AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 5 September 2008

R v Samantha Jane LENDILL

[2008] NSWDC 394

Drugs
CRIME SENTENCE CONVICTION AT TRIAL SUPPLY .36 GRAM COCAINE SUPPLY 3.99GRAMS METHYLAMPHETAMINE FORM OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCE

Citation: R v Samantha Jane Lendill [2008] NSWDC 394
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 September 2008
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ

Background

The offender was convicted by jury of two counts of supply of prohibited drugs under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985: supply of 3.99 grams of methylamphetamine and supply of 0.36 grams of cocaine. The charges were based on deemed supply provisions, meaning the quantity found in her possession gave rise to a statutory presumption that the drugs were held for supply purposes.

Police stopped the offender's car in Mona Vale in the early hours of 17 July 2007. A search uncovered resealable bags of methylamphetamine, a half-tablet of ecstasy, a set of digital scales, a small knife, and approximately $800 in cash. The offender maintained at trial that some items were not hers, but the jury convicted her on both counts.

The offender had no significant prior criminal history. Evidence before the court traced a life that had been substantially derailed by two factors: a serious car accident in 1998 in which she broke her neck and back, and a subsequent relationship with a violent and abusive partner who introduced her to methylamphetamine. She had been selling drugs to fund her own addiction.

  • Whether the offender should receive full-time imprisonment or a suspended sentence.
  • What weight should be given to subjective circumstances, including addiction, personal history, and rehabilitation prospects, in determining the form of a custodial sentence.
  • Whether the conditions imposed under a suspended sentence order under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 were appropriate.

Decision

The court accepted that a custodial sentence was unavoidable given the nature of the offences. The central question was whether that sentence should be served in full-time custody or suspended. The court concluded that the unusual confluence of personal circumstances, combined with positive rehabilitation steps already taken, made suspension appropriate.

Several factors weighed heavily in the offender's favour. She had a short criminal record, there was no evidence of planning or organisation in the offending, and she was a drug user who sold to fund her own habit rather than a commercial dealer. She had ceased drug use on entering custody, completed a domestic violence course, and joined Narcotics Anonymous. Urinalysis confirmed she remained drug-free.

The court accepted reports from both a psychologist and the Probation and Parole Service. The psychologist's report found a good history of psychosocial functioning and genuine motivation to engage in treatment, and concluded that further incarceration was likely to harm both the offender and her two children. The pre-sentence report identified strong family support, including an offer of accommodation and employment from her parents. The court weighed against these factors the pre-sentence report's cautious note that maintaining abstinence remained uncertain.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the offender to two years imprisonment for the methylamphetamine offence and one year for the cocaine offence, both suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court emphasised that breach of the conditions, including any positive drug test or failure to comply with Probation and Parole, would make it very difficult to avoid full-time imprisonment.

Orders Made

  • Sentence of 2 years imprisonment for supply of methylamphetamine, suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for 2 years.
  • Sentence of 1 year imprisonment for supply of cocaine, suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Suspension conditions to include good behaviour, compliance with Probation and Parole Service supervision, and urinalysis testing.
  • Order for destruction of the drugs under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
  • Order for forfeiture of $585 in cash (goods in custody).

Key Takeaways

  • A custodial sentence was mandatory for offences of this kind, but the District Court held that the form of that sentence remained a genuine discretionary question, with suspended sentences available where rehabilitation prospects and personal circumstances warranted them.
  • Where an offender's drug use and offending can be traced to identifiable external catalysts, such as a serious physical injury and an abusive relationship, those circumstances may carry significant mitigating weight at sentencing.
  • The absence of commercial intent or planning, combined with evidence that the offender was a user selling to fund her own addiction, supported a less severe form of custodial order.
  • Positive steps taken during the remand period, including completing courses, joining support groups, and returning clean urinalysis results, were treated as concrete indicators of rehabilitation rather than mere expressions of remorse.
  • Under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a suspended sentence carries stricter consequences for breach than an ordinary bond: the sentencing court noted that breach makes return to full-time custody extremely difficult to avoid.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 12 (suspended sentences)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25 (deemed supply), s 39P (drug destruction orders)

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the judgment.