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

CR 21-01561

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
ANTHONY BIDMADE		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOURKE	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:		
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 May 2022	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bidmade	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 632	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr E. Dober		
			
For the Accused	Ms C. Flocke		

HIS HONOUR:  
1	Anthony James Bidmade, you are to be sentenced for one charge of trafficking a commercial quantity of the drug of dependence, methylamphetamine, and one charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime.  
2	Respective maximum sentences are 25 years and 15 years imprisonment.  Trafficking in a commercial quantity is a so-called category 2 offence within the meaning of s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act and thereby requires a head and minimum term sentence of imprisonment.  No exception to that is applicable to your case.  
3	You pleaded guilty before me on 4 November 2021.  When interviewed by police on 27 October 2020 you made substantial admissions, what I see to be a fundamentally frank confession of your offending.  There was a short contested committal after which you entered a plea of not guilty.  The matter then entered the case management direction system of this Court and came before me.  The issue was quantity and your knowledge or intention as to commercial quantity.  Ultimately, the matter resolved; that is, in the sense that you pleaded guilty to the charge of commercial quantity.  That was in late October 2021.  
4	You receive the benefit of your plea of guilty and that level of cooperation in the proceeding.  Your plea has facilitated the interests of justice, accepts responsibility and expresses remorse.  As is accepted, the utilitarian benefit of your plea is the greater given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon the criminal justice system.  As to the timing of the plea, I bear in mind your early confession in police interview and that quantity, or knowledge of that, has been the only issue raised on your behalf.  
5	At your plea hearing, which ran on 31 January and 21 April 2022, Mr Dober for the Crown tendered a written prosecution opening for plea.  
6	He also provided comparative sentencing cases and summaries.  Ms Lacy for you, tendered the forensic psychological reports of Warren Simmons dated 19 November 2020 and 14 January 2022;  letters are dated 19 May and 17 June 2021 by psychologist Dr Emily Mann on the Marngoneet Correctional Centre Mental Health Service;  the letter of character reference by your mother, Debbie Humm, dated 28 January 2022;  your own letter to the Court; certificates and like documents related to programs undertaken by you in remand custody and drug testing results taken in custody.  
7	Ms Lacy called psychologist Warren Simmons and he gave evidence on both 31 January and 21 April.  Ms Lacy also provided a written chronology and outline of plea submissions.  
8	On 31 January I requested a forensicare psychiatric report and have received the report of Dr Elena Bajttacharya dated 14 April 2022.  
9	The circumstance of your offending are comprehensively set out in the tendered Crown opening which is Exhibit A.  My own summary may therefore be shorter.  It is also informed by matters put on your behalf not challenged by the Crown.  
10	On 11 October 2020 police intercepted a stolen Toyota Kluger in Belmont, Geelong.  You were the front‑seat passenger.  The car was towed away for storage.  An investigation followed,  initially in response to attempts to retrieve the car; for example, from a tow truck driver in transit, offering $10,000 in cash, and a few days later at the Avis Rental Depot Tullamarine Airport.  
11	This led to search of the Kluger and at your Belmont home, including of a Hyundai vehicle there.  
12	Police found and seized parcels of drugs, cash money, and other relevant items.  They were secreted in various ways in the two vehicles and your house.  There were other materials; for example, tick lists mobile phone messaging and storage boxes,  consistent with trafficking.  
13	In total, the drugs and money found were as follows.  
14	(1)   A combined gross weight of mixed substance methylamphetamine,  in the two cars,  at 213.8 grams.  The purity was high.  The pure weight was 185.97 grams.  The legislative threshold for commercial quantity of mixed substance methylamphetamine is 250 grams, accordingly above what was seized. However, the pure weight threshold is 50 grams, placing the pure amphetamine scene significantly above that.  The large commercial quantity threshold is 750 grams for mixed, and 500 grams for pure methylamphetamine.  
15	(2)   The total combined cash seized was $56,100,  $35,300 removed from the Kluger at Tullamarine and $20,800 from the Hyundai at your home.  
16	In what I have termed a candid record of interview on 27 October 2020 you effectively admitted possession of all drugs and cash, that you had been selling methylamphetamine at about $500 per gram.  You have pleaded guilty to doing so over the two and a-half weeks prior, you stated in interview to fund your own drug use.  I accept that to be so.  I will also find that you were at this time gambling heavily, as you have told the forensic practitioners who  reported to the Court.  
17	You are a 33-year-old man, presently awaiting this sentence in remand custody.  That has been since arrest on 27 October 2020, a period of 552 days.  That is approximately 18 months.  
18	You were raised in the Geelong area and have a younger sister.  You suffered an unstable and for times traumatic childhood.  Your father separated from your mother when you were four or five years.  He had been present a number of times.  There was poverty in the family and an abusive stepfather for some years.  There is reference in the materials before me to sexual abuse by a grandfather.  It appears that you do not have a memory of that.  In middle teen age your mother formed a stable,  functional relationship with a man who was kind and supportive of you.  That man died in 2012 when you were in your early 20s.  
19	You are albino and, perhaps related to that, legally blind.  Without surprise, given these conditions and the other disadvantages of your childhood, schooling was not successful.  There was social isolation and bullying, and also the need for an integration aid in primary school.  School did not move significantly past year 9.  At 17 you were sentenced in the Children's Court for offending which included trafficking methylamphetamine.  You were sentenced to that again in the adult system at 19.  After release on parole in 2009 you seemed to have tried hard to rehabilitate.  There was a period without drugs and in full-time work.  Your stepfather died in 2012.  Heavy drinking led to renewed drug use.  There was a car accident when intoxicated using ice and amphetamine.  You were imprisoned and lost your job.  You have struggled with drug abuse and associated offending since.  
20	There was a serious relationship beginning in 2019 and a child born in early 2020.  Child Protection were involved soon after his birth when he was also very unwell.  You are separated from his mother who has custody.  That relationship ended in mid-2020 in the context of your imprisonment for two months, which included for breach of a family violence order.  However, she is supportive of you and your relationship with your son.  There is weekly contact with him by video conference in remand.  Remaining drug free is critical to your future access and relationship with your child.  You have said that the end of your relationship and loss of contact with your son began a decline into further drug abuse and offending.  
21	Your criminal record reflects that difficult life so far.  Between May 2006,  when you were 17, and July 2020 there are multiple court appearances.  Those particularly relevant are stated earlier.  Drug, dishonesty and driving offences predominate.  Drug trafficking is a serious offence.  You did so in a commercial quantity, which attracts a high maximum sentence.  The cash money you possessed was substantial and very evidently related to your drug trafficking.  Participation in the commercial trade of damaging drugs such as methylamphetamine is seen as a major community problem.  Neither your drug use nor gambling can stand as significant mitigation.  You have relevant prior offending.  An objective assessment of your offending and its gravity makes important considerations and purposes of moral culpability, deterrence - that is, both general and specific deterrence - condemnation and proportionate punishment of it.  Clearly a substantial sentence of head and minimum term is necessary.  
22	However, there are particular mitigating or at least moderating factors applicable to your sentence.  They include the following.  
23	(1)   Your plea of guilty.  I accept that you are remorseful.  The frankness of your record of interview, the letter of your mother, and your own letter evidences that.  
24	(2)   To some extent, aspects of the offending circumstances.  The period of it is relatively short.  There is no evidence of betterment beyond possession of the money.  There are elements of sophistication;  for example, some of the methods of secreting the drug parcels.  However, I accept on the evidence of psychologist Mr Simmons that that can be seen as in part related to symptoms of your mental illness.  
25	(3)  Your personal history and circumstances.  The major focus of evidence and submissions to me at the plea hearing was your mental illness and, therefore, the relevance of principles stated in The Queen v Verdins and like cases.   That evidence and those submissions lead me to make the following findings.   
26	         (i)   you suffer,  consistent with the diagnoses of both psychologist Warren Simmons and psychiatrist Dr Elena Bajttacharya, a persistent delusional disorder.  Dr Bajttacharya describes 'a complex delusional belief system.'  Delusional symptoms over time,  since as early as 2007,  focus mainly on a man named “John” described by you as a 'super soldier' with sinister connections to the US military.  That belief and, at points of time, psychotic symptoms such as auditory and visual hallucination have been frightening and have led to levels of paranoia.  There are other beliefs detailed in Dr Bajttacharya's report; for example, related to brain chipping and re-program of humankind.  
27	     (ii) Your illness has essentially not been treated.  
28	    (iii) There are two aspects or processes which occur.  There is the permanent and persisting belief that “John” and other delusions are real, albeit not always present and affecting your life.  There are also the psychotic phenomena when he becomes present, speaks to you and is active in your life.  
29	     (iv) You were likely psychotic during at least parts of the time of offending.  You presented to Mr Simmons as actively psychotic when he saw you not long after arrest.  It is not said that this had direct or clear causal connection to your ongoing offending;   for example, as may be the case in a single event of offending committed clearly in a psychotic state.   Drug use and gambling are said to be the primary or predominant causes, in Mr Simmons' words the “main drivers”.  
30	      (v)   Further it is not clear as to what extent your psychotic symptoms arise out of drug use, rather than being caused by your mental illness.  Symptoms such as auditory and visual hallucinations appear to be drug induced.  
31	     (vi)  There is at least the possibility that your mental health has played a role in you taking drugs or in continuing to do so.  
32	     (vii)   In remand custody your mental state has improved from the time Mr Simmons first saw you.  However, your delusional beliefs persist.
33	Ultimately there is not a clear unambiguous picture of the causal connection between your illness and the offending as required by Verdins to reduce moral culpability.  However, I find that there is at least some limited relevance in this regard.  I find that your mental illness had effect upon you during the offending period, that there was some relevant impairment of judgment.  That relevance is limited by the effect of drug use but still existent.  Dr Bajttacharya states towards the end of her report:
It is clear that from Mr Bidmade's account that he has been experiencing these symptoms for many years.  The delusional beliefs and command hallucinations from John are likely to have affected his judgment in regard to the offences that have been committed.  Therefore it appears that his mental illness which is significantly affected by drug use has potentially contributed to some of his offending behaviour in the community.  Although a lot of these symptoms have abated since he has been in prison and the drug use has ceased as mentioned,  as mentioned this delusional belief system remains and is complex and held with a high degree of intensity.
34	I find that contribution to have existed at or during this offending.  Further, I find that your mental illness makes you a less suitable vehicle for application of the sentencing purpose of general deterrence.  As to likely hardship and risk of your illness deteriorating in prison, I bear in mind your improved state since being on remand in the absence of drug use.  However, it should still be found that your physical health conditions together with your persisting delusional disorder will make imprisonment harder for you than for others.  I could not see it being otherwise.  The impact of COVID‑19 in terms of risk, anxiety and its restrictions will also make imprisonment more difficult.  
35	Apart from the Verdins principles,  I also see are those physical conditions and your mental illness,   your early life experiences and disadvantage to be significant parts of the general personal circumstances of your life and relevant to your sentence.  
36	One is necessarily guarded about your prospects for rehabilitation.  However, I do not utterly discount it, bearing in mind that you have until now not really been treated for your delusional disorder and that, although resistant to medication,  you present as otherwise positive about psychological support and treatment.   You state a determination to avoid drug use and, giving this some validity, you see a future relationship with your son as a major motivation to do so.  There has been a period of rehabilitation in your life, and you have behaved in remand consistent with a desire to return to that.  
37	Community protection becomes relevant, given the seriousness and nature of your offences and your criminal history.  Ultimately it seems to me the most likely way of achieving that protection is treatment and assistance to you, for example on parole.  
38	The combination of all these moderating factors go to reduce the length of your sentence compared to what the objectively seen circumstances of offending would require.  This should impact upon both head and minimum terms of your sentence.  However, I bear in mind also the need to impose a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of offending.  
39	I have considered the comparative cases provided but also bear in mind the need to sentence individually to your case.  
40	Having considered and weighed what I see to be the relevant matters, I sentence you as follows.  For Charge 1, trafficking in a commercial quantity, you are sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months.  On Charge 2, dealing with proceeds of crime, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months.  
41	I direct that six months of the sentence for Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence for Charge 1.  That is a total effective sentence of three years and 10 months.  I direct a minimum term before eligibility for parole of two years.  I declare under s18 552 days of pre-sentence detention.  Under s6AAA,  had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of six years with a minimum term of four years.  
42	The principle of totality applies to your sentence.  As raised this morning with counsel, I have been informed that you are to be sentenced shortly, if not today, in the Magistrates Court for matters committed prior to your remand for the offences on which I have just sentenced you.   Application of totality in respect of the Magistrates Court sentence will be a matter for the magistrate.  I shall advise him of my sentence and provide,  when revised, my rulings.  Is there anything else I need to ‑ ‑ ‑
43	MR DOBER:  Just two ancillary orders, Your Honour, for forfeiture and disposal of drugs.
44	HIS HONOUR:  Forfeiture of the drugs, yes.  I will sign that in chambers, I think.  They have been provided.  I will sign them in chambers.
45	MR DOBER:  Yes, it should be two, Your Honour.
46	HIS HONOUR:  And what is the other one?
47	MR DOBER:  So one was disposal of the drugs.  Forfeiture was for containers, mobile phone and the $56,000.
48	HIS HONOUR:  Various other things, yes.  They will be on a schedule.
49	MR DOBER:  Yes.  As Your Honour pleases.
50	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  And disposal of the drugs.  All right.  Now, is there anything else I need to do?
51	MR DOBER:  No, Your Honour.
52	HIS HONOUR:  I would like to specifically thank counsel for their assistance in this matter.  It was an unusual matter, and I was greatly assisted by the balance and insight of your submissions.  So I apply that to both counsel, of course.
53	MR DOBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.
54	HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.
55	MR DOBER:  I am sure that will be conveyed to Ms Lacey.
56	HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Well, that is all we need to do.  Good.  Thank you.
‑ ‑ ‑