IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not -Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
General List

Case No. CR-23-01057
CR-23-01061

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		

MARC ANDREWS & SHAHEEN WAHEED		
		
---
JUDGE:	His Honour Judge Palmer	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 October 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Andrews & Waheed	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1566		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 	Traffick in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – prohibited person possess firearm – possess explosive substance – possess drug of dependence – related summary charges - general deterrence and denunciation significant principles –objectively serious offending - sophisticated drug trafficking enterprise – both offenders played essential part in operation – protection of community a factor where serious drug offender provisions enlivened 
Cases Cited:	Gregory v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151; Dunn v The Queen [2017] VSCA 952 371; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; McKee v The Queen (2003) 138 A Crim R 88; DPP v Nguyen [2020] VCC 952; DPP v Wicks [2019] VCC 135; Obian v The King [2023] VSCA 18; Elkadi v The King [2023] VSCA 328; Singh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 93; Marchei v The Queen [2021] VSCA 58; Barbaro v The Queen [2021] VSCA 277; DPP v Condo [2019] VSCA 181; DPP v Moustafa [2018] VSCA 331
Legislation cited: 	Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Sentencing Act 1991; Crimes Act 1958; Firearms Act 1996.
Sentence Andrews:	8-years imprisonment with a non-parole of 5 years
Sentence Waheed:	9 and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Mr Daryl Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For Marc Andrews

For Shaheen Waheed	Mr Philip Dunn KC 
Mr Saj Ranjit

Mr Chris Hooper	Garde Wilson Lawyers

Sarah Pratt and Associates	

Circumstances of offending
1.	In the early morning of 29 July 2022, police investigators executed a search warrant on a unit on the 10th floor of an apartment building on the corner of St Kilda and Alma Roads, in St Kilda.  As they entered the unit, they observed what appeared to be a pipe bomb on the bed in the master bedroom.  They immediately withdrew.  At around 5.45 am, police at different locations arrested the two of you, Marc Andrews and Shaheen Waheed.  
2.	The prosecution case – which you have accepted by your plea – is that between the dates of 16 October 2021 and 28 July 2022 the two of you carried on a business of trafficking in methamphetamine and heroin.  You primarily conducted your business by means of encrypted message conversations, and you used the unit as a safe house or – as you described it – the “HQ” for your business.   Mr Waheed, you agree that you were the head of this operation; and Mr Andrews, your role was to receive individual orders.  
3.	While the prosecution is unable to specify the exact amount of drugs you trafficked, you have accepted the prosecution estimate that you trafficked in excess of 2500 grams of methamphetamine (10 times the commercial quantity of 250 grams for mixed methamphetamine) and approximately 500 grams of heroin (double the commercial quantity).  
4.	You have both pleaded guilty to one rolled up charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, contrary to s 71AA(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (charge 1).  The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment.  
5.	Once the explosive devices in the unit had been rendered safe, police investigators re-entered the unit and located a number of items in respect of which you have both pleaded guilty:
a.	A variety of different containers, containing a total of approximately five kilograms of different steroids – nandrolone, testosterone, drostanolone, stanozol and boldenone: trafficking in a drug of dependence, contrary to s  71AC(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (charge 2), the maximum penalty for which is 15 years imprisonment.
b.	A total of $57,680 in cash: knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 194(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (charge 3), the maximum penalty for which is 15 years imprisonment.
c.	A 12-gauge double barrel shotgun, separated into three parts: being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, contrary to s 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (charge 4), the maximum penalty for which is 10 years imprisonment.
d.	Two pipe bombs, one with a remote detonation distance of 1000 metres, and one with a remote detonation distance of 200 metres: a rolled-up charge of possessing explosive substances, contrary to s 317(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 (charge 5), the maximum penalty for which is five years imprisonment.
e.	A knuckle duster and throwing knives: possess a prohibited weapon without an exemption or approval, contrary to s 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (related summary charge 21 for Mr Andrews and 17 for Mr Waheed), the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment.
f.	Three hunting knives: possess a controlled weapon without lawful excuse, contrary to s 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (related summary charge 23 for Mr Andrews and 19 for Mr Waheed), the maximum penalty for which is one year imprisonment.
g.	Cartridge ammunition: possess cartridge ammunition whilst not the holder of a licence, contrary to s 124(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (related summary charge 27 for Mr Andrews and 29 for Mr Waheed), the maximum penalty for which is 40 penalty units (fine of $7,903.60).
h.	A birth certificate and passports: possess property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act 1958 (related summary charge 33 for Mr Andrews and 36 for Mr Waheed), the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment.
i.	Body armour: possess body armour without an exemption, contrary to s 8A(1)(d) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (related summary charge 61 for Mr Andrews and 49 for Mr Waheed), the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment.
6.	Mr Andrews, you were arrested in Richmond, a short distance from your home in Mary Street.  When police searched your home they found a number of items in respect of which you have pleaded guilty:
a.	A bag containing approximately 654 grams of a substance, of which 523 grams was pure methamphetamine: trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, contrary to section 71AA(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (charge 6), the maximum penalty for which is 25 years imprisonment.
b.	Various bottles, bags and tubs containing 1,4-butenediol (1,4-BD), heroin and methamphetamine: a rolled-up charge of possessing drugs of dependence, contrary to s 73(1) of the  Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (charge 7), the maximum penalty for which (where a trafficking purpose is excluded) is one year imprisonment.
c.	A total of $28,550 in cash: knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 194(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (charge 8), the maximum penalty for which is 15 years imprisonment.
d.	A telescopic baton: possess a prohibited weapon without an exemption or approval, contrary to s 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (related summary charge 13), the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment.
7.	You also failed to comply with a direction to provide information to enable police to access your mobile phone, contrary to s 465AAA(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (related summary charge 15), the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment.
8.	Mr Waheed, you were arrested at your home in Orrong Road, St Kilda East.  When police searched your home they found a bag containing 1.4 grams of methamphetamine (81% purity), in respect of which you have pleaded guilty to possessing a drug of dependence, contrary to s 73(1) of the  Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (charge 9), the maximum penalty for which (where, as here, a trafficking purpose is excluded) is one year imprisonment.
9.	You also failed to comply with a direction to provide information to enable police to access your mobile phone, contrary to s 465AAA(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (related summary charge 4), the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment.
10.	I am mindful of the need for totality. The prosecution accepted that:
a.	All of the charges arise out of your drug trafficking business over a nine month period, and that this should (subject to any other rules that apply) moderate the amount of cumulation;
b.	The related summary charges (which did not form part of the sentence indication) should add little, if anything, to the sentences imposed in respect of the indictable offences, not least because they are all factually connected in one way or another to the charges on the indictment; and
c.	It was open to me to impose aggregate sentences in respect of charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 (together with the related summary charges which are punishable by imprisonment that also arise from the safe house search); and in respect of charges 7 and 8 (together with related summary charge 13, which also arises from the Richmond search).
Sentencing principles and current sentencing practice
11.	The principles that apply to sentencing for commercial quantity drug offending are well-established.  They include the following:
a.	Because illegal drug offending causes great harm to the community and is difficult to detect, the need for general deterrence and denunciation carries significant weight;
b.	In assessing the seriousness of offending, a court should take into account:
i.	The quantity of drugs involved;
ii.	The duration of the offending;
iii.	The sophistication of the enterprise; and 
iv.	The role played by the particular offender;
c.	An offender should expect a significant sentence for involvement at any level; and
d.	Unless there is evidence to the contrary, a court will infer that an offender was motivated by profit.
13.	In relation to how these principles are applied, I have taken into account current sentencing practice for drug offending involving commercial quantities. The parties referred me to 10 sentencing decisions, and made submissions about the relative seriousness of the offending, compared to yours:  
a.	In Elkadi v The King [2023] VSCA 328 (Macauley and Taylor JJA):
i.	The offender was involved in a dark web trafficking syndicate, earning approximately $5000 a week taking orders via a website and distributing them by mail.
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity, three counts of trafficking a drug of dependence, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime and possessing a prohibited weapon.
iii.	The offender had prior convictions for drug trafficking offences.
iv.	The court imposed a base sentence of 7 years and 6 months for one of the commercial quantity trafficking offences; and a total effective sentence of 12 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months.  This was upheld on appeal.  
b.	In Singh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 93 (T Forrest and Kennedy JJA):
i.	In a number of transactions, the offender sold, or offered to sell, methamphetamine to undercover police officers (the quantities were closer to those in charge 6 in this case than charge 1).
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity, trafficking a drug of dependence, five counts of being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, and some other more minor offences.
iii.	The offender had prior convictions for drug trafficking offences.
iv.	The court imposed a base sentence of 5 years for the commercial quantity trafficking offence; and a total effective sentence of 9 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years.  This was upheld on appeal.  
c.	In Marchei v The Queen [2021] VSCA 58 (Ferguson CJ and Beach JA):
i.	Marchei was a member of a group of offenders who trafficked a variety of different drugs (the quantities were again closer to those in charge 6 than charge 1).  The offender’s main (but not only) role was to assist in the sourcing and sale of the drugs.
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity, and possessing a traffickable quantity of firearms.
iii.	The offender had no criminal record.
iv.	The court imposed a base sentence of 7 years for the commercial quantity trafficking offence; and a total effective sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.  This was upheld on appeal.  
d.	In Barbaro v The Queen [2021] VSCA 277 (Kaye and T Forrest JJA):
i.	The offender was involved in trafficking drugs with his father and two others.
ii.	The offender was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity, two counts of trafficking in a drug of dependence, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime and a number of firearms offences.
iii.	The offender had no relevant prior convictions, and very significant mitigatory factors.
iv.	On appeal, the court imposed a base sentence of 4 years and 6 months for the commercial quantity trafficking offence; and a total effective sentence of 5 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.  
e.	In DPP v Condo [2019] VSCA 181 (Maxwell P, T Forrest and Weinberg JJA):
i.	The offender was a senior member (but not the head) of a drug trafficking syndicate.  The offender’s role included obtaining, storing and supplying large quantities of methamphetamine.
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity, two counts of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime and two counts of possessing a drug of dependence.
iii.	The offender had a relative lack of prior convictions.
iv.	On appeal, the court imposed a base sentence of 9 years and 9 months for the commercial quantity trafficking offence; and a total effective sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.  This was upheld on appeal.  
f.	In DPP v Nguyen [2020] VCC 952 (Judge Parrish):
i.	The offender was a senior member (but not the head) of a drug trafficking syndicate.  The offender’s role included obtaining, storing and supplying large quantities of methamphetamine.
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to numerous offences including trafficking in a large commercial quantity, and several counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity.
iii.	The offender only began offending when he was 48 years old, and continued only until he was placed in custody nearly two years later.
iv.	The court imposed a base sentence of 10 years for the large commercial quantity trafficking offence; 3 years imprisonment for each of the commercial quantity trafficking offences; and a total effective sentence of 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years.    
g.	In DPP v Wicks [2019] VCC 135 (Judge Trapnell):
i.	The offender played a significant role as a courier in a sophisticated cannabis-trafficking enterprise. 
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity (the quantity being at the lower end of the commercial quantity scale) and one count of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime.  The offending period was approximately 3 and a half months.
iii.	The offender had no prior convictions and good prospects of rehabilitation.
iv.	The court imposed a base sentence of 3 years and 6 months for the commercial quantity trafficking offence; and a total effective sentence of the same length, with a non-parole period of 21 months.  
h.	In Obian v The King [2023] VSCA 18 (Priest, Niall and Macauley JJA):
i.	The offender used his industrial cleaning business as a cover to import, move and store vast quantities of a 1,4-BD.
ii.	After a trial, the offender was found guilty of three counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity (with quantities of 400, 8000 and 2140 times the commercial quantity).
iii.	The offender was young and had no prior convictions.
iv.	The court imposed a base sentence of 16 years for one of the commercial quantity trafficking offences; and a total effective sentence of 17 years and 10 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years.  This was upheld on appeal.  
i.	In DPP v Moustafa [2018] VSCA 331 (Beach, Emerton and Weinberg JJA):
i.	The offender assisted Mr Obian to move and store some of his 1,4-BD at premises he rented.  When police searched these and other premises they also found large quantities of ecstasy pills, methamphetamine and cannabis.
ii.	The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity, trafficking in a large commercial quantity, and recklessly causing injury.
iii.	The offender was young but had prior drug trafficking convictions.  He assisted the police in relation to Mr Obian.  
iv.	On appeal, the court imposed a base sentence of 8 years for the 1,4-BD commercial quantity trafficking offence; and a total effective sentence of 9 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years.  
14.	The prosecutor and counsel for Mr Waheed agreed that, compared to this case:
a.	 Obian involved more serious offending;
b.	Nguyen and Wicks involved less serious offending; and
c.	Singh involved comparable offending.
15.	However, the prosecution submitted that Barbaro and Marchei were less serious, and Moustafa, Elkadi and Condo were comparable; whereas, counsel for Mr Waheed submitted that Barbaro, Moustafa, Elkadi and Condo were more serious, and Marchei was comparable.  
16.	The fact that current sentencing practice is neither determinative, nor provides a yardstick, means that it is not necessary for me to attempt to disentangle all the objective factors from the subjective ones and make a precise determination of how the offending in this case should be ranked compared to the offending in these cases.  
17.	Nevertheless, I  took all of the decisions into account when I gave a sentence indication for Mr Waheed of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years; and for Mr Andrews of 8 and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 and a half years.  I take them into account again.  
Objective seriousness and moral culpability
18.	For both of you, charge 1 is your most serious offending.  The offending is objectively very serious:
a.	This was a significant drug trafficking enterprise in which the quantity you trafficked is estimated to be many times the commercial quantity (although you are not to be sentenced for a crime with which you have not been charged, namely trafficking in a large commercial quantity);
b.	The offending occurred over a period of approximately nine months; 
c.	You had access to a large established customer base aware of syndicate code and pricing;
d.	You conducted regular cash counts and deliveries to other syndicate members; 
e.	You maintained records of significant amounts of cash owed and received, including transactions recorded in thousands of dollars (suggesting large purchases); and
f.	Your enterprise was relatively sophisticated, involving the use of encrypted messaging and a safe house which was protected by explosive devices that could be remotely detonated.     
19.	There were other people involved in the operation, but none of them played as important a role as the two of you.  You were each responsible for different but essential parts of the operation; however, as head of the operation, Mr Waheed, I consider your offending on charge 1 to be more serious than Mr Andrews’ offending.  On the other hand, I note that you, Mr Andrews, are charged with two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity, whereas Mr Waheed is only charged with one.
Personal circumstances and subjective matters: Shaheen Waheed
20.	You were born in 1976, and are now 48 years of age.  You suffered a difficult childhood and adolescence, particularly from the time your parents separated.  These included experiences of sexual abuse.  I accept that your troubled upbringing continues to affect you, and give this weight in the sentencing process.
21.	Perhaps unsurprisingly, you struggled with drug abuse and mental health issues from an early age.  You have made sporadic attempts to deal with your drug dependency issues.  I accept that your drug dependency has played a part in your offending, and that you supported your own habit by trafficking.  However, you also gained financially from your offending, albeit not to the extent that you enjoyed a lavish lifestyle.  
22.	Your criminal record goes back to 1993, and includes offences associated with driving, violence, weapons, proceeds of crimes, drugs and trafficking.  There is a need for specific deterrence.   Your prospects for rehabilitation are also likely to be poor, unless you are willing to engage in treatment for your drug issues.   
23.	You committed these offences while on bail for some earlier offences.  You served the sentence for those earlier offences while you were on remand for these offences.  They account for approximately six months of the time you have spent on remand.  Your counsel submits that I should take into account, under the heading of totality, the fact that you have lost the opportunity for concurrency between the sentence I am imposing today, and the sentences which you have now served.  
24.	However, the prosecutor correctly points out that because the current offences were committed while you were on bail for those earlier offences, there is a statutory presumption that the sentences I impose today would have been cumulative on the sentences for those earlier offences (assuming you had not already served them).  In light of this, while I do take the sentences imposed in respect of the earlier offending into account for the purposes of totality, I give them limited weight.  
25.	It has been more than two years since you were arrested and throughout that time you have had the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence hanging over your head.    You have a son, Lenny, with your co-offender, Sophia Polites.  Lenny has a learning disability and often refuses to go to school.  Your ability to be involved in his parenting is obviously limited by your incarceration, and this will mean that prison weighs more heavily on you.  
26.	You indicated your intention to plead guilty after a contested committal and a sentence indication hearing; however, negotiations towards a plea commenced before the committal. Your plea saved the courts, witnesses, prosecuting agencies and the community as a whole time, money, inconvenience and uncertainty.  I also accept that your plea indicates remorse.       
27.	In 2003 you were convicted of trafficking a large commercial quantity.  This means I must sentence you as a serious drug offender in respect of charge 1, with the result that:   
a.	Protection of the community is the principal sentencing purpose; and
b.	In order to achieve that purpose, I may impose a longer sentence than would otherwise be proportionate to the gravity of your offence.
28.	This is a major distinction between you and Mr Andrews in relation to charge 1, and justifies some disparity between your sentences. 
Orders 
29.	If you had not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 13 years imprisonment.   Because you pleaded guilty, I am instead imposing the following sentence:
a.	On charge 1, trafficking in a commercial quantity, I convict you and impose a sentence of eight years imprisonment (this is the base sentence). The fact that I sentenced you as a serious offender must be noted in the court records.
b.	On the safe house charges (charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, and related summary charges 17, 19, 36 and 49), I convict you and impose an aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment, one and a half years of which is to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.
c.	On related summary charge 29, possessing cartridge ammunition, I convict and discharge you.  
d.	On charge 9, possessing a drug of dependence, I convict you and impose a sentence of four months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the base sentence.
e.	On the mobile phone password charge (related summary charge 4), I convict you and impose a sentence of six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the base sentence.
f.	This makes for a total effective sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment.
g.	I order that you serve seven years of your sentence before you become eligible for parole.   
h.	I declare that you have already served 645 days of your imprisonment as pre-sentence detention.
Personal circumstances and subjective matters: Marc Andrews
30.	You were born in 1979, and are 45 years old.  You grew up in Richmond, with loving parents who have now been married for more than 60 years.  You have a positive relationship with them and with your older brother, and they continue to support you.
31.	You were consistently employed after you left school, working on the wharves, in construction and as a truck driver.  You moved out of the family home when you were 19, and bought an apartment on the same street as your parents.  You played semi-professional football until your early twenties.  
32.	You met your long-term partner, Megan, when you were 35 years old.  Your daughter Amber, was born eight years ago.  Your relationship with Megan suffered as a result of you working remotely, and broke down completely in February 2020, when you discovered that she was having an affair with one of your close friends.
33.	It was in the context of the breakdown of your relationship that you first began to get in trouble with the law, with charges of unlawful assault and criminal damage in 2017, and persistently contravening a family violence order in 2018.   
34.	It was also in this context that you began to use methamphetamine, as well as heroin and benzodiazepine. I accept that your drug dependency played a part in your offending, and that you supported your own habit by trafficking.  During the COVID pandemic you also lost your job, and used drug trafficking to support yourself, albeit not to the extent that you enjoyed a lavish lifestyle.  
35.	The fact that you did not offend until you reached your late thirties suggests that you have good prospects for rehabilitation, and that there is a diminished need for specific deterrence.  However, the seriousness of your offending means that general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation are still important sentencing purposes. 
36.	It has been two years since you were arrested and throughout that time you have had the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence hanging over your head.    
37.	You indicated your intention to plead guilty after a contested committal and a sentence indication hearing; however, negotiations towards a plea commenced before the committal. Your plea saved the courts, witnesses, prosecuting agencies and the community as a whole time, money, inconvenience and uncertainty.  I also  accept that your plea indicates remorse.       
38.	Once I convict you of charge 1,  I must sentence you as a serious drug offender in respect of charge 6, with the result that:   
a.	Protection of the community is the principal sentencing purpose; 
b.	In order to achieve that purpose, I may impose a longer sentence than would otherwise be proportionate to the gravity of your offence; and
c.	Any term of imprisonment for charge 6 must be served cumulatively on any other terms of imprisonment I impose, unless I order otherwise.
39.	However, the prosecution accepts that charge 6 forms part of the same drug trafficking business offending as charge 1.  Therefore, although you are technically a serious drug offender for the purposes of sentencing you on charge 6, the serious drug offender provisions were not primarily aimed at offending such as yours, and I do not intend to impose a disproportionate sentence on you; nor will I order that the whole of the sentence be served cumulatively.  
Orders 
40.	If you had not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment.  Because you pleaded guilty, I am instead imposing the following sentence:
a.	On charge 1, trafficking in a commercial quantity, I convict you and impose a sentence of five and a half years imprisonment (this is the base sentence).
b.	On the safe house charges (charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, and related summary charges 21, 23, 33 and 61), I convict you and impose an aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment, one and a half years of which is to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.
c.	On related summary charge 27, possessing cartridge ammunition, I convict and discharge you.  
d.	On charge 6, trafficking in a commercial quantity, I convict you and impose a sentence of two years imprisonment, one year of which is to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.   The fact that I sentenced you for this offence as a serious offender must be noted in the court records.
e.	On the Richmond search charges (charges 7 and 8, and related summary charge 13), I convict you and impose an aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the base sentence.  
f.	On the mobile phone password charge (related summary charge 15), I convict you and impose a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the base sentence.
g.	This makes for a total effective sentence of eight years imprisonment.
h.	I order that you serve five years of your sentence before you become eligible for parole.   
i.	I declare that you have already served 802 days of your imprisonment as pre-sentence detention.
41.	I also make the forfeiture orders requested by the prosecution.