AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 1 February 2008

R v CJC

[2008] NSWDC 137

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING JUVENILE OFFENDER GOING SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG (ECSTACY) WHETHER TO SENTENCE AT LAW

Citation: R v CJC [2008] NSWDC 137
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 February 2008
Judge(s): Nicholson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, referred to as CJC, was a juvenile who, during his seventeenth year, progressed from recreational ecstasy use to operating as a drug supplier. He pleaded guilty to two offences: ongoing supply of ecstasy (MDMA) on at least three separate occasions between January and February 2007 at Castle Hill, and agreeing to supply 500 ecstasy tablets to an undercover police operative.

The supply arrangement involved CJC sourcing tablets from his own supplier, delivering them to a co-offender named Chippendal, who then on-sold them to an undercover officer. CJC was not involved in negotiations with the operative directly; his role was to source and deliver the product and collect payment. The agreement to supply 500 tablets was ultimately never fulfilled, apparently because CJC's supplier could not or would not provide that quantity.

By the time of sentencing, CJC had been committed to the District Court, raising the threshold question of whether he should be sentenced as an adult or under the juvenile sentencing regime.

  • Whether CJC should be sentenced "at law" (that is, as an adult) or under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
  • How to assess the objective seriousness of the ongoing supply and agreement to supply offences
  • What weight to give to CJC's age, background, plea of guilty, and rehabilitation prospects
  • How to apply principles of totality, parity (with the adult co-offender's sentence), and special circumstances
  • The appropriate length of imprisonment and whether sentences should be served in juvenile detention

Decision

The court determined that the offences, while serious, fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness. Relevant factors included the relatively modest quantities supplied (four lots of fifty tablets), CJC's age and absence of prior record, and the fact that the supplies exceeded his normal dealing level because they were made to a police operative. The court assessed the offending as having the potential to impact up to sixty people, which prevented it from being categorised as trivial.

On the threshold question of jurisdiction, the court resolved to sentence CJC under the provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, reflecting his juvenile status and the Act's emphasis on rehabilitation and the significance of age. The court expressly distinguished his position from that of the adult co-offender Chippendal, setting a lower starting point for the overall sentence accordingly.

For the ongoing supply offence, the court set a pre-plea starting point of four years imprisonment, reduced by twenty-five per cent for the guilty plea, producing an overall sentence of three years. For the agreement to supply, a starting point of eighteen months was similarly reduced by twenty-five per cent, resulting in fourteen months. The sentences were structured with a non-parole period and balance of term, and ordered to run partly concurrently.

Orders Made

  • CJC convicted of ongoing supply of MDMA between 11 January 2007 and 8 February 2007 at Castle Hill
  • Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months imprisonment, commencing 15 February 2007 and expiring 14 May 2008, with a balance of term of 21 months expiring 14 February 2010
  • CJC convicted of agreeing to supply MDMA (the 500-tablet agreement), sentenced to 14 months imprisonment commencing 15 February 2007 and expiring 14 April 2008
  • Release to parole ordered on 14 May 2008
  • Pursuant to section 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, sentences ordered to be served at a detention centre

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 rather than sentencing CJC as an adult, reflecting the Act's requirement to give greater weight to an offender's juvenile status when the offence was committed during childhood.
  • Objective seriousness in drug supply cases is assessed by reference to quantity, the number of actual transactions, the offender's role, age, and criminal history; here those factors placed the offending below the mid-range despite the commercial nature of the dealing.
  • A twenty-five per cent discount applied to both sentences in recognition of the guilty pleas, consistent with the sentencing court's obligation to give credit for utilitarian value at an early stage.
  • Parity with a co-offender's sentence is relevant but not determinative; the court here set a lower starting point than that applied to the adult co-offender, reflecting the distinct position of a juvenile trafficker.
  • Under section 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, even where a juvenile is sentenced to imprisonment, the court retains power to order that the sentence be served in a juvenile detention centre rather than an adult correctional facility.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 11, 18, 19
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (definition of "supply")

Cases
- R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597
- R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329
- R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
- Roper v Simmons (2005) 543 US 1
- R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447