AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 22 November 2018

R v Cupac

[2018] NSWDC 433

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG MDMA

Citation: R v Cupac [2018] NSWDC 433
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 November 2018
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ

Background

Police observed the offender acting suspiciously in North Sydney and watched him enter a vehicle and conduct what appeared to be a transaction. When approached, the offender immediately admitted to possessing approximately 20 MDMA tablets; police found 25. He told police he intended to share the tablets with friends.

The offender was charged with supplying a prohibited drug and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He had no prior criminal history and was in employment at the time of sentencing.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for supply of a prohibited drug (MDMA) in these circumstances?
  • Whether the sentencing proceedings should be adjourned under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to allow the offender to demonstrate rehabilitation from drug use before a final sentence was imposed.

Decision

The court accepted that this case was an appropriate one for an adjournment under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, rather than proceeding directly to sentence. Both parties agreed that a deferral would be beneficial. The judge reasoned that an offender asserting he had stopped using drugs is meaningfully different from an offender who can prove it through monitored compliance over time.

Berman SC DCJ noted that demonstrable abstinence from drug use would be relevant to the risk of future offending as a supplier, and that a period of supervised rehabilitation would place the court in a better position to assess the offender's prospects before imposing a final sentence.

The matter was adjourned to 9 May 2019, with strict bail conditions attached to enforce the rehabilitation period.

Orders Made

  • Bail granted on the following conditions:
  • The offender is to use no illegal drugs whatsoever.
  • The offender is to undergo regular urinalysis at least fortnightly, arranged and funded at his own expense.
  • All urinalysis results are to be provided to the court at the next hearing.
  • Matter adjourned to Thursday, 9 May 2019.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, a sentencing court may adjourn proceedings to allow an offender to demonstrate rehabilitation before a final sentence is imposed.
  • The District Court drew a clear distinction between an offender's unverified assertion of drug abstinence and demonstrated, monitored abstinence, treating the latter as genuinely relevant to sentencing.
  • Where drug use underlies a supply offence, a period of supervised abstinence with urinalysis can bear directly on the court's assessment of future offending risk.
  • An early guilty plea and the absence of prior criminal history were noted features of the offender's background, though no final sentence was imposed at this stage.
  • Bail conditions requiring fortnightly urinalysis at the offender's own expense were used as the mechanism to generate verifiable evidence of rehabilitation for the adjourned sentencing hearing.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW), s 11 (adjournment of sentencing to allow demonstration of rehabilitation)

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.