IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-23-00938

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS			
			
v			
			
JASON DOMAZETOVSKI			

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	8 September 2023	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 September 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Domazetovski	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1724	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence
Catchwords: 	Guilty plea – Trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – two charges of possession of a drug of dependence (cocaine and ketamine) – single day trafficking – quantitative hierarchy of trafficking offences – long-standing drug addiction – offending to feed drug use but also motivated by profit - no prior criminal history – previous good character – remorse – relative youth – family support – good prospects of rehabilitation – standard sentencing scheme – general deterrence and denunciation sentencing considerations of paramount importance 
Legislation Cited:	Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:	Gregory (a pseudonym) v. The Queen (2017) 268 A Crim R 1; Rahmani v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 51; Quah v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 164; Dawid v. DPP [2013] VSCA 64; Azzopardi v. The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; Brown v. The Queen (2019) 59 VR 462; DPP v. Goldsmid & Others [2023] VSCA 124; DPP v. Dong [2020] VCC 298; DPP v. Pennaneach [2021] VCC 806   
Sentence:	Eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years’ imprisonment 
---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel	

Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. White (plea)
Ms K. Chan (sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions 
Victoria	
			
For the Accused	Mr I. Hill KC
Ms P. Smith
(plea and sentence)	Condello Lawyers	

HER HONOUR:
1	Jason Domazetovski, you have pleaded guilty to the following indictable offences.
(a)	Trafficking in not less than a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s71(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (‘the Act’), the maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment.
(b)	Possession of a drug of dependence, namely cocaine, contrary to s73(1) of the Act; and 
(c)	Possession of a drug of dependence, namely ketamine, contrary to s73(1) of the Act.
2	The maximum penalty for the offence of possession of a drug of dependence is one year's imprisonment where the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence was not committed for any purpose related to trafficking in that drug, otherwise the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment.  In this case, the upper maximum applies.
3	These charges arise from a police search of the Docklands apartment where you were living with your older brother on 25 February 2022.  You were 25 years old at the time of your offending.  You have no prior criminal history.
Circumstances of offending
4	The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 5 September 2023 which is the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced.
5	At 4.50 am on 25 February 2022, the police arrived at the Docklands apartment to execute a number of search warrants.  You answered the door and allowed police to enter the apartment.  
6	Upon searching the apartment, the police located the following items giving rise the charges for which you are to be sentenced.
(a)	In the laundry sink of the apartment, a black Ralph Lauren sports bag was located in which the following items were found:
(i).	Two Ziploc bags containing cocaine, found in a Coles shopping bag weighing a total of approximately 33.8 grams (which forms part of Charge 2).  
(ii).	Twelve Ziploc bags containing methylamphetamine, inside another Coles shopping bag weighing a total of approximately 853.9 grams (which is the subject of Charge 1).  
(iii).	One Ziploc bag containing ketamine weighing approximately 
15.8 grams (the subject of Charge 3), and 
(iv).	A black bag containing drug trafficking paraphernalia including two sets of scales, a spoon, a marker, scissors and a box of Ziploc bags.
(b)	Under the laundry sink, the police located two plastic bags and a tub with 
two Ziploc bags containing approximately 1.59 kilograms and 202.7 grams of a cutting agent, inositol.  
(c)	In your bedroom, the police located Australian currency totalling $1,260 in the top drawer of your bedside table and a further $14,800 hidden in a storage compartment in the bedhead of your bed.
(d)	In the kitchen, the police located a Ziploc bag in a cupboard above the stove containing approximately 23.7 grams of cocaine and a further 0.3 grams 
of cocaine on a plate on top of the kitchen cupboard (also comprising 
Charge 2), and three mobile phones located on the kitchen bench.
7	Your brother, Sasho Domazetovski, who is 10 years older than you, was charged with offending relating to some of the items located in the apartment, namely, three vials of 1,4-Butanediol and two bottles of Diazepam tablets.  He was also charged with trafficking in a drug of dependence in relation to the methylamphetamine found in your apartment.  However, in your brother's case, the charge was brought on the basis that he was aware the drug was being trafficked from the apartment but did nothing to 'extricate himself' from the enterprise. It was also accepted by the Crown that he was not aware of the quantity of methylamphetamine found in the apartment.
8	Sasho Domazetovski was sentenced on 1 September 2023 to 37 days' imprisonment combined with a two-year community correction order for the offence of trafficking in a drug of dependence, and two charges of possessing a drug of dependence, where it was accepted those drugs were possessed by him for personal use only.
9	Both prosecution and defence counsel agree that no issue of parity arises in circumstances where the co-offender was charged and sentenced on a different factual basis to the one that applies to you.
10	Following your arrest, you were interviewed by police on 25 February 2022 where you made no comment to questions asked of you, in accordance with your rights.
11	The items seized by police were subsequently analysed by a forensic analysist who concluded:
(a)	That the methylamphetamine weighed 853 grams with a purity of between approximately 82 to 83 per cent, and 
(b)	The cocaine weighed 57.8 grams, with a purity of between approximately 
27 to 32 per cent, and 
(c)	The ketamine weighed 15.8 grams with a purity of between approximately 
60 to 75 per cent.
12	CCTV footage subsequently examined by investigators also shows you walking from your brother's car to the apartment on 12 February 2022, carrying the black Ralph Lauren sports bag later found in the laundry sink.  Further analysis revealed that DNA found on two of the Ziploc bags containing the methylamphetamine was connected to you.
Nature and gravity of offending
13	The gravity of the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of drugs is reflected in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  The quantity-based hierarchy of trafficking offences and associated maximum penalties have been 'deliberately constructed to reflect Parliament's view of the ascending order of offence seriousness'.  The maximum penalty of life imprisonment reflects that the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity is an offence of 'the utmost seriousness'.
14	Here the gravity of your offending is marked by the quantity and quality of the methylamphetamine that was in your possession for a trafficking purpose.  You were found in possession of 12 Ziploc bags located in your laundry where, upon analysis, the methylamphetamine was found to be approximately 82 per cent pure.  The threshold for a large commercial quantity of a mixed substance containing methylamphetamine is 750 grams.  The quantity in your possession was 853.9 grams, just over 1.1 times the statutory threshold.
15	As the prosecution submissions highlighted, the threshold for a large commercial quantity of pure methylamphetamine is 500 grams.  In this case approximately 700 grams of the mixed substance was pure methylamphetamine, which is equal to around 1.4 times the statutory threshold for pure methylamphetamine.  I note however, that the quantity of methylamphetamine found was not as great as is often seen in other cases that involve significant multipliers of the threshold amount.
16	The quantity of drugs trafficked is a highly relevant factor in assessing the objective gravity of such offending, however it is not determinative.  Other factors remain relevant including the offender's role in the trafficking enterprise, the duration of the offending and the motivation for the offender's conduct. 
17	I accept that you are to be sentenced for possessing this quantity of methylamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking on one day only.  This is to be contrasted with other cases where there is evidence of trafficking over a far longer duration.  However, although this was an isolated event, your offending could not be described as unsophisticated or wholly unplanned.  To the contrary, there is evidence of other drug paraphernalia found at the apartment, including scales, markers, and approximately 1.8 kilograms of inositol, a cutting agent.  In addition, cash in the sum of $16,060 was located in your bedroom, including $14,800 of which was secreted in a storage compartment of your bedhead.
18	There were also other, albeit smaller, quantities of other drugs found in your possession, namely cocaine and ketamine.  On your behalf it was submitted 
I could be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cocaine found in your possession was for personal use only, particularly by reference to the 0.3 grams found on the plate on the kitchen cupboard.
19	While this may have been persuasive if this were the only cocaine found, it was not.  There was another Ziploc bag containing 23.7 grams of cocaine found in the kitchen, in addition to the two Ziploc bags of cocaine weighing a combined 
33.8 grams, which was found alongside the methylamphetamine in the black 
Ralph Lauren sports bag.  This amounts to 57.8 grams of cocaine, which is 19 times the traffickable quantity.  The total amount of ketamine was 15.8 grams, being five times the traffickable quantity of that drug of dependence, which was also found in a Ziploc bag alongside the methylamphetamine.  Given the quantity of these drugs and the various locations in which they were found, I am satisfied you also possessed these drugs for a trafficking purpose.
20	There is no dispute you played a central, if not the principal role in the drug trafficking undertaking for which you are to be sentenced.  
21	What motivated you - a young man with no prior criminal history - to engage in this activity is also relevant to your sentence.  Your counsel conceded that what began as an activity to fund your own habit, escalated.  Although I find that your conduct was partly motivated to sustain and feed your own drug addiction, you were also motivated by the lure of profits.  This is apparent not only from the scale of methylamphetamine and other drugs in your possession, but also the amount of cash found in various locations in your apartment.  However, I accept that your offending was not solely motivated by greed.
22	Beyond the cash located, there is no other evidence of enrichment or of you leading a lavish lifestyle.  At the time of the offending, you were living in an apartment leased by your brother.  There is also no other evidence of the scale of the trafficking enterprise such as telephone messages, ledgers or surveillance evidence of cash transactions.
23	In the case of Quah, the Court of Appeal observed that the potential harm of a drug held in possession for sale is to be viewed as seriously as the actual harm caused by distribution.  Nonetheless, you are to be sentenced on the basis that the scale of your offending does not extend beyond that evidence from the execution of the search warrant on 25 February 2022.
24	The prosecution submits that the object gravity of your offending falls towards the lower end of the scale of seriousness for the offence of large commercial quantity trafficking in a drug of dependence.  I accept that submission and note that your offending is to be contrasted or distinguished from that committed by offenders at the top of the hierarchy of a sophisticated drug-trafficking business.  However, your offending could not be described as a minor or low level example of this offence either, particularly given your role in the activity and the fact your offending was, at least partly, motivated by greed.  Your moral culpability for your offending is significant.
25	As the Court of Appeal observed in the case of Dawid,
		'The nature and pervasive extent of drug trafficking…is such that, on sentencing, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation assume substantial prominence…It is necessary that the sentences imposed for such drug trafficking be sufficiently severe to offset the lure of large and relatively easy profits, which can be derived from the trafficking of illicit drugs'.
Personal circumstances
26	I turn now to outline your personal circumstances.
27	As I have already observed you were 25 years old at the time of this offending and are now 26.  
28	Your parents migrated to Australia from Yugoslavia when they were young, settling in the Western suburbs of Melbourne.  You are the youngest of three siblings, with an older brother and sister.  Your parents worked hard to provide for the family, and you enjoyed a stable yet strict upbringing.
29	You completed primary school at Keilor Downs Primary School, but struggled academically, having difficulty grasping basic numeracy and literacy skills.  This led to behavioural issues in secondary school and you were ultimately expelled in Year 10 for disruptive behaviour.
30	One area you did excel in was sport.  You began playing soccer as a 
seven-year-old and played for a national premier league team as a teenager.  With dreams of pursuing a possible career in sport, you enrolled in a sports development program at SEDA College, training up to three times a week and playing professionally once a week.  However, at 17 you were expelled from that school due to your disruptive behaviour.
31	At the age of 18, you turned to obtaining skills in another area, and commenced a plumbing apprenticeship with two residential plumbing companies.  In a reference provided to the court by Alan Suliman, the owner of one of these companies, you are described as hard-working, someone who 'went the extra mile', and that you impressed as keen to learn.  However, having just completed your apprenticeship at the age of 22 you ceased work due to the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on the industry.  You have not had any other employment.
32	You began experimenting with drugs at a young age.  At 14 you began smoking cannabis with friends, and by 16 you were using other stimulants, MDMA and then cocaine.  In your late teens, the frequency and quantity of your drug use increased, impacting on all facets of your life; your schooling, soccer and your subsequent apprenticeship.  By your early 20s you were abusing methylamphetamine and had a prolific polysubstance addiction. You report overdosing on GHB on many occasions, requiring emergency medical treatment on one of those occasions.  On other occasions you have experienced auditory and visual hallucinations in the context of your drug use with one episode of drug-induced psychosis.  
33	You never sought treatment for your drug use prior to being remanded in custody.
34	At the age of 19, you commenced your only serious relationship.  Although the early years were positive, your drug abuse caused tension in the relationship.  That relationship was further tested when your partner became pregnant unexpectedly when you were around 21 years old.  However, following a miscarriage, you report that the relationship became increasingly 'toxic' and unsustainable.  By this time you were abusing methylamphetamine (or ice) daily.  That relationship ceased and you are currently single.
35	You were assessed for the purposes of the plea hearing by forensic psychologist Mr Patrick Newton on 15 June 2023.  In his report dated 1 September 2023, 
Mr Newton reports that your offending 'evolved in the context of your immersion in drug-using subcultures' during which period you were behaving 'impulsively and unpredictably'.  With the exception of your brother, you had removed yourself from family, friends, social pursuits and had become entrenched in this drug culture.
Matters in mitigation
36	Having discussed the objective gravity of your offending, I now turn to address the matters that operate in mitigation of your sentence.  These were canvassed in the detailed and helpful written submissions filed on your behalf and were expanded upon by Mr Hill at your plea hearing.  
37	First and foremost, by entering an early plea to these charges, you have saved the court and the community the resources associated with a criminal trial.  This matter resolved by you indicating an intention to plead guilty prior to a contested committal proceeding in the Magistrates' Court.  There is utility in your guilty plea which has facilitated the course of justice.
38	By your guilty plea, you acknowledge responsibility for your offending.  There are also indications of your remorse beyond the plea including expressions of contrition in a letter you wrote to the court.
39	Additionally, at a time when delays in the criminal justice system continue to be experienced in the wake of the pandemic, your plea has heightened utility.  You are entitled to and will receive a significant sentencing discount as compared to that which would have been afforded prior to the pandemic.
40	Secondly, at the age of 26, you have no prior criminal history.  This is the first time you have been sentenced by a court.  You are to be sentenced as a person who is otherwise of good character and are entitled to have this factor reflected in mitigation of sentence.
41	Those who have known you longest, both family and friends, describe this serious offending as out of character.  In the numerous testimonials provided by your mother, sister and other family and friends, you are variously described as 
hard-working, outgoing and reliable.  Your mother, sister and cousin all speak of the time you have had to reflect on your conduct and of your desire to overcome your addiction and work towards your rehabilitation.  This sentiment is also reflected in the letter you sent to the court, where you state you want an opportunity to prove to your family and others that you can make a valuable contribution to the community in the future.  You have ambitions to return to work as a plumber and ultimately, to establish your own plumbing business.  
42	You have demonstrated motivation to improve your employment prospects.  Since being remanded, you have taken the opportunities available to you to complete a number of courses and programs including those focused on drug rehabilitation, in addition to undertaking vocational studies through Box Hill Institute.
43	You have the ongoing support of your family, perhaps best demonstrated by their preparedness to meet the cost of 13 sessions of drug treatment and counselling provided by Ms Karly Doyle, a forensic alcohol and other drug specialist with Ontrack Counselling.  In a letter written to the court dated 18 August 2023, 
Ms Doyle states you have engaged well in counselling, 'demonstrating insight and self-reflection'.
44	At the age of 26 you have much of your life to live.  Your relative youth remains of some relevance to your sentence.  The law recognises that youthful offenders are more prone to ill-considered and rash decisions, and may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their offending conduct as understood by older, presumably more mature offenders.  Moreover, the law prioritises the rehabilitation of youthful offenders recognising the community protection that follows where young adults are able to go on to lead productive, law-abiding lives.
45	However, you were not a young offender at the time of this offending.  The description given by your counsel of you being at the 'tail end of youth' is apt.  Further, the extent to which your age moderates your sentence is limited having regard to the serious nature of this offending.  You must have appreciated the wrongfulness of your conduct in possessing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine for a trafficking purpose.  There is no reason to conclude otherwise.  In his report, Mr Newton assessed you as being of average intelligence.  As to your offending conduct he concludes:
'Mr Domazetovski's moral judgement shows the impacts of his immersion in drug-using sub-cultures in a tendency to be "pragmatic" and rather self-centred.  Nevertheless, he is fully aware of concepts such as right and wrong and understands clearly the moral context of his actions'.
46	Having detailed your personal history, including your longstanding issues with polysubstance abuse, Mr Newton diagnosed you with a substance abuse disorder with regard to methamphetamine, GHB, benzodiazepines and cannabis, at a severe level of intensity at the time of your offending but now in remission.  
Mr Newton states that the severity of this addiction disinhibited you, impacted on your judgement and 'made it more difficult to think about [your] decisions with calm composure and reasoned reflection'.  As to the impact of this addiction, Mr Newton notes that it 'laid waste to [your] education, work and intimate relationship, leaving [you] … increasingly immersed in drug-using and criminal sub-cultures'.
47	While it is not argued that these matters enliven any of the principles in the authority of Verdins to reduce your moral culpability for your offending, they remain relevant to your sentence in a broad sense, and in particular to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.  In that regard, I note that Mr Newton concludes you have benefitted from your recent engagement in drug education, and notes your motivation to engage in ongoing treatment which he says is 'clearly indicated'.
48	In his report, Mr Newton states that during your examination your mental state was characterised by 'discernible symptoms of anxiety and depression'.  In his opinion, these symptoms relate to difficulties you experience interacting with other prisoners and your concern regarding your likely sentence with, some pessimism about your future.  Mr Newton concludes these symptoms are 'in proportion to [your] situation and do not warrant formal diagnosis'.  Nonetheless he concludes you would benefit from the provision of 'supportive counselling'.
49	Again, I note that your family has also committed to fund 'life coaching' with someone recognised in this field at considerable cost, to assist in your future rehabilitation.  In her letter to the court your mother observes that you struggled during the pandemic and that you lost your way at this time.
50	Mr Newton found no evidence that you were suffering from any mental health condition, other than a substance abuse disorder, at the time of your offending.  He considers your immersion in 'drug using sub-cultures' instilled a 'permissive' attitude towards drug use that contributed to your offending.  As stated, you do not suffer any mental health or other condition that enlivens any of limbs 1 to 4 of the authority in Verdins to reduce your moral culpability for this offending or the need for the sentence to operate as a deterrent to others.
51	Nor does Mr Newton conclude that your levels of anxiety or depression are anything other than 'within normal bounds for a person in your situation'.  He does not consider that these symptoms make your experience of custody more onerous than that experienced by others, or that a sentence of imprisonment is likely to adversely impact on your mental health.  There is no evidentiary basis to enliven limbs 5 or 6 of the authority in Verdins in moderation of your sentence.
52	Notwithstanding the gravity of your offending, there are many positive indicators for your future.  You retain strong family support.  Your family has demonstrated their support for you not only by their attendance at court hearings, but by proactively sourcing and funding drug counselling and other programs to assist in your rehabilitation.  You have displayed motivation to access drug counselling and treatment while on remand and have indicated a desire to continue with further drug treatment.  You have also engaged in courses and programs to assist your future employment prospects.  These matters are all to your credit.
53	I am informed that you have been charged with driving whilst suspended and charges of causing injury recklessly and property damage for which you are yet to be sentenced in the Magistrates' Court.  You have indicated an intention to plead guilty to those offences.  These matters are of little, if any, relevance to the sentence I am to impose for this drug-related offending.  I am also informed that you have been charged with injury offences arising from an incident in prison.  This matter is yet to resolve.  Accordingly, I have had no regard to that matter in sentencing you for this offending or in my assessment of your future prospects.
54	Your drug addiction at the time of the offending is not a mitigating factor, but is relevant to my assessment of your future prospects, and is broadly relevant to the sentence I impose.  Addressing your long-term addictions and your motivation to remove yourself from all drug-related associates will be critical to your future rehabilitation.  In this regard Mr Newton observes as follows, 
'His drug addiction is currently ‘in remission’ and so not causing any current problems.  As noted, the risk of relapse would need careful management at the time of Mr Domazetovski's ultimate release.  Assuming appropriate support and monitoring this should be readily achievable within the confines of a community disposition or parole order.  That is while maintaining abstinence may be challenging it ought not be arduous'.
55	Bearing these matters in mind, I assess you have good prospects of rehabilitation, particularly having regard to your relative youth, your lack of priors, and motivation to engage in ongoing drug treatment with the support of your family.  This matter is relevant not only to your head sentence, but also my consideration of an appropriate non-parole period, during which your engagement in ongoing treatment will be supported and monitored.
Other sentencing considerations
56	Given the nature of your offending, the sentencing principles of general deterrence, denunciation and community protection are to be given prominence in the sentencing synthesis.  
57	In sentencing you for this offending, I must send a clear message to other individuals who contemplate engaging in large-scale drug trafficking that they do so in the knowledge that, if detected, a significant period of imprisonment will follow.  Such offending has devastating impacts on the lives of individuals, families and communities and must be clearly denounced.
58	However, I accept that the need for the sentence to deter you specifically and to provide community protection is mitigated by the absence of any prior criminal history and my finding regarding your positive prospects of rehabilitation.
Standard Sentence offence
59	The offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity ('LCQ') of a drug of dependence is a standard sentence offence, the standard sentence for which is 16 years' imprisonment.  Section 5A of the Sentencing Act 1991 clarifies that the standard sentence is the sentence for an offence that is in the middle of the range of seriousness, taking into account only objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence.  For the sake of clarity I confirm that the standard sentence applies to Charge 1 only and not to Charges 2 and 3.
60	While the court is obliged to take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentence,  as the Court of Appeal made clear in the case of Brown v The Queen, the standard sentence is to be treated as a 'legislative guidepost' no more, similar to the function served by the maximum penalty.  It does not affect the established 'instinctive synthesis' approach to sentencing and does require or permit a 'two stage' approach to sentencing.  Nor does the standard sentence affect other matters the court must take into account in sentencing, including matters in mitigation.  However, the court must explain how the sentence imposed relates to the standard sentence.
Current sentencing practices
61	I turn now to current sentencing practices.  In respect of Charge 1, being the standard sentence offence, I am only permitted to consider previous sentences where the relevant offence was subject to the standard sentence scheme. 
62	Defence counsel referred me to the Court of Appeal cases of Goldsmid and Rahmini, although I note that Rahmini did not involve a standard sentence, so 
I have only had regard to that matter in the broad sense.  I was also referred to the sentence imposed in this court in the case of Dong.
63	In Goldsmid, one of the co-offender’s was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of MDMA, cocaine and ketamine. The other co-offender was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on that charge.  The first co-offender was sentenced to a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years six months imposed for all offences, including charges of trafficking in amphetamine and LSD.  Cash in the sum of $16,877.35 was located at the time of the search. The illicit drugs were trafficked by the offenders over a period of four to five months. The quantity of drugs in that case was substantial. 
64	The Court of Appeal held that the head sentences of seven years' and six years' imprisonment respectively for the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence was manifestly inadequate given the offenders were apparently the sole members of the criminal enterprise and stood to derive significant profits over the course of the four to five months of their illegal activity.  However, having regard to the total effective sentence imposed, the Court of Appeal exercised its residual discretion in dismissing the appeal against sentence.  In that case, the offenders had no prior convictions, were also in their mid-20s and were assessed as having good prospects of rehabilitation.  I note that the quantity trafficked in that case was greater than here, and you are to be sentenced for trafficking on one day only.
65	In Dong, the County Court imposed a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for one charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of heroin in circumstances where the offender was part of a larger criminal drug trafficking enterprise.  The amount trafficked was over 2 kilograms of heroin, trafficked over a two-week period and large sums of cash were found at his premises.  In that case the offender was considerably older, 54 years of age, with no prior history and a range of matters in mitigation, including custodial burden, a difficult childhood in a refugee camp and had previous good character.
66	The prosecution also referred me to a sentence imposed in this court in the case of Pennaneach.  In that case the offender, also 25 years old at the time of the offending and with no prior criminal history, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of MDMA.
67	The charges in that case also followed the execution of a search warrant at the offender's apartment where police located 1,675 grams of MDMA which is 1.6 times the threshold for a large commercial quantity of that drug, in addition to other drugs of dependence and cash totalling $35,360.  The offender was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven years, with a non-parole period of four years six months' imprisonment for trafficking on a single day.  However, in contrast to your case the offender in Pennaneach played a low level role in the trafficking enterprise, 'akin to that of a shopkeeper', whereby the drugs were sold on instructions from others for which the offender received a modest sum.  In that case, the offender was not motivated in any way by greed.
68	I have had regard to these cases insofar as they illuminate current sentencing practices.  However, current sentencing practices are no more than a guide, and do not determine nor limit the appropriate exercise of the sentencing discretion.  Each case must turn on its own facts and circumstances.
Consideration
69	In his sentencing submissions, Mr Hill conceded that a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period to be fixed was the only available sentence.  Mr Hill argued that notwithstanding the objective gravity of these offences and the weight to be given to just punishment, deterrence and denunciation, the constellation of mitigating circumstances warrant moderation in the length of imprisonment to be imposed.
70	The sentencing submissions of the prosecution highlighted the maximum penalty imposed by parliament for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, marking this as plainly very serious offending.  Against this, the prosecution submissions accepted that your offending falls towards the lower end of seriousness for this type of offending, and concurs that the mitigating effect of your early plea, evidence of contrition, good prospects of rehabilitation and the fact you are well supported by your family, are matters that properly moderate sentence.  These concessions are all appropriately made.
71	I have had regard to the important statements of principle that may be distilled from the authorities of Gregory and Rahmani regarding the inherent seriousness with which the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of drugs must be viewed and the significance of general deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing exercise.  
72	Balanced against this, however, are a combination of significant mitigating factors that compel moderation in the sentence to be imposed.  In taking these matters into account, I have imposed a sentence that falls below the standard sentence.  In so deciding I have given significant weight to the heightened utility of your plea at this time, your prior good character and lack of relevant priors, your remorse, your relative youth and my positive findings regarding your prospects of rehabilitation.
Sentence
73	Balancing the factors to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty imposed for each offence and guided by the standard sentence for the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence I sentence you as follows.
74	On Charge 1, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
75	On each of Charges 2 and 3, possession of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
76	I order that the sentences imposed on Charges 2 and 3 be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on Charge 1, noting that all charges arise from the drugs found in your possession following execution of the search warrant on the one day only.
77	This gives a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment, and I fix a non‑parole period of five years' imprisonment.
78	Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare 570 days of pre-sentence detention reckoned as served under the sentence I have imposed and direct that the declaration be entered into the records of the court.
79	Pursuant to s 89DI(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, upon being convicted of 
Charge 1, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (that offence being 'a serious drug offence') I declare you to be 'a serious drug offender'.
80	Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to these offences, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years, 
six months' imprisonment.
81	Finally, I make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought by the prosecution noting they are not opposed.
- - -