Citation: Regina v David Allan Rollason [2007] NSWDC 222
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 October 2007
Judge(s): Nicholson SC DCJ
Background
Maitland police conducting a drug supply investigation identified the offender, David Allan Rollason, as an associate knowingly involved with a man named Crosdale in supplying methylamphetamine. The investigation used undercover operatives and telephone intercepts. Between 4 July and 10 August 2006, police observed and recorded three discrete drug transactions at locations including Williamtown and Medowie.
The offender was knowingly concerned with the supply of a total of 333.62 grams of methylamphetamine, comprising 233.12 grams actually supplied and 110 grams possessed for supply. This amount exceeded the commercial quantity threshold under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offender also asked the court to take into account, on a Form 1 (a mechanism allowing additional offences to be considered at sentencing without a separate conviction), his knowing involvement in two supplies of cannabis leaf totalling more than 1,800 grams.
The offender pleaded guilty. The total street value of drugs supplied across all transactions exceeded $30,000. His co-offender, Crosdale, had been dealt with separately.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for knowingly taking part in the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, having regard to objective criminality, subjective circumstances, and the guilty plea?
- Whether the offence of "knowingly take part in supply" falls within Item 18 of s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which sets a standard non-parole period for certain drug supply offences.
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a non-parole period shorter than the statutory default ratio.
- How parity with the co-offender's sentence should be approached.
Decision
The court first addressed the statutory interpretation question. Section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides standard non-parole periods for specified offences listed in a table. The court held that the offence of "knowingly take part in supply" is not an offence included in Item 18 of that table. Accordingly, no standard non-parole period applied to this sentencing exercise.
On objective criminality, the court assessed the offending as serious. The quantity of methylamphetamine exceeded the commercial threshold, the offender was an active and knowing participant across multiple transactions, and the total drug value was substantial. The Form 1 cannabis supply matters added to the overall picture of criminality, even though they attracted no separate conviction.
The court then weighed the offender's subjective circumstances. These included his guilty plea (which attracted a sentencing discount), his age of 41 (placing him well above the general prison population and creating an isolating factor in custody), the fact that this was his first period of full-time imprisonment, and evidence that rehabilitation was better achieved in the community than in custody. The court found special circumstances existed, which permitted a departure from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence.
On parity, the court acknowledged that while strict parity does not apply as between co-offenders in all circumstances, the offender's criminality was assessed as less than that of Crosdale. Given that Crosdale had received a special circumstances finding, refusing one to the offender would have produced a justifiable sense of grievance.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of knowingly taking part in the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine between 3 July and 11 August 2006 at Williamtown and Medowie.
- Two Form 1 matters (knowing participation in supply of 454 grams and 1,368 grams of cannabis leaf on 4 July and 10 August 2006 respectively) were taken into account.
- Sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, commencing 10 August 2006 and expiring 9 February 2008, with a balance of term of 12 months expiring 9 February 2009.
- All methylamphetamine and cannabis seized by police in connection with the offences on 4 July, 20 July, and 10 August 2006 ordered to be destroyed in accordance with NSW Police procedures.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court held that the offence of "knowingly take part in supply" does not fall within Item 18 of the standard non-parole period table in s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, meaning that provision did not apply to the sentencing exercise.
- A finding of special circumstances allows a court to set a non-parole period that is proportionally shorter than the balance of the sentence, and the offender's age, first-time custody status, and rehabilitation prospects all contributed to that finding here.
- Parity between co-offenders does not require identical outcomes, but a meaningful disparity in treatment can give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance where the criminality of the offender being sentenced was assessed as less serious than that of the co-offender.
- Form 1 offences are taken into account at sentencing to reflect the full scope of criminal conduct, even though they do not produce separate convictions or penalties.
- Under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, the Crown may accumulate multiple discrete acts of supply into a single charge where those acts are sufficiently connected.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 54A
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
Cases:
- Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1 SCR 688
- R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSW 329
- R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594
- R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
- Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 569
- Lisa Deng (1996) 91 A Crim R 80
- R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
- Attorney-General's Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2004) 61 NSWLR 305