Citation: Regina v Ryman Farag [2007] NSWDC 366
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 December 2007
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ
Background
The offender was sentenced for six drug offences arising from an undercover police operation conducted between April and June 2006 in the Campbelltown and Casula areas of south-west Sydney. Undercover officers purchased heroin from him on eight occasions across that period, in public car parks near fast food restaurants.
Five of the principal charges were for supplying a prohibited drug (heroin) under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, each carrying a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. The sixth, and most serious, was ongoing supply of a prohibited drug under s 25A, which carries a maximum of 20 years. The court also took into account three further offences (two additional drug supply charges and one possession charge) on a Form 1 basis when sentencing for the ongoing supply offence.
At the time of all six principal offences, the offender was on bail for earlier drug matters committed in 2005. He was a long-term heroin addict who had been heavily dependent since his late teens, and the evidence indicated he was supplying heroin primarily to fund his own habit.
Legal Issues
- How serious were the supply and ongoing supply offences in their objective circumstances, including the offender's bail status and addiction?
- To what extent did the offender's heroin addiction operate as a mitigating or explanatory factor in sentencing?
- What weight should be given to evidence of genuine rehabilitation, including sustained abstinence and strong family support?
- How should the overall sentence be structured across the six offences to reflect totality?
Decision
The District Court assessed the five supply offences across a range of seriousness. The three smaller transactions (valued at $100 to $200) were treated as relatively minor. The two $700 transactions were considered somewhat more serious. The ongoing supply charge, involving three transactions totalling over $16,000 worth of heroin, was treated as fairly serious, though well below the upper end of the range.
The court identified two features as aggravating the objective seriousness. First, all offences were committed while the offender was on bail, representing an abuse of the liberty afforded to him by the justice system. Second, the transactions demonstrated a disregard for public safety. The court acknowledged, however, that the fact the transactions involved undercover police meant the drugs did not actually enter the community, and gave that limited weight.
On the question of addiction, the court accepted that being a drug addict does not automatically reduce a sentence in the way that a guilty plea or assistance to authorities would. However, the court found that addiction was relevant to the objective character of the offending: a person driven by addiction to supply drugs acts with greater impulsivity and impaired judgment than a non-addicted person running drug supply as a calculated business enterprise, and this distinction reduced the relative seriousness of the conduct.
The court gave significant weight to the offender's rehabilitation. Since his arrest in June 2006, he had remained abstinent from illegal drugs, confirmed by 15 urinalyses over six months. He had completed drug counselling, was 80 per cent through a TAFE qualification, and had the close support of his family, including his brother who gave evidence. The court described these rehabilitation efforts as "quite exceptional" and reduced the sentence substantially from what the objective circumstances alone would have warranted.
Orders Made
- Overall sentence of imprisonment for 1 year and 11 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year, all sentences commencing 15 November 2007.
- Release on parole ordered for 14 November 2008, with parole running until 14 October 2009.
- Supervision by Probation and Parole during the parole period directed, with a requirement to comply with recommendations for drug rehabilitation.
- The offender directed to reside with his parents or brother during the parole period.
- The drugs involved in the matter ordered to be destroyed.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that a drug addict's addiction does not operate as an automatic mitigating factor in the way a guilty plea does, but it is relevant to the objective character of the offending, distinguishing impulsive addiction-driven supply from calculated commercial dealing.
- Committing drug supply offences while on bail for earlier drug matters is a clear aggravating factor, reflecting an abuse of the liberty granted by the justice system.
- Where transactions occurred exclusively with undercover police, the court treated the absence of drugs entering the broader community as a factor warranting limited allowance, though not a substantial reduction.
- Demonstrated rehabilitation, including sustained drug abstinence verified by urinalysis, engagement with counselling, educational achievement, and strong family support, can justify a material reduction from the sentence that objective seriousness alone would require.
- Under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, supply of heroin under s 25(1) carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment, while ongoing supply under s 25A carries a maximum of 20 years; the court treated the s 25A offence as the principal charge for sentencing purposes.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10, 25(1), 25A, 39P
Cases cited:
No specific cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.