Citation: R v Paredes, R v Barillaro, R v Donevski [2011] NSWDC 48
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 March 2011
Judge: Judge Freeman
Background
Three offenders pleaded guilty to charges related to the supply of methylamphetamine in a quantity approaching but less than one kilogram. That quantity exceeded the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams, making the maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment. The pleas were entered on the first two days of what had been scheduled as a multi-week trial.
The underlying conduct centred on events in March 2008. One offender acted as the direct contact with an undercover police officer, supplying a half-ounce sample on 12 March 2008 and negotiating a subsequent sale of approximately one kilogram. The second offender played an intermediary role, connecting suppliers with the prospective purchaser. The third offender was also involved in the arrangement, though his precise role was the subject of dispute.
A person referred to throughout as "Mr X" featured prominently in the background. His exact status was not established, but the court noted he was likely the source of intelligence leading to the police operation, and his conduct was relevant to one offender's claim of duress.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for each offender, given their differing roles in the supply?
- Did the claim of duress or manipulation by one offender (Donevski) reduce his culpability?
- What discount was warranted for guilty pleas entered on the day fixed for trial?
- How should time already spent in custody, and conditions of bail, be accounted for in the sentences?
Decision
Judge Freeman found that all three offenders were meaningfully involved in a serious commercial drug supply operation, though their roles differed in character. Donevski was the primary face-to-face contact with the undercover officer. Barillaro functioned as a classic middleman, connecting buyers and suppliers, and his role was described as "truly vital." Paredes was also integrally involved in the arrangements.
The court gave limited weight to Donevski's claim that Mr X had manipulated or pressured him into participating. While the court accepted background matters, including the outstanding loan and Donevski's financial difficulties, the evidence did not establish sustained coercion. His motivation appeared to be recovery of money rather than submission to any ongoing threat.
For Barillaro, the court rejected the submission that his involvement was limited to a single introduction made as a favour to a threatened friend. The intercepted telephone evidence showed he was actively engaged at multiple points in the scheme, including arranging the sample supply.
On the question of discount, the court acknowledged that the pleas, though entered late, had substantial utilitarian value because they avoided a lengthy trial. A discount of one-sixth (slightly above 15 per cent) was applied, reflecting both utilitarian benefit and some allowance for contrition, tempered by the offenders' attempts during sentencing proceedings to minimise their involvement.
Orders Made
- Jaime Paredes: Convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months from 27 March 2008, eligible for release to supervised parole from 26 September 2012, with a balance of term of 3 years expiring 26 September 2015.
- Mome Donevski: Convicted and sentenced (taking into account a Form 1 matter) to a non-parole period of 4 years from 27 March 2008, eligible for release to supervised parole from 26 March 2012, with a balance of term of 3 years expiring 26 March 2015.
- Jose Barillaro: Convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months from 18 March 2011, eligible for release to supervised parole from 17 June 2014, with a balance of term of 3 years expiring 17 June 2017.
Key Takeaways
- A drug quantity approaching but below one kilogram of methylamphetamine, which exceeds the 250-gram commercial quantity threshold, is a serious example of the relevant offence, even though weight is not the sole determinant of gravity.
- Guilty pleas entered on the day fixed for trial can still attract a meaningful discount where the trial would have been lengthy. The District Court applied a one-sixth discount here, reflecting utilitarian value alongside partial credit for contrition.
- Where an offender claims duress or manipulation, the sentencing court will examine the evidence carefully. Donevski's financial motivation, rather than sustained coercion, was found to be the dominant driver of his involvement, limiting the weight given to that claim.
- An offender's attempts during sentencing proceedings to minimise their role in the offence can qualify the court's acceptance of expressed contrition as genuine.
- Differences in time spent on remand versus on bail are reflected in the calculation of sentence start dates and non-parole periods, so that the effective custodial burden is roughly equalised across co-offenders sentenced at different times.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- The judgment references the commercial quantity threshold (250 grams) and large commercial quantity threshold (1 kilogram) for methylamphetamine, and the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for supply of a commercial quantity, under the relevant NSW drug offences legislation (the specific Act was not cited by name in the provided text).
Cases:
- No cases were cited in the provided text of the judgment.