STATE OF TASMANIA v LUKE NIGEL STAGG 30 NOVEMBER 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Luke Stagg, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance, the particulars being that between on or about 13 October 2020 and on or about 21 October 2020, he trafficked in controlled substances, namely methylamphetamine, 1,4-butanediol and 4-butyrolactone. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to summary charges of possessing and using a controlled plant, possessing a thing for the administration of a controlled drug namely a smoking device and three charges of using a controlled drug, the drugs involved being those mentioned in the indictment. Charges 4 to s 6 inclusive and 10 to 14 inclusive are subsumed in the indictment and are dismissed. The facts are as follows. A Tasmania Police drug operation revealed that a Shanelle Delaney was operating a drug trafficking business between 1 September 2020 and 21 October 2020 which involved the importation and sale of methamphetamine, 1,4-butanediol referred to in the facts as being known as “liquid G” and 4-butyrolactone, referred to as “GBL”. The last two drugs are closely related to a drug known colloquially as “GHB” and very quickly convert to GHB once taken. The defendant was identified as being involved in this business between the dates alleged and the indictment, by participating and assisting her in the following ways. The collection of 250ml of liquid G and delivery to Delaney for later sale, involvement in the importation of one ounce of methamphetamine into the State on 21 October 2020 which was intended for later sale, the collection of 549ml of liquid G on 21 October 2020 which was intended for later sale, and the sale of methamphetamine and collecting money from those sales between the relevant dates. In relation to the 13 October 2020 collection, on 8 October Delaney ordered the liquid and directed the parcel to be sent to an address in Cadorna Street, Launceston and then notified the defendant what she had done. On 13 October covert surveillance at the address detected the defendant arriving in Delaney’s vehicle, collecting the parcel from the address and then driving to her home. The next day the defendant sent Delaney a text message telling her to sell it all, and she then sent several text messages to customers saying that she was in possession of the drug for sale. As to the importation on 21 October 2020, Delaney ordered on 19 October an ounce of methamphetamine. Before the order was placed, the defendant deposited $11,000 in cash into Delaney’s account at her direction. Police intercepted the parcel destined for an address in Mangin Street, Launceston and the drug was substituted for an inert substance. On 19 October 2020 Delaney had ordered a quantity of liquid G and directed the parcel to be sent to the Cadorna Street address. Text messages revealed the defendant was aware of when both parcels were due to delivered, and their contents. On 21 October Delaney and the defendant were seen to travel together to Cadorna Street where the defendant collected the parcel from the letterbox, after which they travelled to Mangin Street where they took possession of the second parcel after waiting for an Australia Post employee to deliver it. After the two returned to Delaney’s home, the police executed a search warrant. Delaney and the defendant were found in the kitchen with the two parcels. Among a number of items of interest, police found traces of all three drugs. In relation to the sale of methamphetamine, text messages on both Delaney’s phone and that of the defendant, reveal that he was living with Ms Delaney for the period covered by the indictment. Although the State is not able to quantify what amounts of methamphetamine the defendant sold, messages reveal actual sales to a small number of regular customers on behalf of Delaney and for his own benefit, and collected money from those sales. Delaney financed the purchase of the methamphetamine for on sale, with the defendant also purchasing smaller quantities from Delaney to sell on his own behalf. When interviewed, the defendant said that he had known Delaney since he was 15 years old, had been staying at her house for the last few days and he had been there a lot in the last two months. He made admissions about possession and use of cannabis and other drugs but generally denied any knowledge of or involvement in trafficking activities. The market value of the ounce of methamphetamine would have been a maximum of $42,150. Liquid G and GBL are industrial chemicals used to make floor stripper, paint thinner and other solvent products. They are depressant substances and are used as recreational intoxicants. Both have a street value of $5 to $10 for 1 to 1.5mls and $500 to $700 for 100mls. The median market value of the relevant amount is about $5,460. Delaney has pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance. Her activities extended over a period of about six weeks more than those of this defendant, and involve an additional ounce of methamphetamine and at least a further 420mls of the other substances. On 15 December 2022 she was made the subject of a drug treatment order with a custodial term of 20 months. Relevant matters in relation to her sentence are that she had been subject to the most unfortunate and difficult life circumstances, having a background of complex trauma. She became a functioning addict with PTSD and anxiety. Apart from drug related driving offences, there were no relevant convictions; specifically, no convictions relating of the sale or distribution of drugs and she had not been to prison.
The defendant is now nearly 40 years old. His recorded history of offending generally relates to traffic matters including a drink driving and driving whilst disqualified, until 2014. On 6 March of that year he was convicted of possessing and using a controlled plant, cultivating a controlled plant, possessing a thing used for administration of a controlled drug and two firearm offences. On all matters he was fined a moderate amount. Although his parents separated when he was a baby, the defendant seems to have had a supportive upbringing. He is still in a long standing relationship of some 20 years with a woman who he has two children. He completed year ten and then quickly found work in farming and in a meatworks, before qualifying as a chef. It is in that role about ten years ago that his difficulty with methamphetamine addiction commenced. That addiction led to serious consequences including the loss of the family home. In an effort to cut ties with drug-involved associates and rid himself of the addiction, the family moved to Bridport where he obtained employment in his chosen occupation. He was able to abstain from the drug during his time there. Unfortunately, the pandemic saw his place of employment close, and in 2020 he moved back to Launceston but found it impossible to find work in his area. He found this situation very stressful and relapsed into methamphetamine use. He was able to get casual plumbing work and it was that which took him to Delaney’s house. The two knew each other from school. He became aware of her drug selling activities and she became his supplier. He spent more and more time with her, and during the relevant period was living with her. Initially, he was buying the drug from her but as it was put, lost complete control of his use. He became involved in her activities. He started to buy more than he needed and sold to others. He was consuming at least $1,000 worth of the drug on a daily basis. Selling on her behalf and selling on his own behalf were done to simply fund his own use. At the same time of his methamphetamine use there was recreational use of the other drugs involved in this matter. After his arrest he returned home to his partner where he remains. He sought counselling for his habit. After a number of sessions it was recommended that he seek support from Alcohol and Drug Service but he was intent on managing abstinence on his own. He was able to stay away from the drug until very recently; in fact, after his sentencing hearing – a point to which I will return. He has been in fulltime employment as a bricklayer’s labourer for about 18 months. He works long hours on up to six days a week. He has again cut ties with drug-involved associates. At the urging of counsel, I obtained an assessment report for a home detention order. Counsel disavowed the option of a drug treatment order, although acknowledging he met the criteria. The assessment is that the defendant is unsuitable for home detention. Among a number of factors he has admitted methamphetamine use in early November this year. In addition to that, he took a quantity of other drugs including a benzodiazepine and anti-depressants, most if not all of which had been prescribed for him. This episode resulted in his hospitalisation. He denies an attempt at self-harm. Apparently, he said he needed relief from his overwhelming thoughts of a potential immediate prison sentence. There are fears of retribution from at least one current inmate. He has been assessed as suitable for supervision and community service.
Any commercial dealings in controlled substances have to be viewed in a very serious light. It might be said that in particular, dealings in methamphetamine require a stern response given its highly addictive and destructive nature. That is not to take away from the grave perils associated with other controlled substances including the other two the subject of this matter. Commercial dealings are to be strongly condemned and attempting to deter others who might be minded to engage in similar conduct is a very important consideration. In this case, the defendant’s motivation was not the pursuit of monetary gain as such, but his criminal activity was designed to fund his heavy addiction. Addiction of itself is not a mitigating factor but the absence of pure profit as the motivation means, in my view, the absence of an aggravating factor. The time period involved in the offending was very short, only about eight days but it was brought to an end by police intervention not the acts of the defendant, and the level of activity during the relevant period was reasonably high. I take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances. Whilst punishment is necessary, it is clear that the defendant requires an incentive not to re-offend, and also some assistance. Those things would be in the public interest. I take into account the plea of guilty to the extent that it had some practical value. It was not an early plea but I was told that there was some uncertainty about what was ultimately to be asserted in terms of the defendant’s involvement, and there were ongoing negotiations about that. The matter was not flagged as a likely trial in reality.
Mr Stagg, I have set out the relevant facts, your personal circumstances and the relevant considerations. As I have said, some punishment is necessary, as is incentive not to re-offend, and providing you with some assistance to overcome the difficulty you have. You are convicted of all matters and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment the execution of the whole of which is suspended on condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years. I make a community correction order. Conditions of that order are that you be under the supervision of a probation officer for a period of 18 months, that you undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer, that you submit to testing for drug use as detected by a probation officer and that during that period, you perform 140 hours of community service. You will have to report to a probation officer at 111 Cameron Street by 5pm tomorrow. I must warn you that the condition on which the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended is to be read literally. It refers to any offence punishable by imprisonment and there are many of those. Possession of cannabis for instance is such an offence. You will need to be careful. Any breach can see you brought back to this Court and a judge must activate the sentence unless it is unjust to do so. There will be an order that the defendant pay the costs of analysis in the sum of $2,795 and there will be an order that the following items are forfeited to the State – items 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 on Property Seizure Record number 197842 and items 29, 30, and 32 on Property Seizure Record 197843.