STATE OF TASMANIA v TALEAH MAREE McLAUGHLIN 3 JULY 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Ms McLaughlin, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance. More than one substance is involved. It is alleged that between 9 December 2017 and 9 December 2018, she trafficked in methylamphetamine, buprenorphine and cannabis. I am also dealing with her pleas of guilty to summary offences of possessing a controlled plant (cannabis), possessing a thing used for administering a controlled drug, using a controlled plant (cannabis), and using a controlled drug (methylamphetamine). As part of a wide investigation, the defendant and an alleged co-offender, S, were identified as being involved in the sourcing, distribution and sale of illicit drugs. In the course of the investigation, communications to and from the defendant’s mobile phone were intercepted. This material revealed that on regular occasions the defendant and S were purchasing quantities of the named substances and on-selling to users. On 2 November 2018, the defendant’s home was searched. S was there, and small quantities of the relevant substances were found in his possession. Telephone intercept material enabled the identification of the customer, who was later intercepted leaving the defendant’s home on 6 November 2018. That person had approximately .3 grams of methylamphetamine in their possession. On 22 November, again through telephone intercept material, at a different address, police were able to seize three bags containing a total of 7.26 grams of a substance, presumed to be methylamphetamine, which was intended to be sent to the defendant for sale. A further search of the defendant’s home was carried out on 10 December 2018. Along with three mobile telephones, and a small quantity of small zip lock bags, a total of about 6 grams of cannabis bud/cannabis mix was found along with a used smoking device. The defendant was arrested and interviewed. She admitted to methylamphetamine use of between .5 grams and 1 gram per fortnight, saying she did not have enough money to support her drug habit. She admitted selling methylamphetamine over the past 12 months and cannabis over the last six months to between three to four people. She explained that 0.1 gram of methylamphetamine was worth $50, 0.5 grams between $200 to $300, and 1 gram $300 to $400, and said the largest amount she had sold was 0.25 grams. She estimated her total sales of drugs in the last year at about 120 in number, with the breakdown between cannabis and methylamphetamine sales being about 50:50. The Crown says that some caution needs to be exercised about what may be made of the number of sales, suggesting that the pattern was one of escalation. As a very broad estimate, using the figure of one half, and the average of 0.175 grams, gives a value of methylamphetamine sold of somewhere between $6,000 and $9,000. I have no real information about the quantities of cannabis sold, or the value of particular quantities. I cannot be satisfied that large amounts were involved. The Crown also asserts that some buprenorphine was sold, but it was mostly the other two substances. Having said all of that about the defendant’s own activities, it would not right to ignore the fact that she was involved with at least one other person in a wider range of trafficking in these drugs.
The defendant is now 34 years old. She has a recorded history of drug offending starting in late 2011. In total, she has appeared in court on six occasions between 2011 and 2019 on drug charges. In the main these are charges of using and possessing controlled plants or drugs, but there are convictions in September 2015 for supplying a controlled plant, and in May 2017 for supplying a controlled drug. In May 2018, which is within the period of the trafficking charge, she was again dealt with for possession and use, and fined. On 5 March 2019 she was convicted of further charges of use and possession and, more relevantly, one charge of supplying a controlled drug and one of selling a controlled plant, those offences relating to the period late 2017 to early 2018. The defendant was on bail for that offending during part of the period of the present trafficking matter. I have a drug treatment order assessment report dated 27 June 2019 which sets out comprehensive details of the defendant’s personal history and her history of substance abuse. The defendant presently has full-time custody of her 8 year old daughter. Her mother assists with the child’s care; the father does not have contact. The defendant completed year 10 and since that time has completed a number of certificate courses in retail operations, hospitality and the like. She has a good history of employment in those areas between 2000 and 2010, but has been unemployed for about nine years. She started to use cannabis early on in her high school years. By the age of 17 or 18 it had become something of an addiction. At about that time she experimented with amphetamines. The nature and extent of her drug use escalated, culminating in her introduction to methylamphetamine by the father of her child. She did not use the drug while pregnant but resumed soon afterwards. Methylamphetamine is a major issue. She had been associating with dealers and other addicts. She sells small amounts to fund her habit. She was in a relationship with a dealer for a while. She apparently “picked up the business” when he left. She told the court diversion officer that people kept coming “crying for it”, and that she did not want to be what she became, feeling like it was helping out a few mates who were without money. She claimed to have spent her mother’s inheritance of over $20,000 on drug use. The defendant’s drug use is quite heavy, involving methylamphetamine use on most days. Her counsel told me she was desperate to extricate herself from her situation. As to a drug treatment order, the circumstances of the case may be such that having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the order cannot be considered as appropriate. However, such an order is not without punitive effect given the onerous compliance with the program conditions that is required, and it remains an alternative to imprisonment. Of course, commercial dealings in controlled substances is a serious matter. The defendant’s conduct was persisted in after a police visit, and notwithstanding earlier court appearances. I take into account that addiction was at the heart of this offending, as distinct from motives of greed and the pursuit of an affluent lifestyle. I take into account the pleas of guilty, the plea to the trafficking charge being entered at a relatively early time. I take into account that the defendant has co-operated with police. In light of the circumstances of the offending, and the recorded history of past offending, there is no doubt that imprisonment is appropriate. However, the recommendation is that the defendant is eligible and suitable for a drug treatment order notwithstanding concerns as to her capacity to comply, and I propose to make that order.
Ms McLaughlin, there is no doubt that this is serious offending. You were engaged in ongoing sales of methylamphetamine and cannabis. As you realise of course, methylamphetamine is highly addictive and very dangerous. It causes much harm in the community and is a source of great ongoing concern. As I have said, I have come to the view that the public interests rests more with your rehabilitation than what might be achieved by immediate imprisonment. You are convicted of all matters and, subject to your agreement, I make an order pursuant to s 27B of the Sentencing Act by which you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, all or any of which custodial part you will not be required to serve unless ordered to do so, or if the order is cancelled. That order will, of course, contain the core conditions as provided for in s 27G(1)(a) to (i). As to the core condition set out in par (b) which requires attending a court whenever the court directs, the first directed appearance is at the Devonport Magistrates Court on 25 July at 12 noon, and under par (c) of that subsection, you will have to report to a court diversion officer at 57-59 Oldaker Street, Devonport within two clear working days of today. Program conditions under s 27H are as follows:
1 You must submit to drug testing, including random drug testing, urinalysis and oral fluid testing, as required by the case manager or court diversion officers.
2 You must submit to detoxification or other treatment, whether or not residential in nature, as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
3 You must attend vocational, educational, employment, rehabilitation or other programs as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
4 You must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
5 You must not associate with, by any means including electronic means, [NG], [MG] or persons who are members of or known to be associated with “outlaw” motorcycle organisations, and you must not associate with [JS] unless through attendance at CMD appointments or CMD court appearances.
6 You must only reside at an address approved in advance by the case manager or court diversion officers, and you must be present at that address between the hours of 10pm and 7am each day unless otherwise expressly authorised by the case manager or court diversion officers.
7 You must not use any illicit drugs or substances.
8 You must not use any prescription or non-prescription medication unless prescribed by a treating doctor or recommended in writing by a pharmacist.
9 You must attend counselling and/or treatment as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
10 You must maintain the use of a working mobile phone in order to send/receive messages about drug testing, case management and/or counselling appointments from your case manager and court diversion officers, and you must remain contactable at all times.
[On being asked, the defendant agreed to the making of the order in those terms.]
I order the forfeiture of $20 seized by police on 10 December 2018, and items 5 to 23 inclusive on Property Seizure Records Nos 160121 and 160122 as appear at pages 11 to 12 of the Crown papers.