated risk he was prepared to take.
I take into account and give some weight to the fact that he will feel the prison term more acutely than he otherwise would have done, because of the impact of the sentence on his family and his concern for them.
I have had regard to the table of sentences provided by the State. Most of them are less serious cases of trafficking than this case. I take them into account, conscious that consistency of sentencing for like cases is desirable. It is also useful to have regard to sentences involving lesser offending to ensure that the sentence imposed in this case reflects a proportionate difference in the nature and gravity of the conduct. It is also necessary to bear in mind that over time sentences imposed by this Court have been increasing as a response to an escalation in the level of criminal activity and the increased prevalence in trafficking.
A significant number of the sentences have been subject to appeal and I have had regard to the Court of Criminal Appeal decisions which considered those appeals as well as other appeal decisions on trafficking sentences in Tasmania.
The sentence in this case must be just and proportionate to the nature and gravity of the crime. The nature and scale of the defendant’s trafficking places this case in a particularly serious category. He established a lucrative business, and for an extensive period of some 17 months, operated that business importing a highly addictive and harmful drug into Tasmania from New South Wales. He directed and managed the business, and from behind the scenes controlled the activities of his courier, and while they were exposed to the risk of detection his own position was relatively protected. Once they were apprehended by authorities, he arranged another in their place. Their apprehension did not cause him to desist in his business activity.
There were 10 occasions when a courier acting under his instructions was directed to import or imported methylamphetamine into the State. Each instance of importing is in and of itself a serious criminal act.
As well as the three couriers, the defendant involved others in his business: Mr Young and also the defendant’s partner, as well the dealers that he negotiated with and supplied with the drug.
The profits yielded over the period of the indictment were very significant. I note in one period of two months, over $200,000 was taken out of the State. The amount of methylamphetamine that passed through his hands with his intention being that it should reach the market in Tasmania was over 4.5 kilograms.
His trafficking persisted during the COVID lock-down period when he arranged for a parcel of methylamphetamine and a parcel of heroin to be sent by mail. The quantities were not of the same scale but revealed a persistency of conduct.
His criminal culpability was very high. This was a profit-making enterprise which funded a lavish lifestyle. The period of offending was extensive and involved the repetition of criminal behaviour. There was plenty of time to reflect and desist, but he did not. He was readily able to engage two couriers with the lure of drugs or money, but in the case of a third who was vulnerable and did not want to be part of this criminal enterprise, he resorted to threats that were callous and calculated to intimidate.
Methylampetamine is an insidious drug which has a destructive effect on the lives of those who use it and causes terrible harm to their families and our community. The defendant was prepared to repeatedly and determinedly inflict that harm for his own selfish profiteering.
The need for general deterrence is a dominant sentencing objective. The courts must do what they can to protect the community by deterring other potential offenders who may be tempted to engage in commercial trafficking by the chance of high returns. There must be certainty that the court’s response will be stern and unequivocal.
I have not overlooked the circumstances of the defendant, and his prospects of reform. They are reflected in the sentence I will impose particularly in the provision I will make for parole. Ultimately, the scale and gravity of the crime and the need for denunciation and general deterrence command a very heavy sentence.
JMCW, you are convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance. I impose a sentence of eleven years’ imprisonment. The sentence is backdated to 23 March 2022. You are not to be eligible for parole until you have served 6 years’ imprisonment.
I make an order pursuant to s 36B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 that the defendant pay for costs of analysis of $1611.
Further, I order that the application pursuant to ss 11(1)(b) and 21 of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, for a pecuniary penalty order in the sum of $400,850.00 is adjourned sine die.