Citation: R v Ronald Ian Lennox [2007] NSWDC 388
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 13 August 2007
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a professional interstate truck driver, pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited drug, specifically methylamphetamine, at Bulahdelah on 5 September 2006. Police discovered the drugs after attending the scene of a single-vehicle accident in which his semi-trailer left the Pacific Highway and rolled onto an embankment. No other road users were injured.
At the time of the offence, the offender had been using approximately one gram of amphetamines daily, dissolved in coffee, over a period of around 12 months. His stated purpose was to remain awake during a demanding schedule of Sydney-to-Brisbane runs. The total quantity of amphetamine-related substance found in the cabin exceeded 26 grams, though the Crown accepted a plea on the basis that the drugs were for personal use.
The offender's personal circumstances at the time were difficult. His mother had died a few weeks before the offence and his father died shortly after. He also has a daughter with cerebral palsy, in whose care he plays an active role. By the time of sentencing, he reported having ceased drug use since his arrest and had returned to work as an interstate truck driver.
Legal Issues
- Whether a good behaviour bond under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was appropriate in lieu of imprisonment for possession of a prohibited drug.
- What weight to give the offender's prior criminal record, personal circumstances, and plea of guilty as mitigating factors under section 21A(3) of the same Act.
- Whether the sentencing court could properly take into account the purpose of the drug possession (to remain awake while driving) without re-sentencing the offender for the related driving offence already dealt with in the Local Court.
Decision
Cogswell SC DCJ accepted that a good behaviour bond was the appropriate sentencing outcome. The court noted this was the offender's first drug conviction and expressed confidence that he was unlikely to reoffend, particularly given his evidence that he had stopped using drugs since arrest and appreciated the danger he had posed to himself and other road users.
The court assessed the offender's character as "fairly good," despite a prior assault and a goods-in-custody offence. Each was relatively minor and there was only one of each, meaning the prior record did not support a finding of unblemished character but did not preclude a favourable assessment overall.
The court was careful to distinguish its role from that of the Local Court, which had already sentenced the offender for driving under the influence. While it was not permissible to punish the offender again for that conduct, the court found it was relevant to take into account, as part of the circumstances of the possession, that the drugs were being used to stay awake during work. The court regarded the bond conditions, including supervision and mandatory drug testing, as adequate to address both specific and general deterrence.
Orders Made
- A good behaviour bond for a period of two years under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
- Conditions of the bond: the offender must appear before the court if called upon; remain of good behaviour throughout the bond period; be supervised by the Probation and Parole Service; and submit to drug testing (including urinalysis) as required by supervising officers.
- The offender was ordered to report to the Probation and Parole Office at Penrith on or before Friday, 17 August 2007.
Key Takeaways
- A section 9 good behaviour bond remains available even where an offence involves a significant quantity of a prohibited drug, provided the sentencing court is satisfied the offender is unlikely to reoffend and that rehabilitation prospects are good.
- Prior convictions for assault and goods in custody did not preclude a finding of "fairly good" character, but the District Court declined to treat those matters as giving the offender an unblemished record.
- Where a related driving offence has already been dealt with in a lower court, a sentencing court must take care not to punish the offender twice for that conduct, though the purpose behind drug possession remains a legitimate contextual consideration.
- Supervision conditions and mandatory drug testing can be incorporated into a section 9 bond to address specific deterrence in cases involving substance dependency.
- Significant personal hardship, including bereavement and responsibility for a child with serious disability, was treated as relevant context for the offending without constituting a complete excuse.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9 and 21A
Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.