AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 7 July 2016

R v Bassim Karim

[2016] NSWDC 261

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT 1985 ONLY FULL TIME CUSTODY APPROPRIATE IMPORTANCE OF GENERAL DETERRENCE

Citation: R v Bassim Karim [2016] NSWDC 261
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 July 2016
Judge: Tupman DCJ

Background

The offender was originally committed for trial on multiple counts relating to the manufacture and supply of methylamphetamine in the Sutherland Shire area of Sydney in late 2013 and early 2014. A police investigation had identified him as involved in manufacturing operations conducted at two separate sites: his residential unit in Sylvania and a shipping container facility in Tempe.

On 17 December 2013, police executed a search warrant at the Tempe container yard and found chemicals and equipment consistent with drug manufacture, along with a quantity of methylamphetamine. A simultaneous search of the Sylvania unit revealed further manufacturing equipment. Expert analysis established that the Tempe premises had been used to produce approximately 52 grams of methylamphetamine, and the Sylvania premises approximately 131 grams. On 7 April 2014, police arrested the offender at a Woolooware address, where they found 16.6 grams of methylamphetamine on his person. During the arrest, the offender pushed a police officer in an attempt to flee.

The offender had originally been committed for trial with a co-accused. After the trial date was vacated and further negotiations occurred, the offender pleaded guilty on 18 March 2016 to two counts on a fresh indictment. Two further charges from the original indictment were dealt with as Form 1 matters (offences taken into account on sentence without a separate conviction). Four related summary offences were also sent up to the District Court for sentence under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

  • What sentence was appropriate for manufacturing methylamphetamine contrary to s 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, taking into account a second manufacturing charge on the Form 1?
  • What sentence was appropriate for deemed supply of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(1) of the same Act?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's significant drug addiction, personal history, and guilty plea (entered late, after committal for trial)?
  • How should the four related summary offences sent up under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 be dealt with?

Decision

Her Honour found that the offender's involvement in manufacturing methylamphetamine was substantial. Although the offender claimed he manufactured the drug for personal use to avoid having to purchase it (having been the victim of an armed robbery by a drug supplier), Tupman DCJ accepted that his judgment had been significantly impaired by his serious addiction. The court also accepted that the 16.6 grams found on him at the time of arrest was primarily for personal use, but the guilty plea to deemed supply acknowledged that at least some was for supply, likely by sharing with associates.

Despite these mitigating personal circumstances, Her Honour concluded that only full-time custody was appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases involving significant involvement in drug trafficking, even where the offender's criminality was partly driven by addiction. The late guilty plea, entered after committal for trial and shortly before a six-week trial was to proceed, attracted some discount but a limited one given its timing.

On the four s 166 summary offences (possessing instructions to manufacture a prohibited drug and organising or conducting drug premises), Her Honour was critical of the decision to send them to the District Court at all. The court characterised them as backup offences or matters already subsumed within the manufacturing counts, and noted they should have been withdrawn and dismissed in the Local Court. The court nonetheless dealt with them by recording convictions under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, making no further order.

Orders Made

  • Count 1 (manufacturing methylamphetamine): Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months commencing 19 January 2016 (expiring 18 July 2017), followed by a parole period of 15 months (expiring 18 October 2018), for a total term of 2 years and 9 months. Release to parole on condition of supervision by Probation and Parole, with drug counselling and psychological/psychiatric treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Form 1 offences taken into account.
  • Count 2 (deemed supply of methylamphetamine): Convicted and sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months imprisonment commencing 19 January 2016, to be served concurrently with Count 1.
  • Section 166 offences (sequences 2, 3, 5 and 6): Convicted pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. No further order.

Key Takeaways

  • Full-time custody was the only appropriate sentencing option where an offender had significant involvement in the manufacture of methylamphetamine across multiple premises, even where addiction was an established mitigating factor.
  • General deterrence carries substantial weight in sentencing for drug manufacture offences, and personal circumstances attributable to addiction do not displace the need for a custodial term in serious cases.
  • A guilty plea entered late, after committal for trial and shortly before a lengthy trial was to commence, attracts only a limited sentencing discount compared with an early plea.
  • Under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, a deemed supply charge based on possession of 16.6 grams of methylamphetamine was treated as the less serious of the two principal offences, attracting a concurrent fixed term rather than an additional cumulative penalty.
  • The District Court expressed clear criticism of the practice of sending summary offences to the higher court under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 where those offences are merely backup charges or are already captured within the principal indictable counts. Such matters, the court observed, unnecessarily consume court resources.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 24(1) and 25(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases cited: No cases cited in the judgment.