AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 29 April 2016

R v Casey Cameron

[2016] NSWDC 172

Drugs
SENTENCING

Citation: R v Casey Cameron [2016] NSWDC 172
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 April 2016
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to one count of supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis, contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985. The charge covered six separate transactions involving methylamphetamine (ice) between 20 May 2015 and 16 June 2015, each made to undercover police officers or arranged through intermediaries. The amounts ranged from 0.04 grams to 0.96 grams, with one transaction involving rock salt held out as methylamphetamine.

The offender was a single mother of two young children, with a limited prior criminal record largely involving traffic matters. She had a diagnosed history of persistent depressive disorder and substance use disorder, and had commenced using methylamphetamine in early 2015 following relationship breakdown and excessive alcohol use. She had been in custody for approximately two months and 24 days before being released on Supreme Court bail.

At the sentencing hearing, the court received a pre-sentence report, letters from a drug and alcohol day program, and a psychiatric report from Dr Richard Furst. Dr Furst assessed the offender as remorseful and insightful, with generally good rehabilitation prospects and a low risk of reoffending.

  • Whether the objective seriousness of ongoing drug supply required a full-time custodial sentence, given the established line of authority in that direction
  • Whether the availability of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) under s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (C(SP)A) provided an appropriate alternative to full-time imprisonment
  • How the offender's mental health diagnoses, drug dependency, rehabilitation efforts, and personal circumstances bore on the sentence

Decision

The court accepted that the offence was serious, carrying a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, and that the offender was substantially involved in the supply of prohibited drugs over a period of approximately four weeks. The supply was commercial in nature: the offender admitted she sold drugs to make money and to fund her own drug use. The commission of the last supply on the same day she appeared in court for unrelated traffic matters was treated as an aggravating factor.

Mahony SC DCJ acknowledged the well-established line of Court of Criminal Appeal authority holding that full-time custody is ordinarily required for substantial involvement in drug supply, absent truly exceptional circumstances. However, the court relied on EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36, in which Simpson J observed that those earlier statements of "policy" or "rule" predated the introduction of ICOs in 2010, and that failing to consider an ICO as an alternative to full-time imprisonment may cause injustice in a particular case.

The court found that a sentence of no more than two years imprisonment was warranted, and that the combination of mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, genuine remorse, mental health diagnoses, drug dependency as a partial explanation for the offending, rehabilitation steps already undertaken, and good prospects of recovery, made the offender suitable for assessment for an ICO. The court was satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate, but that an ICO of 18 months adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending while addressing the offender's rehabilitative needs.

Orders Made

  • The court was satisfied that no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate.
  • The court was satisfied the sentence was likely to be for a period of no more than two years.
  • The offender was referred for assessment of suitability for an Intensive Correction Order.
  • Pursuant to s 7 of the C(SP)A, the offender was ordered to serve the sentence by way of ICO for a period of 18 months from the date of sentence, subject to standard conditions and the following additional conditions:
  • Report to Community Corrections at Wagga Wagga within 7 days of the order.
  • Reside at the specified address.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that the prior rule favouring full-time custody for substantial drug supply must now be read alongside the availability of ICOs, introduced in October 2010, following the reasoning in EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36.
  • A combination of personal mitigating factors, including diagnosed mental health conditions, drug dependency underlying the offending, demonstrated rehabilitation steps, genuine remorse, and an early guilty plea, can collectively support a non-full-time custodial disposition even for serious supply offences.
  • Where an offender commits further offending on the same day as an unrelated court appearance, that conduct constitutes an aggravating factor at sentence.
  • Under the court's approach here, the ICO was treated as a sentencing option capable of reflecting both the objective seriousness of drug supply and the purposes of rehabilitation, not as a means of avoiding the gravity of the offence.
  • Psychiatric evidence addressing the connection between underlying depression and drug-related offending was relevant to moral culpability, but the court stopped short of treating it as reducing the objective seriousness of the offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW), s 25A(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 7, 12

Cases
- EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
- Lamb v R [2014] NSWCCA 50
- R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
- R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371
- R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420