STATE OF TASMANIA v COREY JAMES MAYNE 16 OCTOBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The State alleges that between 1 December 2020 and 24 May 2023, the defendant, Corey Mayne and his then wife Tegan Mayne, along with Scott Dowling and Hannah McMaster, operated a drug trafficking business. This enterprise involved the importation, possession, and sale of methylamphetamine in Hobart. The charges were brought on what is known as a Giretti basis, that is the conducting of a commercial business operation.
Corey and Tegan Mayne each pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking. Tegan Mayne was sentenced by me on 11 September 2026.
The facts are that on 25 February 2021, police discovered 13 grams of methylamphetamine and drug trafficking paraphernalia at the Maynes’ residence at [address redacted]. This was part of an estimated 35 to 42 grams of methylamphetamine that Corey Mayne had imported, or attempted to import, via post.
Between 24 November 2022 and 5 January 2023, Hannah McMaster imported an estimated 340 to 680 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart on behalf of, or in conjunction with, Corey and/or Tegan Mayne. She made six trips to Melbourne and back, with the Maynes funding her travel and providing cash for the drugs.
On 9 March 2023, Scott Dowling imported 104 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart on behalf of, or in conjunction with, Corey Mayne. On 5 April 2023, Hannah McMaster imported 62.7 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart for, or in conjunction with, Tegan Mayne. Police later found the drugs, cash, and related items in Tegan Mayne’s vehicle.
On 24 May 2023, police executed a search warrant at the Maynes’ residence and found 16.3 grams of methylamphetamine, $7,720 in cash, drug paraphernalia, and mobile phones. Corey Mayne admitted that the drugs were part of a larger purchase of 28.5 grams. He also acknowledged that $2,000 of the cash came from drug sales.
The State alleges that initially, the Maynes imported methylamphetamine via post. After police intervention in February 2021, they changed to using couriers, recruiting McMaster and Dowling to transport drugs from Melbourne.
The roles of Corey and Tegan Mayne evolved over time, the State allege. Initially, Corey appeared to have a more prominent role, but later evidence suggested Tegan became more involved, particularly in organising McMaster’s trips.
In summary however, the State’s case is that between 1 December 2020 and 24 May 2023, Corey Mayne and Tegan Mayne, along with the others, operated a drug trafficking business involving the importation, possession, and sale of methylamphetamine into Hobart.
Police discovered 13 grams of methylamphetamine and drug trafficking paraphernalia at the Maynes’ home on 25 February 2021. This was part of an estimated 35 to 42 grams imported or attempted to be imported by Corey Mayne through the post. Between 24 November 2022 and 5 January 2023, Hannah McMaster imported an estimated 340 to 680 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart on behalf of, or in conjunction with, Corey and/or Tegan Mayne, making six trips to Melbourne.
On 9 March 2023, Scott Dowling imported 104 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart for, or on behalf of, or in conjunction with, Corey Mayne. On 5 April 2023, McMaster imported 62.7 grams of methylamphetamine for, or in conjunction with, Tegan Mayne. Between 5 April 2023 and 24 May 2023, Corey Mayne acquired 28.5 grams of methylamphetamine, of which 16.3 grams were found at his home on 24 May 2023, along with drug paraphernalia and $7,720 in cash.
The total amount of methylamphetamine trafficked during the relevant period is estimated to be between 574.4 grams and 921.4 grams.
The Maynes say that they were involved in a “buying group” with the others, pooling funds to purchase methylamphetamine in Melbourne, where it was cheaper. The term “buying group” has been something of a distraction as it tended to de-emphasise the commercial trafficking nature of the defendant’s business. It is true that some of the drugs were used for personal consumption but there is a limit to the amount of methylamphetamine that can be personally used. I am told by the State, without demur, that the amount is less than one gram, from one point a day to 10 points (a gram) at the highest, and the balance over that modest amount was obviously sold to finance further purchases and to make money. I do not need to make any more detailed findings than that. It seems to me that the defendants were addicts, as I have already observed, but were equally involved in a commercial drug trafficking operation, save for that which occurred while Tegan Mayne was in custody.
Counsel for the State, Mr Arendt depicted the Maynes’ activities as a sustained, sophisticated drug trafficking business, involving both personal use and commercial sales, marked by regular importations, involvement of couriers, and sale operations, with both accused having a fluctuating but persistent involvement throughout the relevant period. Mr Arendt, characterised the case as involving a regular and ongoing commercial drug trafficking enterprise conducted by Corey Mayne and his wife, Tegan Mayne, together with Scott Robert Dowling and Hannah Camille McMaster, during the period between 1 December 2020 and 24 May 2023.
I accept that characterisation for sentencing purposes. The serious criminal nature of trafficking in this insidious drug can never be overemphasised.
Both Corey and Tegan Mayne were addicted to methylamphetamine, which led to their financial ruin, including the loss of their home and superannuation savings. I observed during the sentencing hearing that the case was the quintessential example of the immediate addictive effects of methylamphetamine and its continuing destructive effect on people’s lives, not just those that use it.
The defendant Corey Mayne, aged 34, is a father of two children, aged 10 and 5, who live with him part-time. He resides in Bridgewater and is unemployed, receiving $1,350 fortnightly in benefits. Before his addiction, he worked as an asbestos remover, earning up to $120,000 annually. He became addicted to methylamphetamine in 2020, which led to inevitable financial difficulties, the loss of his home, and the breakdown of his marriage. He has one prior conviction for drug-related offences and has been convicted of driving with methylamphetamine in his system.
He has been drug-free for over 12 months now, which was achieved without professional assistance, and he has removed himself from criminal activities. He has expressed remorse, cooperated with police, and made full admissions. His counsel highlighted his efforts to care for his children and his commitment to rehabilitation. He made two attempts to cease drug use; the first attempt failed after three months, but his subsequent effort resulted in sustained abstinence. He is said to be determined to maintain his abstinence.
The defendant Tegan Mayne was convicted of trafficking and was sentenced by me to 18 months’ home detention. It must be said that period recognised her differing role in the offending, to that of her former husband, (particularly while she was in custody), but takes account of the somewhat relaxed and tailored home detention restrictions recommended by Community Corrections and imposed by me.
The defendant Corey Mayne is convicted of trafficking and is also sentenced to 18 months’ home detention, which period I regard as sufficiently addressing the relevant sentencing considerations given that I have imposed the most restrictive form of home detention and not the more relaxed and tailored home detention restrictions recommended by Community Corrections, and given that I intend to make a community corrections order including community service to mandate the completion of the EQUIPS addiction course.
The order will contain all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD (1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997 be imposed. Pursuant to s 42AD (1) (g) and (h) of that Act the following conditions will be included in the Order:
- you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device;
- during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:
(a) you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;
(b) you must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring; and
(c) you must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by:
(i) a police officer;
(ii) a probation officer or prescribed officer; or
(iii) another person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring.
The following special conditions will be included in the Order:
- you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [address redacted] at all times unless approved by a probation officer;
- you must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction onto this order. You must attend this service for induction during normal business hours and no later than 10:00am on Monday, 19 October 2026;
- you must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times;
- you must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer;
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
- any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;
- any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol; and
- you must not, enter upon or remain upon any licensed premises (excluding cafes, theatres, cinemas and ten-pin bowling venues) unless approved in advance by the Probation Officer.
In addition, I make a community correction order with an operational period of 12 months. The order will contain all of the statutory core conditions and will include the following special conditions:
- the defendant must, during the operational period of the order, complete 40 hours of community service; and
- if directed by a probation officer, the defendant must attend, participate in, and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program as directed.
The State makes an application pursuant to s 11(1)(a) of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act for an order that the $7,720.00 in cash found at the Maynes’ home on 24 May 2023 be forfeited to the State. I make that order.
The State seeks a further order that pursuant to s 38 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that the following items be forfeited to the State, namely:
(i) the items numbered 1, 6, 7,11 to 14, 17, 20 to 24, 26 to 30, 32, 34 and 35 on the property seizure record at pages 42 to 43 of the Supplemental Crown Papers filed 26 February 2026; and
(ii) the items numbered 1, 2 and 3 on property seizure record No 167545 at page 74 of the Supplemental Crown Papers filed 26 February 2026.
I make those orders.