Citation: R v Scognamiglio [2018] NSWDC 85
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 February 2018
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ
Background
In early 2017, NSW Police conducted an operation targeting drug supply in the Redfern area. As part of that operation, registered police sources made controlled purchases of drugs from a number of individuals. The offender in this matter supplied methylamphetamine on four occasions to two of those registered sources.
The four supplies totalled $4,950 in value, with the offender acting as a runner who obtained drugs from other suppliers, including a primary supplier named in the judgment. The offender received modest payment, including a small quantity of drugs as reward for one transaction and $100 cash for another.
The offender, then in his late fifties, had a prior criminal history in Queensland that included supplying a prohibited plant and producing dangerous drugs. He had a lengthy history of drug dependency, tracing back to the influence of an older brother who introduced him to heroin. He pleaded guilty to a charge of ongoing drug supply at the earliest opportunity.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for an offence of ongoing drug supply, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending?
- What weight should be given to the early guilty plea?
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence.
Decision
Berman SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offending as below the middle of the range. While the ongoing supply charge covered only four transactions, the quantities involved were notably larger than typical street-level dealing. The offender's role was that of a runner rather than a primary supplier.
The early guilty plea attracted a sentencing discount of approximately 25 percent. The court also took into account the offender's background, including his disadvantaged circumstances flowing from long-term drug dependency and his isolation from family and community.
The court accepted that the offender had abstained from drug use while in custody. There was no record of refused or failed urinalysis on his custodial history. The court regarded continued abstinence post-release as desirable both for the offender and for the community, while acknowledging that maintaining sobriety without substantial support would be challenging.
A finding of special circumstances was made to extend the parole period beyond its standard proportion, with the explicit aim of promoting the offender's rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending through drug use. The non-parole period was set at one and a half years against a head sentence of three years.
Orders Made
- Head sentence of three years imprisonment, commencing 24 March 2017
- Non-parole period of one and a half years, expiring 23 September 2018, on which date the offender is to be released to parole
- Finding of special circumstances made in the offender's favour
- Sequences 1 and 2 on the section 166 certificate withdrawn and dismissed
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that a runner's role in drug supply, while less culpable than that of a primary supplier, remains serious where the quantities supplied exceed typical street-level amounts.
- An early guilty plea to ongoing drug supply attracted a sentencing reduction of approximately 25 percent.
- Special circumstances were found where extended supervision on parole was considered necessary to support an ageing offender's rehabilitation from long-term drug dependency.
- Uncontested evidence of abstinence from drug use in custody was treated as a mitigating factor, even where its continuance post-release could not be guaranteed.
- A criminal history of drug-related offending in another State was taken into account as part of the overall sentencing assessment, alongside background factors such as family influence and social isolation.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Section 166 certificate (procedural provision governing the withdrawal of charges in the District Court)
Cases:
- No cases were cited in the judgment.