AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 26 September 2008

R v Martin Ture GILLIES

[2008] NSWDC 279

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE ONGOING SUPPLY OF ECSTASTY FORM 1

Citation: R v Martin Ture Gillies [2008] NSWDC 279
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 September 2008
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 60-year-old man of Maori descent, pleaded guilty at an early stage to ongoing supply of ecstasy. The charge arose from a series of controlled purchases by an undercover police officer between December 2007 and January 2008, during which the offender supplied a total of 366 ecstasy tablets (109.9 grams) across four separate transactions.

At the time of his arrest, the offender was found with cash and a small quantity of cannabis. A subsequent search of his home uncovered further cash consistent with drug proceeds, 306.4 grams of cannabis, digital scales, and multiple mobile phones. These matters, together with a charge of dealing with suspected proceeds of crime, were placed on a Form 1 to be taken into account at sentencing (meaning the court considered them without recording separate convictions for each).

The offender had a long history of drug and alcohol dependency, was in poor health, and had been unemployed for an extended period. He had no prior custodial history.

  • What is the appropriate sentence for ongoing supply of ecstasy, taking into account objective seriousness, personal circumstances, and the Form 1 matters?
  • Whether a full-time custodial sentence was warranted given the offender's age, health, and rehabilitation progress.
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify adjusting the ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence.
  • What discount should be applied to reflect the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea?

Decision

The court found this to be a serious offence. The offender had supplied just under the commercial quantity threshold of 125 grams and was prepared to deal at a level above mere street supply, as demonstrated by a single transaction involving 200 tablets. The court described him as an "enthusiastic and successful drug supplier" and concluded that a full-time custodial sentence was the only appropriate outcome.

In assessing personal circumstances, the court acknowledged several mitigating factors: the offender's early guilty plea, his progress in addressing long-term drug and alcohol dependency, his positive standing in the Sydney Maori community, and the additional hardship custody would impose given his serious medical conditions (severe asthma, arthritis, and ischemic heart disease). The court noted he had already lost significant weight during the nearly three months he spent on remand. However, the court observed that the offender had expressed no remorse, which limited the weight it could give to character evidence.

The court found special circumstances existed, warranting a departure from the standard one-third ratio between the non-parole period and the overall sentence. Because the offender had never previously served a custodial sentence and would need ongoing support for rehabilitation upon release, the court extended the parole period at the expense of the non-parole period. A 25 per cent discount was applied to the sentence for the early guilty plea.

Orders Made

  • Non-parole period of 18 months, commencing 29 June 2008 and expiring 28 December 2009 (the commencement date reflecting time already served on remand).
  • Head sentence of 3 years imprisonment.
  • Order for destruction of drugs.
  • Order made under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crimes Act.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated a supply of 109.9 grams of ecstasy (just under the 125-gram commercial quantity threshold) as a serious offence warranting full-time imprisonment, particularly where the offender operated above street level in the supply chain.
  • Special circumstances justified extending the parole period beyond the standard ratio, where the offender had no prior custodial history and had demonstrated genuine rehabilitation efforts requiring ongoing support after release.
  • A 25 per cent sentence discount applied to reflect the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea, consistent with established sentencing practice.
  • The absence of remorse was a material consideration: despite positive character references, the court was unable to treat contrition as a mitigating factor because no evidence of it was presented.
  • Additional custodial hardship from pre-existing serious health conditions is a relevant factor in sentencing, even where a medical report indicates no direct impact on health during imprisonment.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Confiscation of Proceeds of Crimes Act (NSW)

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment text.