AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 March 2011

R v Follett

[2011] NSWDC 251

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE ONGOING SUPPLY METHYLAMPHETAMINE (X2) 45 GRAMS 9 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT

Citation: R v Follett [2011] NSWDC 251
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 March 2011
Judge: Nicholson SC DCJ

Background

The offender was an unemployed woman living in Wellington, New South Wales, who received methylamphetamine from her sister's de facto partner and distributed it into the local community. Police established a controlled operation targeting a larger drug supply enterprise operating between Sydney, Wellington and Dubbo. Surveillance and monitoring revealed the offender's involvement across two distinct periods of supply in early 2010.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of ongoing supply of methylamphetamine on indictment. She also asked the court to take into account a separate supply of 0.5 grams on 18 January 2010 as a Form 1 matter (a related offence dealt with at sentencing without a separate conviction). A total of seven monitored deals were established, involving 3.4 grams of methylamphetamine across approximately three months.

The Crown characterised the offender's role as slightly higher within the enterprise than her co-accused sister, pointing to evidence that she also took instructions from the principal organiser and had completed one sale involving a higher-purity product at a substantially higher price.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the offending, having regard to the quantity of drug supplied, the offender's role in the enterprise, and the nature of each transaction?
  • What subjective factors, including the offender's personal circumstances, were relevant to the sentencing exercise?
  • What discount applied to the sentence for the offender's early guilty plea?
  • How should the two counts of ongoing supply be structured in terms of total sentence, non-parole period, and concurrency or accumulation?

Decision

His Honour assessed the objective criminality as falling in the lower range, given the relatively small total quantity of 3.4 grams distributed predominantly in single or double doses to what appeared to be end users. The offender was characterised as a last-line distributor, not someone who was on-supplying in bulk. That said, the court was satisfied the monitored deals did not represent the full extent of her dealing, and the sale of 0.43 grams at 41% purity for $500 indicated awareness that the product could be broken down into multiple doses.

The court placed the offender slightly higher in the enterprise hierarchy than her sister, though both were identified as street-level distributors. Her knowledge of the broader operation was limited on the agreed facts, and no specific organisational role beyond distribution was attributed to her. The Form 1 matters, including supply and use of premises as a drug house, had an upward effect on the overall sentence.

On subjective factors, the court considered the offender's early guilty plea (entered in the Local Court), her personal circumstances, and other relevant matters. A 25% discount applied to reflect the plea. During proceedings, the court identified an arithmetic error in its initial calculation of the discount and corrected it under section 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, reducing the sentence accordingly.

The corrected total sentence was eleven months and one week, with a non-parole period of nine months and one week. Because that non-parole period had already expired by the date the correction was made, the court ordered the offender's immediate release to parole.

Orders Made

  • Two counts of ongoing supply of methylamphetamine sentenced on indictment.
  • Corrected total head sentence: eleven months and one week.
  • Non-parole period: nine months and one week, calculated from 8 June 2010 to 14 March 2011.
  • Parole period: two months, expiring 14 May 2011.
  • Immediate release to parole ordered (non-parole period having already expired as at 18 March 2011).
  • A concurrent fixed-term sentence of twelve months with a nine-month non-parole period imposed on one count had also expired by the date of the correction.
  • Section 166 certificate dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court assessed a street-level methylamphetamine distributor supplying 3.4 grams across seven monitored transactions over three months as falling at the lower end of objective seriousness, with harm characterised as low in quantity terms.
  • Where an offender is situated within a larger drug supply enterprise, the sentencing court will examine the specific role attributed by the agreed facts rather than imputing broader organisational knowledge not established in evidence.
  • Form 1 matters (offences taken into account without separate conviction) had a measurable upward effect on the overall sentence, consistent with their purpose in reflecting the full scope of an offender's conduct.
  • Under section 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, a sentencing court retains the power to correct an arithmetic error in calculating a guilty plea discount, even after the sentence has been formally imposed.
  • A 25% discount for an early guilty plea entered in the Local Court was applied; the correction of the initial miscalculation reduced the head sentence from approximately fifteen months to eleven months and one week.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including ss 43 and 166

Cases cited: None recorded in the judgment metadata or text.