AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 7 November 2014

R v Milosevski

[2014] NSWDC 333

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE FORMS 1 USER/DEALER SUPPLY COCAINE SUPPLY METHYL

Citation: R v Milosevski [2014] NSWDC 333
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 November 2014
Judge: Berman SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 38-year-old man with no prior serious criminal history, appeared for sentencing on two charges of drug supply: one count of supplying cocaine and one count of supplying methamphetamine. At the time of his arrest, police also found $16,980 in cash and a quantity of cannabis at his home, giving rise to associated matters listed on two Form 1s (a procedural mechanism that allows the court to take additional, admitted offences into account when passing sentence without recording separate convictions for them).

The offender had been living as what the court described as a "user-dealer," supporting his own drug habit by supplying to others. He had become isolated from his family and had no meaningful daily purpose outside drug use and supply. He was on a section 9 good behaviour bond at the time the offences were committed.

The offender had been in custody for approximately one year by the time of sentencing. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and gave evidence before the court.

  • What aggregate custodial sentence was appropriate given the objective gravity of the offending, the offender's personal circumstances, and his early guilty plea?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the statutory ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.
  • What action, if any, should be taken for the breach of the existing section 9 bond.

Decision

Berman SC DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence with a head sentence of four years and a non-parole period of two years, backdated to commence on 21 November 2013. The court noted that, absent the aggregate provisions, it would have imposed three years on each of the two principal supply offences. The 25 per cent discount for the early guilty plea was applied to reduce what would otherwise have been a longer sentence.

The court made a finding of special circumstances, justifying a non-parole period shorter than the statutory default ratio (which is ordinarily one-third of the head sentence reserved for parole). The court's reasoning was that the offender, as a long-term drug user, would face significant challenges on release and that an extended parole period would benefit both the offender and the community by reducing the risk of reoffending.

On the question of the section 9 bond, the court acknowledged that the offending constituted a breach but decided to take no further action, given the sentences already imposed. The court also noted positively that the offender had no traumatic background driving his drug use, had demonstrated genuine remorse, had reconnected with his family during custody, and had concrete plans to obtain qualifications while imprisoned.

Orders Made

  • Seized drugs ordered to be destroyed.
  • $16,980 ordered to be forfeited.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied a 25 per cent sentencing discount for an early guilty plea across both principal supply offences, consistent with the offender's cooperation with police and his plea at the earliest opportunity.
  • A finding of special circumstances can be made where a long-term drug-dependent offender requires an extended parole supervision period to reduce the risk of relapse and reoffending upon release.
  • Where an offender is already subject to a meaningful custodial sentence, a court may decline to take action on a concurrent section 9 bond breach, treating the sentences imposed as sufficient response to the overall criminality.
  • The use of aggregate sentencing provisions allowed the court to impose a single combined sentence rather than discrete terms for each offence, simplifying the calculation of the non-parole period.
  • Positive factors at sentencing, including genuine remorse, family reconnection, absence of trauma-related drug use, and plans for rehabilitation, were weighed by the court, though they did not displace the need for a custodial term given the objective seriousness of supply offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Section 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (good behaviour bond provisions)
- Form 1 procedure under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment text.