IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Case No. CR-15-01370
CR-15-01371
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
HOLLY WALKER and DEAN HANNAH
--JUDGE:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
2 February 2016 (Walker)
10 December 2015, 2 February 2016 (Hannah)
DATE OF SENTENCE:
19 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
DPP v Walker & Hannah
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2016] VCC
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
--CRIMINAL LAW
Sentence – trafficking commercial quantity of heroin – trafficking heroin
– possession of drug of dependence – drug addiction – Operation
Isoleucine
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), Sentencing
Act 1991 (Vic)
DPP v Duong [2006] VSCA 78, R v Pidoto & O'Day [2006] VSCA 185,
R v D'Aloia [2006] VSCA 257, Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342, Nguyen v
R [2010] VSCA 127, Hasan v R [2010] VSCA 352
Walker: Convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months
imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years
Hannah: Convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months
imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 months
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the DPP
Mr P. Pickering
Solicitor for the OPP
For the Offender (Walker)
Ms O. Trumble
Chris McLennan & Co
For the Offender (Hannah)
Mr D. Sala (Plea)
Mr C. Terry (Mention)
Mr G. Chisholm (Sentence)
Balmer & Associates
.JM:PK
1
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
HIS HONOUR:
1
In this matter the pleas of both Ms Walker and Mr Hannah were heard on 10
December 2015 and 2 February 2016.
The Director was represented by
Mr Pickering who appears today. Ms Trumble appeared for Ms Walker. Insofar
as Mr Hannah was concerned, Mr Sala initially appeared at plea, Mr Terry at
mention and today we have Mr Chisholm for sentence.
2
Ms Walker is aged 34 and was born on 22 December 1981. She has been
subject most of her life to pension payments, but indicates especially in regard
to what she has been doing lately in prison, an interest in horticulture.
Mr Hannah essentially has been a truck driver all his life. He is aged 44 and
was born on 10 July 1971.
3
There was a joint indictment raised in regard to these matters, Indictment
No.C1409863.
4
Ms Walker was involved in regard to the first two charges of those, Charge 1
being traffic a commercial quantity of heroin. The period of such trafficking was
in the period 16 July through to 8 October 2014. The amount involved was not
less than that amount required to qualify as a commercial quantity. I will come
to the specifics of that in this regard, but that minimum figure to get you into that
is 500 grams by way of a mixed quantity. Such an offence is an offence against
s.71AA of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. The maximum
penalty prescribed by parliament for such offences is one of 25 years. That in
itself indicates the seriousness with which parliament considers this particular
offence.
5
Ms Walker was also charged with an additional matter. On the day the warrant
was executed, a charge of possession of heroin, a breach of s.73.
6
Mr Prosecutor, what regime is Ms Walker to be sentenced under in that
particular matter, because there is the two?
.JM:PK
2
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
7
MR PICKERING: I am not sure I understand what you mean by regime, Your
Honour.
8
HIS HONOUR: Is there not two alternatives in regard to sentencing in that
matter? Section 17, if it is a trafficking issue it takes you up to the five year,
whereas - - -
9
MR PICKERING: Yes.
10
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
11
MR PICKERING: Your Honour, under s.73 there is what you might call reverse
onus with regard to possession. In this case, Your Honour, it was not asserted
either way by the prosecution whether the drugs that were found were for the
purposes of trafficking and I do not believe we made submissions on it, but I
can say that it was accepted by the prosecution that Ms Walker was a user as
well as a trafficker and so therefore that is why the particular amount possessed
was not asserted to be for trafficking. Whether Your Honour accepts that it was
not for trafficking. I do not know whether my learned friend wants to make
further submissions on that because we did not actually raise that at the time.
12
HIS HONOUR: The Crown was not putting that it was for trafficking.
13
MR PICKERING: We are not putting it was, Your Honour. Strictly the way that
the section reads is that it is a matter for the defendant to satisfy the Court.
14
HIS HONOUR: Given the seriousness of the first charge it probably does not
matter, so I will sentence - - -
15
MR PICKERING: It does not, Your Honour, but it is conceded factually that Ms
Walker was a user, as for that matter Mr Hannah, and so on that basis it is not
asserted that it was for trafficking.
16
HIS HONOUR: Just for certainty, I will indicate that I am sentencing her on the
lesser situation.
.JM:PK
3
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
17
MR PICKERING: If Your Honour pleases.
18
HIS HONOUR: That would be the same in regard to Mr Hannah in regard to
his charges.
19
MR CHILSHOLM: Yes, Your Honour.
20
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Four and five.
21
Insofar as that second charge in regard to Ms Walker, the maximum penalty
following that discussion, the penalty which applies is a figure of 30 penalty
units and/or one year gaol.
22
Insofar as Mr Hannah is concerned, he is charged with three matters. One is
traffic heroin simpliciter and again essentially for the same four month period,
in his instance from 12 June 2014 through to 8 October 2014. Such is an
offence against s.71AC.
23
The second charge, insofar as it relates to Mr Hannah, was Charge 4 on the
indictment which was one of possession of heroin on 9 October 2014. The fifth
count in regard to him was again a possession count but that related to a small
amount of methamphetamine, which equally was found on the day,
9 October 2014.
24
Both counsel on behalf of the prisoners accepted the accuracy of the summary
of the learned prosecutor set out in Exhibit A and such dated 20 October 2015
was read out to the Court.
25
The background to this is a large operation supplying heroin throughout
Victoria, such drugs coming down from Sydney and being distributed through
various parties.
26
The investigation began in February 2014. The persons initially investigated
were persons by the name of Collins and Linton. It was discovered that heroin,
which they were trafficking, had been purchased from a person called Men
.JM:PK
4
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
Tran. It was also, as part of the investigation, then discovered that it was also
Tran who was selling heroin to both of the prisoners.
27
At that time the prisoners were in a relationship. Ms Walker was residing at
premises 311A Mansfield Street, Thornbury; Mr Hannah was at Unit 7,
310 Rossmoyne Street, Thornbury but spent part of the week at Ms Walker's
home.
28
The operation, which involved a number of co-offenders, many who were
Vietnamese, is called Operation Isoleucine. It involved surveillance, intercepts
over a period from May 2014 through to October 2014.
29
As I said, the drugs insofar as the prisoners are concerned, came down from
Sydney and were on-sold by Tran to the prisoners.
on-sold it themselves.
The prisoners then
There is no certainty as to either the number of
occasions or the amounts. The only gauge that one can get in that regard is to
look at Schedule A to the Crown opening and that schedule demonstrates the
purchases throughout the period and details those. Most of those took place
from Tran's premises at the Housing Commission flats in Richmond, but equally
on occasions took place at the Crown Casino.
30
During that period trafficking took place and on the basis of the plea it was
accepted that the trafficking undertaking by Ms Walker, having purchased the
amounts as detailed, took place at a level of a commercial quantity.
31
An analysis of Schedule A shows that approximately 25 ounces was purchased,
which makes some 728 grams, allegedly at a cost of $7,200 per two ounces,
hence
approximately
some
$100,000,
was
spent
by
Ms
Walker.
I understand the money was not necessarily all hers, because it was compiled,
as I am told by her counsel from a number of person for whom she was buying.
It is indicative of the scope of this trading, over the four month period, that some
$100,000 was spent in purchasing heroin. No-one knows exactly how much
then was on-sold and no-one knows for what, however bearing in mind that
.JM:PK
5
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
cost, one is able to appreciate the scope of the scheme.
32
Insofar as the 728 grams is concerned, Mr Hannah pleads guilty on the basis
that he was responsible for a maximum purchase in the sum of 448 grams, on
the same schedule by way of pricing as set out in Schedule A.
33
As a result of the surveillance, as set out in paragraph 13, at no stage did Mr
Hannah become directly involved with Tran, except to attend at those premises,
but in regard to conversations between Tran as to the quality of heroin, all of
the intercepts show the discussions taking place with Ms Walker, as set out in
paragraph 13 of the prosecution summary.
34
Insofar as Ms Walker's pre-sentence detention, that has been agreed today at
482 days not including today.
35
A disposal order has been sought in regard to both parties. Have I signed
those?
36
MR PICKERING: I do not think you have signed then as yet, Your Honour, and
it is 498.
37
HIS HONOUR: Sorry, 98, did I misread that.
38
MR PICKERING: Sorry, Your Honour.
39
HIS HONOUR: I apologise. Have I not signed it? My notes say you also are
seeking a forfeiture order?
40
MR PICKERING: There is a forensic sample and the disposal orders, Your
Honour, not a forfeiture order.
.JM:PK
41
HIS HONOUR: No forfeiture order?
42
MR PICKERING: No.
43
HIS HONOUR: All right.
6
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
44
MR PICKERING: It was originally thought to be a forfeiture but it is just disposal.
45
HIS HONOUR: All right. There is also, insofar as Ms Walker is concerned, a
forensic sample order.
It seems to me in the circumstances, given the
seriousness of such crime, that I should also make such order. I will just sign
the disposal orders firstly, which have now been updated.
46
(Disposal orders signed and acknowledged.)
47
(Section 464ZF order signed and acknowledged.)
48
The Crown accepted that the pleas in both instances, following negotiations,
had been entered at the earliest opportunity. It was also accepted that the roles
that they played, albeit different, and in severity of criminality objectively, the
motivation for these crimes was, in regard to both prisoners, upon a background
of a long history, unfortunately, of being addicted to drugs. It was also accepted
by the Crown that, albeit the level of purchasing, a considerable amount of what
they bought was consumed by them and then on-sold. It was also, by such
acceptance, accepted by the Crown that there was no financial motive apart
from satisfying their own addictions, and indeed no doubt their confreres, and
there was no financial betterment by their involvement in this serious criminal
activity.
49
Ms Walker has significant priors, although they are the priors of a person
involved in the drug milieu. Her priors begin at the age of 19 and they continue
through to 2012. What is significant is that despite all of those matters and
despite the ongoing addiction to heroin at no stage prior to this matter when she
was imprisoned, because of the seriousness of the matter, on remand, to that
stage she had not had to serve gaol.
50
Insofar as Mr Hannah's priors are concerned, equally his type of priors are
reminiscent of Ms Walker's again, they are reminiscent of persons unfortunately
in the same milieu who are addicted persons to heroin. They begin essentially
.JM:PK
7
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
for Mr Hannah at the age of 17, but again prior to this offending he has not been
gaoled. Indeed, in regard to him he has had no offences since 2008.
51
On 2 February 2016, Ms Trumble made the submissions by way of plea on
behalf of Ms Walker. As part of that plea, tendered were firstly the submission
of Ms Trumble; secondly the neuropsychological report of Matthew Staios,
dated 31 January 2016; the psychological report of Carla Lechner, dated
9 November 2015; and a series and bundle of certificates, which I have perused
again today, of the activities undertaken by Ms Walker while she has been in
gaol.
52
The submission realistically accepted, given the seriousness of the crimes, that
there was no alternative but for an immediate imprisonment. It also recognised
the importance, insofar as sentencing is concerned, of the factors of
denunciation, specific and general deterrence and punishment. However, the
essential purpose of the submission was, in accepting the reality of immediate
imprisonment, to try to couple with that, at the end of it with a period of lengthy
supervision by way of a community corrections order.
53
In support of that proposition, I have read firstly Exhibit 2, which was the
neuropsychological assessment report and, indeed, the particular background
factors that were put to me by Ms Trumble, in particular at paragraph 8, on p.4
through to p.6.
54
As I indicated, it would appear that for some considerable time, in particular
associated with childbirth, Ms Walker had had her addiction under control.
However, early 2014 was a very difficult and traumatic time insofar as her family
was concerned. There were difficulties insofar as access and indeed custody
of her children was concerned. They are in fact in the care of her former
husband's mother. It was these matters unfortunately which, together with her
own personality no doubt, led her to go back on the path of the use of heroin.
55
.JM:PK
As I say, the report itself is significant. It demonstrates the background and the
8
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
use initially of substances as a form of medication and escapism. It refers to
the two young children I was talking about, Alicia, five, and Riley, four, and the
facts that I have just said, that prior to the current offending in an attempt to get
off the cycle that she had been on for so long, Ms Walker had been on a
methadone program for some five years.
56
Ms Walker reported to Mr Staios at p.3, “That she often turns to substances, as
she did in this case, as a form of self-medication and escapism, and that she
was yet to engage in psychotherapy to address her longstanding history of poor
psychological health and functioning.”
57
It was noted, insofar as the history was concerned, that she had been
unsuccessful on five withdrawal programs during the course of her adult life,
although she reported, as I have said, a five year period of heroin abstinence
from 2009 through to 2014 while she was pregnant. Clearly she has the
capacity to attempt to overcome this scourge. Fortunately, as reported in the
mental state examination, despite such a lengthy period of being addicted to
heroin, she has no cognitive or perceptual disturbances of note.
58
The clinical diagnosis was what is obvious, an opiate use disorder in sustained
remission with some borderline personality disorders and a tendency,
unfortunately, to gravitate towards what is described as unstable personal
relationships.
59
The future was essentially based particularly, insofar as Ms Walker is
concerned, both from the comments of Ms Lechner and from Mr Staios, that
how she goes in the future depends particularly on her capacity to overcome
this addiction. Mr Staios said, at p.7, that to his knowledge, "Ms Walker had
not had the opportunity to assess appropriate treatment services in the
community, to target specific psychopathological dispositions which have
remained untreated for several years. Overall, it is my opinion that she has a
reasonable capacity to change despite her past challenges, particularly if she
.JM:PK
9
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
were provided with intensive levels of support and structure."
60
It was indeed that opinion that formed the basis of the submission put to me, as
I said, by Ms Trumble. In addition she relied on Exhibit 3, which is a report of
Ms Lechner.
I will not go through the specifics of it because much of it
recounted the same material that I have already referred to. However, she did
note as an additional factor in regard to Ms Walker's makeup, a current
adjustment disorder associated with depression, which obviously is, in her
opinion, related to the issues with the loss of the children.
61
One of her conclusions, on p.8 of her report, was as follows.
This is at
paragraph 4 on that page: "Ms Walker expresses regret and shame for her
offending. She stated she lost hope after remaining abstinent from drug use for
a year and not regaining custody of her children. She relapsed to heroin abuse
and would sell the drug in order to support her own habit and pay rent and bills."
When I say there is no financial enrichment, there is obviously to some degree,
but paying rent and bills does not leave anything in the bank of course. "She is
now back on the methadone programs and is keen to engage with treatment
programs."
62
In addition to those matters, Ms Trumble tendered to the Court a number of
certificates which, as I have said, I have read today. She also put to the Court
that during the period of incarceration, now approximately 16 months, that she
has had a number of random screens and they have been clear, although those
were not tendered to me.
63
Insofar as the submission was concerned, at p.9, the essence of the proposition
was - a number of propositions was put, it was submitted that the risk of
offending was largely dependent on the ability to remain drug-free and, as I
have said, I agree totally with that. It was conceded, at paragraph 12, for the
time served on remand was not yet a sufficient period. However the proposition
was to impose a community corrections order to follow that period.
.JM:PK
10
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
64
I think one cannot be left with other than a feeling of sadness about all of those
factors. It is not the first time unfortunately that I have had that feeling in this
Court. When one looks upon a life such as Ms Walker and sees the effects of
addiction over such a period, one is not left with any other alternative. It is a
very difficult life, there are some stark alternatives. One either, unfortunately,
when you are so addicted, to die from overdose, and there has been a number
of those in Ms Walker's past; you end up in goal, which she now is; or you give
the drug up. They are the stark alternatives. I, of course, who have no idea of
what such an addiction is like, except that I see regularly the consequences of
it, would not be so bold as to make any criticism of it, however they are the stark
realities of a person addicted to heroin.
65
The difficulty of course for this Court is to balance all of that sadness, against
the principles involved where one commits a crime of this seriousness. It is
clear that by this criminality, Ms Walker, you have placed yourself in a much
bigger league than you were normally used to operating in. As has consistently
been pronounced in these Courts, condign punishment awaits those who
partake in such trafficking, and by that of course I mean in particular Charge 1
of which you face. Such punishment is appropriate for any party, whatever role
they play, who is convicted of such an offence.
66
As was detailed by Buchanan AJ in DPP v Duong [2006] VSCA 78:
"Where Parliament prescribes a maximum penalty of 25 years, such shows
unambiguously how seriously the community through its parliament views
this particular crime."
Indeed it is irrelevant what particular drug is involved. The system essentially
is quantity based. We have in regard to our criminal provisions in this State a
quantity based sentencing regime. I should of course point out that the quantity
as such has no arithmetical relationship to a sentence but of course is a very
significant matter in sentencing.
67
.JM:PK
The particular regime has been fully detailed by the Court of Appeal in R v
11
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
Pidoto & O'Day [2006] VSCA 185 [34], where four of our Appeal Court Justices
noted:
"That by such structure Parliament has adopted a hierarchy of seriousness
defined by and only by the quantity of the drug of dependence that has
been trafficked."
You, unfortunately, are in the second most serious category. The next category
brings with it a sentence of life imprisonment, but you are not in that category,
but you are in the one below.
68
In that case the Court indicated the ultimate question for the sentencing Court
to be considered, given such structure:
"Is not whether trafficking in one drug is to be viewed more seriously than
trafficking in another, but what sentence should be imposed for the
particular trafficking, bearing in mind the maximum penalty that may be
imposed for dealing with the material involved."
As I have already remarked, the maximum penalty, Ms Walker, in regard to your
offence is unfortunately one of significance.
69
Nettle AJ, as he then was, in R v D'Aloia [2006] VSCA 257 [56], set out the
general approach for sentencing Judges in these matters. In that particular
case he was dealing with MDMA. He said:
"As far as the effects of MDMA are concerned, the matter may still be
approached on the basis that all of the drugs which are described have
deleterious consequences of antisocial proportions and that trafficking in
any of them is therefore appropriate to be regarded as serious criminal
offences."
Clearly this is an offence which warrants a sentence of imprisonment. In the
plea on your behalf Ms Trumble accepted that fact realistically, and there was
no argument with such a proposition. Her submission essentially involved the
matters that I should take into account in fixing the appropriate period and,
indeed, considering the proposition that was put as to a community corrections
order, and the principles set out in Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342.
70
.JM:PK
As to range in these matters, I take into account the comments of the Court of
12
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
Appeal in Nguyen v R [2010] VSCA 127, in particular as to current sentencing
practices, albeit that that particular case related and was directed to a cultivation
charge. I also note the Court's comments as to the inadequacy of the current
sentencing practice. The fact is that this Court, as was pointed out, is bound
by current sentencing practice.
71
To assist in understanding that, and synthesising all of these matters, I have
looked at sentencing snapshot 162, which indicates in regard to this particular
crime, the majority of persons sentenced were in fact male. Those statistics
show that 89 per cent of those sentenced were given gaol sentences indicative
of the seriousness of this crime. In the period analysed in such snapshot, that
is from 2008-09 through to 2012-13, there was, of course, a range of sentences,
some quite high. However the median was some three years and six months
with a minimum of some two years to be served by way of parole.
72
As to the use of such statistics by Judges in sentencing, such was commented
upon by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hasan v R [2010] VSCA 352, in
particular at paragraph 45. It should be remembered, of course, that those
matters are exactly what they are, just snapshots. One takes account of them
for what assistance is appropriate, but essentially this Court must sentence for
the particular circumstances and the objective criminality, serious as it is in this
case, which applies. However the comments made by the Court of Appeal in
Hasan in particular from the paragraph that I have quoted, paragraph 45
through to 52, are of much assistance to this Court. As they said at paragraph
54:
"The sentencing principles in Victoria essentially are reposed in the
Sentencing Act s.52 through to sub-s.6."
The first amongst such matters is of course the maximum penalty, which I have
already indicated is 25 years, as reflecting parliament and the community's
concern as to such crimes. The more general principles I have already referred
to are in regard to the plea.
.JM:PK
13
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
73
The particular considerations were put to me, as I have said, by your counsel
and I have detailed that process as best I can in summarising those. The
matters that were stressed of course was the plea of guilty at an early stage;
your criminal history, albeit over a considerable period, nowhere near at this
level; and the particular circumstances of offending that related to you.
74
Doing as best I can, of course, I have to balance those principles, but to balance
those with the consideration of the factors that I have already spoken
concerning you. In particular, I refer to Exhibit B, which was the positive report
received from the Corrections department.
75
I have taken the view in the circumstances, however, that given the long term
nature of your addiction and the fact that you have had considerable difficulty
to date, that in the end the only person who is going to assist, or the only way
you are going to get off it is doing what you have just done now, if I accept what
I am told, and that is for the last 16 months you were off, you are on a current
methadone program.
It is a matter for you and I do not consider that a
community corrections order in the circumstances is going to assist you.
76
At this stage, Ms Walker, I would ask you to stand.
HOLLY WALKER
77
As I say, taking into account all those matters, I have determined to sentence
you as follows:
78
Insofar as the first charge, I will sentence you to a period of imprisonment of
four and a half years.
79
In regard to the second charge, a period of imprisonment of six months.
80
I will not make any orders as to cumulation. Hence the total effective sentence
imposed on your will be a period of four and a half years. I order that the
minimum period that you serve prior to being eligible for parole is a period of
.JM:PK
14
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
two years.
81
Insofar as the total sentence is concerned, pursuant to s.18, I declare that the
498 days that you have served to date be declared as service of this sentence
and a copy of that declaration be recorded in this Court.
82
The next proposition I think is very important to put to you, it demonstrates, and
is meant to demonstrate by Parliament, the difference to you of having pleaded
guilty.
83
My declaration pursuant to s.6AAA is that had you not pleaded guilty in this
matter, I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment of six years
with a minimum period to serve of two years and nine months.
84
The end result of that is essentially you have served somewhere in the region
of 16 months. You are eligible for parole therefore after the service of another
eight months. As I say, whether you get parole is totally a matter for your
performance and nothing to do with me, but it seems that you could not have
been more a model prisoner to date, so hopefully you will do well.
85
Mr Hannah, insofar as your circumstances are concerned, your plea was
conducted on 10 December 2015 by Mr Sala. I have already made general
comments as to the operation, the mode of the operation and your role. Clearly
you also have been addicted for many years. However, as I have said, your
record shows no priors since 2012, so you have been keeping the slate clean,
albeit that you have not been able to get rid of the addiction.
86
I have no doubt that, and I accept as does the Crown, that you were involved in
these crimes, the lesser crime obviously, you are only being sentenced for
trafficking simpliciter. You were involved firstly to service your own habit over
that four month period because of your addiction, to perhaps service the habit
of your friends and indeed your partner at that time. You had been in a
relationship with Ms Walker for some four to five months, but unfortunately to
.JM:PK
15
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
finance the lifestyle it was necessary to on-sell and it is that crime that you are
here for.
87
The general sentencing principles that I have already referred to relate again to
you. Insofar as the plea that was put on your behalf, there was no dispute that
an immediate period of imprisonment was appropriate.
88
I take into account of course the matters that were put in Exhibit 1 on your behalf
by Mr Sala in his, I think, undated submission, but it was tendered as I indicated
as Exhibit A in your plea, on 10 December 2015. There was also a letter
tendered by the pharmacist which I also take into account. Mr Sala spoke on
your behalf of the plea of guilty, your age and history and, indeed, again, you
had never been in prison prior to this. He spoke of the subjective circumstances
of the crimes, your work history and your family life. Unfortunately, again, the
sad fact is that you have, over many years, struggled with heroin addiction.
89
I have spoken about the circumstances insofar as the penalty. The proposition
put in regard to you was that there was a concession that an immediate period
of imprisonment was within range. However because of your particular factors
and injuries that you have suffered by way of your work history, Mr Sala said it
really was not appropriate to be putting a proposition in regard to you that
involved a community corrections order.
90
Albeit that Mr Terry appeared on 2 February 2016 on your behalf, there were
no further matters advanced, which I should deal with you.
91
As I say, again, the general principles that have been exposed apply to you.
The balancing is equally the same, albeit that you are at a lower hierarchy in
the trafficking offending.
92
I also accept the fact that there has been some delay in your coming to be dealt
with. It is now some one and a half years since you were bailed, and it is
somewhat unfortunate that it takes that time to deal with these charges,
.JM:PK
16
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
however that is simply the time it takes to go through the process.
93
Taking account of all those matters, therefore, Mr Hannah, I would ask you to
stand up.
DEAN HANNAH
94
I have determined that the appropriate sentence in regard to you, insofar as
Charge 3, of trafficking simpliciter, is a period of two and a half years
imprisonment.
95
In regard to Charges 4 and 5, the periods involved by way of imprisonment are
two months on each charge.
96
I will not make any orders as to cumulation, making a total effective sentence
relating to you of two and a half years.
97
The difficulty with you as to what appropriate period should be set, I think
recognising your role, the effect of addiction in regard to your sentencing, I have
pronounced a period which is much less than you would otherwise have got for
this type of sentence.
98
The minimum period that I have determined you should serve before being
eligible for parole is one of eight months.
99
Again, it is important for me to tell you that had you not pleaded guilty the
sentence would have been significantly different. Had you not pleaded guilty,
and I make this declaration pursuant to s.6AAA, you would have been
sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three years and four months and the
minimum period I would have imposed is one of 18 months.
100
This really relates to all counsel. Are there any other matters that I need to
attend to or that I have neglected to attend to?
101
.JM:PK
MR CHILSHOLM: Sorry, Your Honour. Just while I am on my feet. Your
17
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
Honour, just when Your Honour was reciting Mr Hannah's priors, just then you
referred to them going through to 2012, but I think you correctly stated to 2008
at the start.
102
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I am sorry.
103
MR CHILSHOLM: So just for the transcript.
104
HIS HONOUR: There was a confusion with Ms Walker.
105
MR CHILSHOLM: With the other, so, for the purposes of the transcript - - -
106
HIS HONOUR: Um. He had a five year period, was it not? No, 2008, from
2008.
107
MR CHILSHOLM: 2008, but you said that correctly earlier, so.
108
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I do apologise.
109
As I say, it does not give me any joy, however this is one of the end results, as
I said, of addictions of this sort and I hope that both of you can overcome this
problem when you finally get out gaol, so good luck.
110
MR PICKERING: Your Honour?
111
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
112
MR PICKERING: The only other matter is that with regards to the forensic
sample order for Ms Walker.
113
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
114
MR PICKERING: I believe Your Honour has to inform her of what happens if
she does not comply, which is on the end of the order.
.JM:PK
115
HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.
116
Ms Walker, I am required to tell you that when I signed this order, it relates to
18
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah
when - it is taken from the time she gets out of gaol, is it not, this one?
117
MR PICKERING: No, it will be taken in - - -
118
HIS HONOUR: It will be done in gaol, will it?
119
MR PICKERING: Yes, Your Honour.
120
HIS HONOUR: The authorities will come to gaol to take a sample from you. I
determine that that would not be a blood sample, they just do a scraping from
your mouth. It is important to remember that should you refuse to do that, they
can come back to Court and get an order, so I would ask you to undertake that,
all right. All right, well good luck to both of you. The prisoners can be taken
away.
121
MR PICKERING: If Your Honour pleases.
122
HIS HONOUR: Yes. I thank all counsel for their assistance in this matter.
Thank you.
---
.JM:PK
19
SENTENCE
DPP v Walker & Hannah