AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 8 September 2017

R v Garland; R v Mallinson; R v Morris; R v Williams

[2017] NSWDC 258

Drugs

Citation: R v Garland; R v Mallinson; R v Morris; R v Williams [2017] NSWDC 258
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 September 2017
Judge(s): Bright DCJ

Background

Police established Strike Force Yellowbox in May 2015 to investigate the supply of methylamphetamine in the Maitland region. Using telephone interceptions and surveillance, investigators identified a hierarchical drug supply syndicate operating across the Hunter and Port Stephens area, headed by a man named Jeremy Hunt, who had not yet been sentenced at the time of this judgment.

Four members of that syndicate came before the District Court for sentence. They occupied different levels of the organisation: one co-led the enterprise from a position directly below Hunt, another managed supply operations in the leaders' absence, a third on-supplied at street level, and a fourth assisted her partner by facilitating two transactions from their shared home.

All four had pleaded guilty at Newcastle Local Court and each received a 25 percent discount on sentence for doing so. Jeremy Hunt's matter was separately listed for trial.

Legal Issues

  • What sentence was appropriate for each offender, having regard to their individual role in the syndicate, the quantity of drug supplied, the purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, and the standard non-parole period where applicable?
  • Whether special circumstances existed for any offender that would justify varying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
  • Whether a s 11 remand (remand to a rehabilitation facility in lieu of a custodial sentence) was appropriate for Mallinson?
  • Whether imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty for Morris, or whether a community-based order was open?

Decision

Ronald Garland: Supply Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine (723.04 grams)

The court found that Garland was second in charge of the syndicate, below Hunt, and was pivotally involved in its operation. He arranged transactions daily using two mobile phones registered under false identities and met clients at varying locations (at [10], [19]). Over 700 telephone interceptions established the total quantity supplied at 723.04 grams, which is at the lowest end of the large commercial quantity threshold of 500 grams (at [18], [23]). The court assessed the offending as falling below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, taking into account that quantity and that proceeds were used partly to fund a drug addiction rather than purely for financial gain (at [28]). Garland's criminal history, which included prior firearms offences, drug supply and accessory after the fact to murder, disentitled him to any leniency (at [44]). The court found some insight and resolve to rehabilitate but remained cautious given his longstanding history of substance abuse (at [57]-[59]). Special circumstances were found, justifying a longer parole period to support rehabilitation (at [61]). Starting from 10 years and discounting 25 percent for the guilty plea, the total sentence was seven and a half years.

Guy Mallinson: Supply Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine (331.16 grams)

The court found that Mallinson was in the top four persons in the organisation and that, during Hunt and Garland's absence in Queensland, he was responsible for running supply operations (at [87]). Over four months he engaged in systematic and coordinated drug distribution. The court assessed the offending as falling in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, noting the quantity was towards the middle of the available range for a commercial quantity and that Mallinson could properly be characterised as being in the business of drug supply (at [102]). His difficult childhood, marked by homelessness and a mother with substance abuse issues, was found to reduce his moral culpability to some extent (at [137]). Good prospects of rehabilitation were identified (at [134]). The court declined to impose a s 11 remand, finding the objective criminality required a substantial custodial term (at [142]). Special circumstances were found (at [144]). A s 11 remand to Odyssey House was refused. Starting from five years and discounting 25 percent, the total sentence was three years and nine months. Cash totalling $13,175 found at the premises was ordered forfeited.

Nathan Williams: Supply Prohibited Drug on an Ongoing Basis (53.75 grams)

Williams obtained methylamphetamine from Hunt and Garland and on-supplied it to a regular customer base, using code words in telephone conversations to conceal the transactions (at [166]-[167]). The court found his role to be predominantly at street level but noted his criminality exceeded that of a typical user-dealer because he was embedded within a trafficking hierarchy (at [174]). Ninety to ninety-five percent of his proceeds funded his own addiction. The offending was assessed as below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, though not at the lower end (at [174]). Good prospects of rehabilitation were found, conditional on maintaining commitment to treatment (at [199]). Special circumstances were found. Starting from three and a half years and discounting 25 percent, the total sentence was two years and seven months.

Karen Morris: Knowingly Taking Part in the Supply of a Prohibited Drug (7 grams)

Morris facilitated two transactions from the home she shared with Mallinson over a period of approximately two weeks in January 2016. The court found her involvement arose from her domestic association with Mallinson rather than independent criminal enterprise (at [245]). The offending was assessed as being at the lowest end of the range of objective seriousness (at [235]). The court was satisfied that imprisonment was not the only appropriate penalty, noting her stable home environment, ongoing employment, community engagement, and very unlikely risk of reoffending (at [248]-[250]). A community service order of 150 hours was imposed.

Orders Made

  • Garland: Convicted of supply large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine; sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months with a balance of term of 3 years (total: 7 years and 6 months), backdated to 17 May 2016; one Form 1 matter (participate in a criminal group) taken into account; special circumstances found.
  • Mallinson: Convicted of supply commercial quantity of methylamphetamine; sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months (expiring 16 August 2018) with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months (expiring 16 February 2020), backdated to 17 May 2016; three Form 1 matters taken into account; special circumstances found; cash totalling $13,175 forfeited to the Crown.
  • Williams: Convicted of supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis; sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months (expiring 18 November 2017) with a balance of term of 1 year and 1 month (expiring 18 December 2018), backdated to 19 May 2016; one Form 1 matter (participate in a criminal group) taken into account; special circumstances found; directed for release to parole on 18 November 2017; additional firearms and weapons matters dealt with by way of fixed terms and bonds on a s 166 certificate.
  • Morris: Convicted of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug; sentenced to 150 hours community service; no custodial term imposed.

Key Takeaways

  • Within a drug supply hierarchy, an offender's role and degree of participation carry more weight in assessing objective seriousness than the quantity of drug involved, though quantity remains a relevant factor, particularly when it falls at the lowest end of a prescribed threshold range (at [28], [102]).

  • A finding that proceeds of drug supply were used in part to fund the offender's own addiction, rather than purely for financial gain, can moderate the objective seriousness of the offending, though it does not negate the criminality involved (at [28]).

  • The District Court declined to impose a s 11 remand to a rehabilitation facility for an offender assessed as in the top tier of a commercial drug supply organisation, holding that the objective criminality required a substantial custodial sentence despite the availability of a rehabilitation placement (at [142]).

  • Where an offender's involvement in drug supply arises from a domestic relationship with a principal offender and is limited to facilitating two transactions of a small quantity, a non-custodial penalty in the form of a community service order may be open under s 5(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (at [250]-[253]).

  • Special circumstances justifying a variation of the statutory non-parole to parole ratio were found for all three imprisoned offenders, principally to facilitate extended post-release supervision and access to drug rehabilitation programs for offenders with significant addiction histories (at [61], [144], [206]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
- Firearms Act 1996
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Cases
- Attorney General’s Application No. 1 of 2002 (2002) NSWCCA 518
- Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156
- R v West [2014] NSWCCA 250
- Regina v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44
- Veen (No.2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
- Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64