STATE OF TASMANIA v TEGAN ELIZABETH MAYNE 11 SEPTEMBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The State alleges that between 1 December 2020 and 24 May 2023, the defendants, Corey Mayne and Tegan Mayne, along with Scott Dowling and Hannah McMaster, operated a drug trafficking business. This enterprise is said to have involved the importation, possession, and sale of methylamphetamine in Hobart. The charges are brought on what is known as a Giretti basis, that is the conducting of a commercial business operation.
Corey and Tegan Mayne have each pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking on that basis.
The facts alleged 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 Corey and/or Tegan Mayne and/or themselves. She made six trips to Melbourne and back, with the Maynes funding her travel and providing cash for the drugs. McMaster concealed the drugs in her body during transport.
On 9 March 2023, Scott Dowling imported 104 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart for Corey Mayne. Text messages between Dowling and Corey Mayne confirmed the purpose of the trip. Dowling was apprehended at the airport with the drugs concealed in his luggage.
On 5 April 2023, Hannah McMaster imported 62.7 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart for Tegan Mayne. Evidence included text messages, CCTV footage, and McMaster’s interview, where she admitted to obtaining the drugs in Melbourne and delivering them to 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 shifted to using couriers, recruiting McMaster and Dowling to transport drugs from Melbourne.
The roles of Corey and Tegan Mayne evolved over time. 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, the State’s case is that between 1 December 2020 and 24 May 2023, Corey Mayne and Tegan Mayne, along with others, operated a drug trafficking business involving the importation, possession, and sale of methylamphetamine in Hobart.
Police discovered 13 grams of methylamphetamine and drug paraphernalia at their 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 340 to 680 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart on behalf of Corey and/or Tegan Mayne and/or themselves, making six trips to Melbourne. On 9 March 2023, Scott Dowling imported 104 grams of methylamphetamine into Hobart for Corey Mayne. On 5 April 2023, McMaster imported 62.7 grams of methylamphetamine for 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 1 gram, from a 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 of drugs 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 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, described how the drug operation moved from postal importations to the involvement of Hannah McMaster and later Scott Dowling to import methylamphetamine from Melbourne by air. He noted the Maynes’ organisation of travel, provision of cash, and coordination with suppliers.
Mr Arendt addressed fluctuations in the role and the involvement of Corey and Tegan Mayne, highlighting that at various points Corey was the focus, while at other times both were central, and at one stage evidence showed a clear focus on Tegan Mayne, particularly with relation to McMaster. He noted that for certain transactions, there was no direct evidence of Tegan Mayne’s involvement, but still described the business, correctly in view, as a rolled-up enterprise for sentencing purposes.
In summary, 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 defendants having a fluctuating but persistent involvement throughout the relevant period.
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 who 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 [redacted] 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.
The defendant Tegan Mayne aged 33, is a mother of four children aged 5 to 15. She resides [redacted] and supports herself through a carer’s benefit while caring for her mother and children. She has no prior drug-related convictions except for driving with illicit substances in her system in 2020 and 2021.
Tegan Mayne experienced significant personal and financial stress in 2020, including the death of her stepfather, her twin sister’s serious car accident, and the loss of her job due to COVID-19. She began using methylamphetamine in 2020 as a form of self-medication, which, as I say, inevitably led to addiction. As noted, she and her husband started selling drugs in 2021 to finance that addiction, she contributing $25,000 from her superannuation and $20,000 from her stepfather’s estate to cover mortgage payments, but ultimately she lost everything, including the family home.
As already noted, it was submitted that Tegan Mayne was a participant in a buying group, but the fact is that she has accepted legal responsibility for all of the trafficking transactions, except for one in April 2023, which occurred while, I note, she was in custody.
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. He described the operation as involving the importation, possession, and sale of methylamphetamine in Hobart, with specific importations facilitated through both postal services and domestic airlines. I accept that characterisation for sentencing purposes. The serious criminal nature of trafficking in this insidious drug cannot be overemphasised.
The defendant, Tegan Mayne, is convicted of trafficking and is sentenced to 18 months’ home detention. That period recognises 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.
The order will contain all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD (1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997.
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:
- 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;
- 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;
- 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:
- a police officer;
- a probation officer or prescribed officer; or
- 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, except during the times of 7am to 5pm daily, unless approved by a probation officer;
- you must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction onto this order. You must attend for induction no later than 10:00am on Monday, 14 September 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; or
- 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;
- 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, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- the defendant must, during the operational period of the order, attend educational and other programs as directed by the court or a probation officer;
- the defendant must, during the operational period of the order, undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- the defendant must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer; 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 $4,500.00 in cash found in Tegan Mayne’s possession on 5 April 2023 and the $7,720.00 in cash found at the Maynes’ home on 24 May 2023, be forfeited to the State.
I make that order.
And that 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:
- the items numbered 1 ,6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 to 24, 26 to 30, 32 and 34, and 35 on the property seizure record at pages 42 to 43 of the Supplemental Crown Papers filed 26 February 2026; and
- 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 that order.