R v Garrick Keith FOORD [2009] NSWDC 256

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Garrick Keith FOORD [2009] NSWDC 256

HEARING DATE(S): 22 May 2009 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 22 May 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment. Non-parole period of eighteen months, a head sentence of three years.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Ongoing supply of prohibited drugs

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

PARTIES: The Crown Garrick Keith Foord

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/11/1207

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1 Garrick Keith Foord is to be sentenced for an offence of ongoing supply of prohibited drugs under s 25A of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is twenty years imprisonment, it does not carry with it a standard non-parole period.

2 The individual supplies encompassed by that offence relate to three acts of supply of relatively small quantities of amphetamine to an undercover officer. They were on 15 April, 17 April and 22 April 2008. They were not isolated acts of supply, however. In the course of his discussions with the undercover officer, the offender told him that he was supplying to others as well. The offender was doing this because he was able by that means to fund his own drug use. He was not making money out of his activities, but merely supplying drugs so that he could get his drugs for free.

3 He appeared in court today with three others, Matthew Hall, Edward Elelman and Suzanne Lenton. I did propose at one stage to sentence all of them together, but the evidence revealed that the only connection between Mr Foord, this offender, and the other three, was that some time before his arrest he moved into a home at which Ms Lenton also lived. There is no suggestion that he was involved in Ms Lenton's activities, or those of Mr Elelman or Mr Hall. It is appropriate therefore that he be sentenced separately. I should also add that the principles of parity seemed to have no impact upon him as far as those other three are concerned. A matter of significance in assessing the offender's criminality is that the last of his supplies, that is, 22 April 2008, was one month before his arrest. In evidence today he said that he himself stopped supplying because he was concerned of the consequences for him of being caught. Given the month which elapsed between his last supply to the undercover officer and his arrest, I am prepared to accept what the offender says.

4 He was born in 1956 and was therefore fifty-two years of age, about to turn fifty-three. A perusal of his criminal history indicates that he managed to get to thirty years of age before he committed his first offence and that there have been some gaps, significant at times, in his criminal history. He has been able in the past to hold down responsible and lucrative jobs, but his drug use has interfered with his ability to work productively. His criminality began at the age of thirty at a time when a number of friends of his were dying from AIDS. The offender gave evidence that at time when he and a number of other people were tested for AIDS, of those who were tested, nineteen eventually died. It was in those circumstances that the offender began using drugs. As I mentioned before there have been times when he has been able to live a law abiding lifestyle. What triggered his most recent involvement in drugs appears to have been the death of his mother in 2007 to cancer.

5 Primarily because of the age at which he first committed offences and also because of his ability to live his life without committing offences as demonstrated in the past, I accept Mr Hutchison's submission that there are good prospects of rehabilitation if the offender is given adequate incentive and support.

6 I will therefore find special circumstances in this case and make an order that the offender is only to be released to parole on condition that he attend the residential drug rehabilitation program at Odyssey House or some other similar institution. I will therefore enlarge the period of eligibility for parole to take account of that quasi custody.

7 These offences were of course serious, the offender was under no illusions as to what would occur to him if he was caught. For that reason he tried to ensure that he didn't have large quantities of drugs in his possession. The offender has also been dealt with in the past for supplying prohibited drugs.

8 Both the Crown and Mr Hutchison have supplied me with some cases which I am able to use as a comparison. Of course no two cases are the same, but, given that inconsistency in sentencing is a badge of unfairness, I have had particular regard to the material that both parties have presented to me in identifying the appropriate sentencing range in this case. Some matters do stand out, perhaps the most important which takes this case out of the ordinary is the fact that the offender himself ceased supplying to the undercover officer. This is far from the usual case where supplies continue up until the date of arrest. For that matter, I will impose a sentence which would otherwise be viewed I suspect as lenient.

9 There is no doubt that deterrent sentences are required, however. There is no doubt that those who supply drugs, even if all they are interested in is getting drugs for themselves, need to be dealt with by a significantly lengthy sentence, and even harsh sentence on occasions, to reflect the gravity of what they have done.

10 The sentence I impose on Mr Foord is as follows. He is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months to date from 22 May 2008, it will expire on 21 November 2009, on which day the offender is to be released to parole. I set a head sentence of three years. It is a condition of the offender's release to parole that he attend a residential rehabilitation program in Odyssey House or a similar institution.

11 In case I have not mentioned it, the plea of guilty was entered at the first opportunity and the sentence that I have just imposed is reduced by twenty-five per cent to account for that fact.

**********

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.