Citation: R v Wortley [2014] NSWDC 212
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 November 2014
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ
Background
The offender was arrested in August 2013 on a Country Link train at Broadmeadow after a drug detection dog indicated interest near him. A search revealed three bags of amphetamines totalling 47.3 grams, which he had purchased in the Newcastle area intending to supply.
Despite spending eight days in custody before being granted bail, the offender reoffended. In December 2013, police in Gunnedah received information he was selling drugs at a local bowling club. When police approached, he fled and discarded a bag containing 5.19 grams of methylamphetamine.
The offender pleaded guilty to both supply charges. He had a prior conviction for drug supply, for which he had received a suspended sentence that had plainly not deterred him.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for two offences of supplying prohibited drugs, where the offender had a prior drug supply conviction?
- What discounts applied for the guilty pleas and for the offender's assistance to authorities (the contents of a sealed exhibit)?
- Whether the sentence should be served as full-time custody or, given particular circumstances, by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO)?
Decision
Berman SC DCJ reaffirmed the general principle that those who supply prohibited drugs to a substantial degree must expect full-time custody unless exceptional circumstances exist. The offender's personal circumstances, including his caring role for a partner diagnosed with bipolar disorder, did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting departure from that principle.
The court applied a combined discount of approximately 40 per cent, reflecting both the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas and the offender's cooperation with authorities, the details of which were contained in a sealed exhibit. His Honour declined to differentiate precisely between the two components of that discount, treating them together in determining both the length and manner of the sentence.
The court identified the contents of the sealed exhibit as the one factor that distinguished this case from the ordinarily depressing circumstances of a drug supply matter. That material informed not only the length of the custodial term but also the court's consideration of whether an ICO was appropriate. His Honour determined that a custodial sentence was required but that the sentence might be served by way of an ICO, subject to a suitability assessment.
Orders Made
- Bail granted to the offender pending assessment.
- A report ordered as to the offender's suitability to serve his sentence of imprisonment by way of an Intensive Corrections Order.
- A condition of bail imposed requiring the offender to submit to urinalysis as frequently as directed by Probation and Parole, to verify his claim of having ceased drug use.
- The sealed exhibit (Exhibit B) ordered to be kept sealed unless opened by further order of a judge of the District Court or a superior court.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed the established sentencing principle that offenders who supply prohibited drugs to a substantial degree must expect full-time custody in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
- Hardship to third parties, including dependants, does not ordinarily constitute exceptional circumstances capable of displacing a custodial term for serious drug supply.
- A combined discount of approximately 40 per cent was available where an offender both pleaded guilty and provided assistance to authorities, without strict numerical separation between those two components.
- Cooperation with authorities, where detailed in a sealed exhibit, can influence not only the length of a custodial sentence but also the manner in which it is served, potentially supporting an ICO rather than full-time imprisonment.
- Suitability for an ICO remained contingent on a Probation and Parole assessment and, as a bail condition, on the offender submitting to regular urinalysis.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in the judgment text or metadata.