DRUG DEALER’S THIRD CONVICTION LEADS TO JAIL

A GEELONG drug dealer promised to change his ways yesterday, but ended up in jail after fronting the magistrate who locked him up for similar offences last year.

Cameron Husband, 33, got his third conviction for drug trafficking in the past four years when he pleaded guilty in Geelong Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Magistrate Peter Mellas gave the man a 15-month jail term, with prospect of release on parole after nine months.

In June last year, Mr Mellas jailed Husband for six months for trafficking methylamphetamine, finding it was likely the man was “selling to sellers”.

He made similar comments yesterday in relation to the latest charges, noting the defendant’s phone revealed he’d discussed the sale of relatively large amounts — such as “quarters”, “balls” and “eighths” — with customers during May.

That phone was seized by police on May 30 when they pulled Husband over in a Hol- den Cruz at 3am on the Melbourne Rd in Drumcondra.

Police prosecutor Senior Constable David Vanderpol said the man appeared nervous, and his phone was ringing constantly.

They searched the car, finding methylamphetamine and $10,830 in the centre console, a further $650 cash in Husband’s wallet, and the key to a Geelong motel room.

Husband had lived at the motel for five weeks, and 5.1g of crystal meth, digital scales and a cash-counting machine were found in his room.

Husband’s lawyer, Michael Allen, mounted a spirited defence based on the defendant’s desire to turn his life around and spend more time with his son. He said the man had been law-abiding until his late 20s, when his life crumbled under the weight of a relationship breakdown, unemployment and ice addiction.

While he conceded a jail term was inevitable, he urged Mr Mellas to recognise the 91 days Husband had already spent in jail as an appropriate sentence and to release him on a corrections order.

But Sen-Constable Vanderpol said the man was guilty of “significant drug trafficking”, and a combination of prison and parole would provide appropriate punishment and protection to the community, given the man had squandered previous opportunities to rehabilitate.

Mr Mellas agreed, telling the defendant his desire to clean up his life “would’ve had great weight when you first came before court”. “(But) on your third time before a court that proposition holds no sway in my opinion,” he said.