NEWS: Herald Sun - 02/03/07 - ''Drugs not a problem' in defence force'

[lil angel15]

'Drugs not a problem' in defence force
March 02, 2007 10:48am

THE Australian Defence Force says drugs are not a problem within its ranks after two soldiers were charged with drug offences.

The soldiers, both combat engineers at Holsworthy Base in NSW, will appear in Liverpool Local Court today charged with selling large amounts of ecstasy to undercover police officers.

One soldier, 23, was arrested after allegedly selling 500 ecstasy tablets, with an estimated street value of $25,000, to an undercover policeman yesterday.

The second soldier, 26, was arrested a short time later.

The soldiers' homes were then raided by detectives, who allegedly seized $50,000 in cash and more drugs.

It is alleged the pair also had sold undercover police a total of 300 ecstasy tablets on three other occasions.

The arrests follow a three-month investigation.

Both men were charged with numerous offences including commercial supply and on-going supply of a prohibited drug.

The soldiers' commanding officer, Major General Mike Hindmarsh, said the ADF had worked closely with police after detectives received a tip-off in December.

Maj-Gen Hindmarsh said he believed the duo's alleged activity was an isolated incident.

"We're very disappointed but across the defence force we're confident this is not rife," he said.

"I'm very confident this is not indicative of a wider malaise."

The men had previously been tested and cleared of drug use as part of the ADF's zero tolerance policy to drugs, he said.

NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Operations Andrew Scipione said he hoped to make further arrests.

Herald Sun

 

[lil angel15]

Soldiers face drug charges
March 02, 2007 06:03am

TWO Australian Defence Force soldiers will appear in court today over selling large amounts of ecstasy tablets to undercover police officers in Sydney's south-west.

A 23-year-old soldier based at Holsworthy was allegedly caught selling 500 ecstasy tablets, with an estimated street value of $25,000, yesterday.

Another soldier, 26, also based at Holsworthy, was arrested a short time later as he arrived home.

Police then executed search warrants at the soldier's nearby homes and seized a quantity of illegal drugs and a large amount of cash.

The arrests follow the three-month-long Operation Icecap by undercover police.

Both men were charged with numerous offences including commercial supply and ongoing supply of a prohibited drug.

The pair will appear in Liverpool Local Court today.

Herald Sun

 

[lil angel15]

Drug sting soldier 'in uniform'
Les Kennedy and David Braithwaite
March 2, 2007 - 1:20PM

One of the suspects is led away after the raids.

One of two soldiers arrested in an overnight drug sting turned up in uniform driving an Army Land Rover for an ecstasy deal, a Sydney court heard today.

Blake William Turner, 23, and Jayde Patrick Farrell, 26, who serve as combat engineers attached to Special Forces units, faced court today accused of selling ecstasy to undercover police officers.

The soldiers appeared together in court, sitting rigid and silent with flushed faces, staring straight ahead during their brief appearance.

Police allege they found $44,585 in cash during an overnight search of one of the men's garages, and that both soldiers had steroids in their homes.

The men have the rank of sapper, or private, and are combat engineers in the Incident Response Regiment, which is based at Holsworthy and attached to Special Forces, their commander revealed today.

Turner, 23, allegedly had 500 ecstasy tablets when he went to make a deal in Heathcoate Road, Moorebank at 8pm last night, the police account presented to Magistrate Mark Shepherd said.

The soldier, who lived in a unit nearby, is alleged to have sold 800 pills of the illegal drug in a series of deals to undercover detectives between February 1 and last night.

Police allege the drug sales were conducted by Turner with his comrade, Farrell, of Holsworthy.

Farrell was arrested when he arrived at home at 9.20pm last night.

The pair were taken to Liverpool Police Station and charged with a range of drug offences, including commercial supply.

Farrell faced the court charged with seven counts, ranging from possessing a prohibited drug to supplying a prohibited drug, possession of a restricted substance and goods in custody.

Turner faced 15 charges including possessing a prohibited drug, supplying a prohibited drug, goods in custody, and possession of a restricted substance.

Neither man applied for bail - their legal representatives told the court they sought an adjournment to March 9 when they would seek bail.

Mr Shepherd granted the adjournment and formally remanded the men in custody to reappear before Liverpool Local Court on March 9.

The pair had previously been tested under the Army's random drug testing policy and had not returned a positive result, Special Forces commander Major General Michael Hindmarsh said this morning.

He said 10 per cent of soldiers in every unit were randomly tested for drugs each year.

"We have a zero tolerance policy towards the use and indeed the trafficking of drugs," he said.

"If these chaps are found to be guilty then they will be removed from the defence force.

"We are very confident that the bulk of our defence force, including most people at Holsworthy, are absolutely professional soldiers and don't get involved in this sort of thing."

The arrests followed a three-month investigation by a new police "flying squad" known as the Region Enforcement Squad, Deputy Commissioner Andrew Scipione said.

"This investigation is the first conducted by one of the newly formed Region Enforcement Squads which were established to proactively target street and mid-level crime particularly drugs and firearms," he said.

The Region Enforcement Squads were formed late last year, with two squads of 20 to 25 officers per police region targeting drugs, firearms and property crimes.

Police said investigations into the matter were continuing, including further inquiries about possible drug dealing at Holsworthy.

SMH

 

[hoptis]

I think they missed a word in that headline... it should be.

Getting drugs not a problem in defence force

 

[lil angel15]

Two Australian Defence Force soldiers arrested in drug raids - Surry Hills Region Enforcement Squad
2 March 2007

Two Australian Defence Force soldiers are expected to appear in Liverpool Local Court this morning charged with several drug offences including supplying commercial quantities of ecstasy.

The two men, aged 23 and 26 years, are members of the Australian Defence Force based at Holsworthy.

Shortly after 8 o’clock last night officers from the Surry Hills Region Enforcement Squad arrested a 23-year-old soldier during an undercover operation at Moorebank, in Sydney’s south-west.

It is alleged he was arrested moments after selling an undercover operative 500 ecstasy tablets, with an estimated street value of $25,000.

Officers arrested the second soldier, aged 26 years, as he arrived at his Holsworthy home at 9.20pm.

Both men were taken to Liverpool Police Station where they were charged with numerous offences including commercial supply and ongoing supply of a prohibited drug.

Late last night police executed search warrants at the soldiers’ homes in Holsworthy and Moorebank seizing a quantity of drugs and a large amount of cash.

Deputy Commissioner Andrew Scipione said the arrests follow a three-month investigation known as Operation Icecap.

“This investigation is the first conducted by one of the newly formed Region Enforcement Squads which were established to proactively target street and mid-level crime particularly drugs and firearms,” Deputy Commissioner Scipione said.

“We will continue to allocate all available resources to identify and prosecute those involved in the illicit drug trade and prosecute them.”

Surry Hills RES Commander Det Inspector Gavin Wood said the arrests were the culmination of an exhaustive investigation.

“Following information received last December, we commenced a strike force into the alleged drug dealing activities of these two men,” Det Insp Wood said.

“We will allege during our investigation hundreds of ecstasy tablets were sold to undercover police that were otherwise destined for the Sydney market.

“Inquiries will continue.”

* Region Enforcement Squads, known as ‘flying squads”, were formed late last year, with two squads based at each of the six Regions.

Comprising teams of 20-25 officers, these squads proactively tackle street and mid level crime - particularly drugs, firearms and property crimes - through both covert and high profile operations.

NSW Police Media Unit

 

[lil angel15]

and

Army responds to drug bust
2007-03-02 12:05:38

Australia's Special Forces Commander, Major General Michael Hindmarsh, discusses the arrest of two soldiers for allegedly selling drugs to undercover police.

VIDEO

 

[ostrich]

what i want to know is, after they sold them 100 pills on the first occasion, why did they not arrest them then and there?!?! they let those ***** deal to a bunch of other ***** before they **** arrested them... not that i'm complaining ^^

[EDIT:No need for the obscenity. Lil Angel15]

 

[Splatt]

To charge them for ongoing commercial supply. Officials always let drug crimes to continue for many months, sometimes even years, to build up the amounts bought. In my eyes it is entrapment though, but it happens a lot. Happened to someone I know for over a year, then when he supplied something like 5,000 round ones, they arrested him on the spot and now he's doing time. The guy did drugs with him at points. And if you bring up something like that in court you just get done harder. They always win.

Something simular happened a couple of years back with ongoing supply of large quantities of (watered down) GHB in adelaide I believe. The operation went on for at least 6 months. And if GHB is the horrible date rape killer drug the police make it out to be, then why did they allow these people to keep selling it for that long before an arrest. However both men got lighter sentences because they got a very good lawyer, and the case went on for nearly two years, they got only around a year (-/+ few months, each got slightly difference sentence) non-parole each because they proved it was entrapment and that the GHB was watered down and less than 50% of original potency.

 

[lil angel15]

what i want to know is, after they sold them 100 pills on the first occasion, why did they not arrest them then and there?!?! they let those ***** deal to a bunch of other ***** before they **** arrested them... not that i'm complaining ^^

[EDIT:No need for the obscenity. Lil Angel15]

The reason they have purchased off these individuals more than once is so they can be charged with supply a prohibited drug on an on-going basis, rather than just a supply charge. To be charged with supply on an on-going basis, the police need to prove that there was more than three occasions the accused supplied a prohibited drug, other than cannabis, within 30 days for a financial reward. If you read all the articles you will see the first purchase was made on the 1st Feb and the last was made on the 1st March.

This is 29 days in total with a total of 4 sales made = Supply on an on-going basis.

 

[ostrich]

The reason they have purchased off these individuals more than once is so they can be charged with supply a prohibited drug on an on-going basis, rather than just a supply charge. To be charged with supply on an on-going basis, the police need to prove that there was more than three occasions the accused supplied a prohibited drug, other than cannabis, within 30 days for a financial reward. If you read all the articles you will see the first purchase was made on the 1st Feb and the last was made on the 1st March.

This is 29 days in total with a total of 4 sales made = Supply on an on-going basis.

Sorry about the swearing and the ignorance, I'll admit I just watched the tv news instead >_<. I understand that this will get them a higher sentence... but how does that stand with their "getting drugs off the street" stance? If these guys had a very large amount of pills, it stands to reason that there were high amounts of pills sold to other people, who may sell these to the general public?
Surely it'd be better to get them put in jail for a fair while through the first sale? They'd get a fair sentence just for the first sale?

 

[lil angel15]

I'll bring your attention to 25A(4) and that should answer your question as to why the police purchased from them on 4 separate occasions.

DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT 1985 - SECT 25A

Offence of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis

25A Offence of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis

(1) Offence provision A person who, on 3 or more separate occasions during any period of 30 consecutive days, supplies a prohibited drug (other than cannabis) for financial or material reward is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 3,500 penalty units or imprisonment for 20 years, or both.

(2) Same prohibited drug not necessary A person is liable to be convicted of an offence under this section whether or not the same prohibited drug is supplied on each of the occasions relied on as evidence of commission of the offence.

(3) Jury must be satisfied as to same 3 occasions of supply If, on the trial of a person for an offence under this section, more than 3 occasions of supplying a prohibited drug are relied on as evidence of commission of the offence, all the members of the jury must be satisfied as to the same 3 occasions in order to find the person guilty of the offence.

(4) Alternative verdict—relevant supply offences If, on the trial of a person for an offence under this section, the jury is not satisfied that the offence is proven but is satisfied that the person has, in respect of any of the occasions relied on as evidence of commission of the offence under this section, committed a relevant supply offence, the jury may acquit the person of the offence charged and find the person guilty of the relevant supply offence, and the person is liable to punishment accordingly.

(5) Double jeopardy provisions A person who has been convicted of an offence under this section is not liable to be convicted:

(a) of a relevant supply offence, or
(b) of a separate offence under this section,
on the same, or substantially the same, facts as those relied on as evidence of commission of the offence in respect of which the person has been convicted.

(6) A person who has been acquitted of an offence under this section is not liable to be convicted:

(a) except as provided by subsection (4)—of a relevant supply offence, or
(b) of a separate offence under this section,
on the same, or substantially the same, facts as those relied on as evidence of commission of the offence in respect of which the person has been acquitted.

(7) A person who has been:

(a) convicted of a relevant supply offence, or
(b) acquitted of a relevant supply offence,
is not liable to be convicted for an offence under this section on the same, or substantially the same, facts as those relied on as evidence of commission of the relevant supply offence.

(8) Liability for relevant supply offences not affected by offence under this section Subject to subsections (5) and (6), this section does not:

(a) remove the liability of any person to be convicted of a relevant supply offence, or
(b) affect the punishment that may be imposed for any such offence.

(9) Exemption—lawful supply Nothing in this section renders unlawful the supply of a prohibited drug by:

(a) a person licensed or authorised to do so under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 , or
(b) a person acting in accordance with an authority granted by the Director-General of the Department of Health where the Director-General is satisfied that the supply of the prohibited drug is for the purpose of scientific research, instruction, analysis or study.

(10) Definitions In this section:
"cannabis" means cannabis leaf, cannabis oil, cannabis plant and cannabis resin.
"relevant supply offence" means any offence under this Act (other than under this section) relating to the supply of a prohibited drug.

DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT 1985 - SECT 25A

 

[Splatt]

They're going to get a pretty harsh punishment. The ADF has their own seperate court, and this will look very bad. You can go to court and be charged for things in the defense force that are legal for civillians, so something like this will result in some pretty harsh punishments. If they are convicted and sent to jail, which is very likely, they won't be going to a prison that normal drug dealers go to. ADF has their own prisons with compltely different rules.

 

[lil angel15]

Sorry about the swearing and the ignorance, I'll admit I just watched the tv news instead >_<. I understand that this will get them a higher sentence... but how does that stand with their "getting drugs off the street" stance? If these guys had a very large amount of pills, it stands to reason that there were high amounts of pills sold to other people, who may sell these to the general public?
Surely it'd be better to get them put in jail for a fair while through the first sale? They'd get a fair sentence just for the first sale?

Actually the maximum penalty for Supply of Prohibited Drug on an on-going basis is less then Supply of Prohibited Drug. $385,000 and 20 years imprisonment V $550,000 and Life Imprisonment respectiveley.

The reason the police have purchased off them on four occasions is so they can be charged under Section 25A of the act. The reasoning for this, is if the accused are found not guilty of Supply of Prohibited Drug on an on-going basis they can face an Alternative Verdict of Supply of Prohibited Drug under Section 25A(4).

So to answer your question, the Police have carried out the operation to ensure a conviction no matter what. They are effectively hedging their bets.

 

[ostrich]

Actually the maximum penalty for Supply of Prohibited Drug on an on-going basis is less then Supply of Prohibited Drug. $385,000 and 20 years imprisonment V $550,000 and Life Imprisonment respectiveley.

The reason the police have purchased off them on four occasions is so they can be charged under Section 25A of the act. The reasoning for this is if the accused are found not guilty of Supply of Prohibited Drug on an on-going basis they can face an Alternative Verdict of Supply of Prohibited Drug under Section 25A(4).

So to answer your question, the Police have carried out the operation to ensure a conviction no matter what. They are effectivly hedging their bets.

Yeah good point, let's hope they didn't monitor their activities too carefully so they can't track down the other thousands of pills they may have sold in that time. :D

 

[lil angel15]

It's certainly not a great deal of pills when you think about it, so you wouldn't assume the Police would have surveillance teams operating 24/7. In saying that however, you can also assume there would have been some sort of surveillance carried out on them to ascertain who they were selling to, but more importantly, who was selling to them.

I'm sure the finer details would have been worked out during their interviews last night, with offers of lighter sentences and 'a good word' with the Magistrate if they provided some names. They were but a branch of a tree, but if they provide the opening for the poison, the whole tree could come down.

 

[lil angel15]

Soldier jailed over ecstasy deals
Posted 47 minutes ago

A solider who pleaded guilty to selling drugs has been sentenced to four years jail.

The 23-year-old Blake Turner sold ecstasy to undercover police on four occasions over a month long period.

On the last occasion, in early March, he was arrested and charged. He has been in jail since.

The court heard Turner first used ecstasy at 17 years old. He stayed away from the drug for 12 months when he joined the army in 2002.

His father also gave evidence, telling the court his son was talented but had a pronounced condition of ADHD that could have played a part in his offence because it made him compulsive.

Judge Graham Armitage sentenced Turner to four years, but he will be up for release in 16 months.

The judge said although the maximum sentence is 20 years, he had no prior convictions and a good chance of rehabilitation.

ABC Online