AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 9 July 2015

R v Razzak

[2015] NSWDC 366

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE DRUG SUPPLY METHYLAMPHETAMINE CANNABIS PARAPHERNALIA OF DRUG DEALING,

Citation: R v Razzak [2015] NSWDC 366
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 July 2015
Judge: Berman SC DCJ

Background

The offender was a young man who had begun using marijuana at around age 17 as a means of managing stress, progressing to methylamphetamine by his early twenties. His escalating drug use gradually displaced his studies and employment, and he eventually turned to drug supply.

Police executed a search warrant at premises in Beverley Hills, where the offender was found surrounded by small resealable bags containing methylamphetamine. A safe opened with a key in his possession contained further drugs. A subsequent search of his bedroom at his mother's home uncovered additional methylamphetamine, cannabis, empty bags, cash, and a drug ledger.

The offender faced sentence on two counts of supplying a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine), one count of dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime, and two cannabis possession matters dealt with on a Form 1 (that is, taken into account at sentencing without separate conviction or penalty).

  • What custodial sentence was appropriate for two separate offences of supplying methylamphetamine, having regard to the totality principle and the need for partial accumulation?
  • How should general deterrence and specific deterrence be weighed given the offender's personal circumstances, drug addiction, and prospects for rehabilitation?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a non-parole period that departs from the standard statutory ratio (that is, the usual requirement that the non-parole period be at least three-quarters of the head sentence).
  • How to deal with the proceeds of crime charge without double-counting criminality already reflected in the supply offences.

Decision

Berman SC DCJ accepted that full-time custody was the only appropriate outcome, a position conceded by defence counsel. The court's task was to determine the minimum period that properly reflected the applicable sentencing principles, particularly general and specific deterrence.

The court gave significant weight to general deterrence, noting that drug supply causes harm of enormous proportions to the community. It also identified specific deterrence as important given the offender's long-term addiction and the circumstances he would face upon release, including no partner and no employment.

The court found special circumstances, concluding it was in both the offender's and the community's interest that he receive a longer period of supervised parole upon release. The offender's remorse, first time in custody, guilty pleas (attracting a 25% discount), and some prospects for rehabilitation were all taken into account, though his prior drug supply conviction represented a significant escalation in offending.

On the proceeds of crime charge, the court declined to impose any additional penalty. Because the supply for profit was already treated as an aggravating feature of the supply offences, imposing a further penalty for the proceeds matter would have constituted impermissible double-counting. The court therefore convicted the offender with no further penalty under section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Orders Made

  • Proceeds of crime charge: Convicted, no further penalty pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
  • Supply of 9.83 grams of methylamphetamine: Non-parole period of 15 months, head sentence of 30 months, commencing 28 August 2014.
  • Supply of 15.06 grams of methylamphetamine (with two Form 1 cannabis possession matters taken into account): Non-parole period of 18 months, head sentence of 36 months, commencing 28 November 2014.
  • Overall effective sentence: Non-parole period of 21 months, head sentence of 39 months, with eligibility for parole from 27 May 2016.
  • Backup charges dismissed.
  • Confiscation orders made by consent.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that general deterrence is of prime importance in drug supply sentencing, reflecting the serious community harm caused by drug trafficking.
  • Where a proceeds of crime charge arises from the same conduct already treated as an aggravating feature of a supply offence, imposing a further penalty risks impermissible double-counting, and a conviction with no additional penalty under s 10A may be appropriate.
  • Special circumstances were established on the basis that extended post-release supervision served both the offender's rehabilitation and the community's interest in preventing reoffending.
  • Partial accumulation of sentences was applied to reflect the additional criminality of drug supply occurring across two separate premises.
  • A guilty plea entered at the Local Court attracted a 25% sentence discount on the basis of its utilitarian value, even where the offender had initially denied all offending in a police interview.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW), including s 10A (conviction with no further penalty)

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