They were caught as part of a police operation and they have been sent to prison. Which is where they should be, given the operation they were running was in the second-highest category of meth offending based on the quantity of drugs the police proved they were responsible for.
The bit I'm struggling with is the fact that these guys had their sentences reduced because of issues from their childhood.
They both pleaded guilty to supplying a Class A drug (methamphetamine), possession for supply, and participating in an organised criminal group. Smith also admitted an additional charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.
And when they appeared for sentencing, the starting point for Smith's sentence was 12 years, four months in prison. And for Heller, the starting point was 10 years, six months.
The difference in the length of potential sentences was due to Smith being culpable for supplying more of the drug than Heller - and also because Smith had admitted manufacturing the drug as well.
But what happened when the sentencing judge decided how long to actually send them away for, is that he thought he would factor in their childhoods and how that had led them to a life of crime.
So to start with, the judge gave both offenders a 25 per cent discount on their sentences for pleading guilty early in the piece. But I just can't believe what happened next.
After the 25 per cent discount for the early pleas, the judge took a further 25 per cent off Smith's sentence because of his rough childhood, and another 5 per cent off to "assist his rehabilitation". Which meant his final sentence went from 12 years, four months to five years, six months in prison. Which, by my maths, comes to about a 45 per cent discount.
Reports prepared for the court said Smith had a significant history of abuse growing up in state care and foster homes, and that he first used methamphetamine when he was 15.
And, after reading those reports, the judge said to him: "I agree that the catalogue of issues addressed in the various reports significantly reduces the level of your culpability with regard to the offending."
Which was essentially the judge saying "because of your tough time in the past, you're not as much to blame for what you did".
As for Richard Heller - remember the starting point for his sentence was 10 years, six months. But just like he did with Smith, the judge took 25 percent off for the early guilty plea - and then he went on to take off another 15 per cent for his dysfunctional childhood, and another 15 per cent for rehabilitation.
Which took his sentence from 10 years, six months to four years, nine months. Just like his mate, that's a discount of about 45 per cent on the maximum sentence. And just like his mate, he got a reduced sentence because of abuse in state care, and drug and alcohol addiction, which led to poor mental health.
The judge decided that they weren't to blame as much as someone who may have had a better upbringing than these guys. Which, on paper or if you're perhaps in the privileged position of methamphetamine not having ruined your life or the life of someone close to you, sounds like such an understanding approach.
I'm not going to say that what happened to these guys early in life didn't have an impact on how they led their adult lives. But is it an excuse or justification for a reduced sentence?
The liberal side of me would probably say "yes". But I can't. So I won't.
Because I actually think what that sentencing judge did was to completely forget about the misery these two guys created in other people's lives. When you make and sell methamphetamine, you don't give a damn about the people who end up using the stuff.
These guys didn't give a damn. So why should we give a damn?
Yes, I know they're in prison and it's not as if they're on home detention. But a 25 percent discount on a prison sentence because someone had a tough childhood? All I can think about is the parents I heard from recently who told me about the hell they went through when their kids got hooked on meth.
I remember one chap telling me about his son who took his life last year during lockdown because he ended up owing the gangs a truckload of money and couldn't see a way out.
And this judge thinks reducing sentences for the creeps who make and sell this stuff because they had tough childhoods, is the kind thing to do. Give me a break. It is a shameful thing to do and totally disregards the poor sods hooked on this drug and who are taken advantage of day-in day-out by the likes of the Mongrel Mob.
