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

R v Bridge

[2018] NSWDC 96

DrugsFraud & dishonesty

Citation: R v Bridge [2018] NSWDC 96
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 March 2018
Judge(s): DCJ Bright

Background

The offender, a 34-year-old man from Newcastle, appeared for sentencing following guilty pleas to a large number of drug supply and related offences. In April 2016, NSW Police commenced Strike Force Malsbury, targeting his drug supply activities. Telephone intercepts and covert surveillance revealed that he was operating as a large-scale supplier of methamphetamine, cannabis, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), and cocaine in and around Newcastle, obtaining drugs from Sydney-based suppliers and distributing them through a network of agents and associates.

The offender ran his drug business in partnership with a co-accused, Blake Waterhouse, and was linked to a Sydney-based organised crime figure, Abdul Hassian. The investigation ultimately revealed that the offender's criminal activities extended beyond drug supply to involvement in a scheme to manufacture counterfeit Australian currency. He had been held in custody on bail refused since his arrest on 20 May 2016.

Legal Issues

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate having regard to the objective seriousness of each offence, the applicable statutory maximum penalties, and standard non-parole periods?
  • What discount applied to reflect the timing of the guilty pleas?
  • Whether the offender's personal circumstances, including limited criminal history, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects, warranted leniency?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence?
  • Whether parity considerations arose given sentences imposed on co-offenders?

Decision

Objective seriousness and overall criminality

The court found that the offender was a large-scale drug supplier with no other employment, operating solely for financial gain over an extended period (at [9]). Between 13 April and 20 May 2016 he made over 4,000 calls and texts relating to drug supply, and was involved in at least 19 actual supply transactions totalling approximately 1,115.1 grams of methylamphetamine (at [33]-[35]). Further conduct included the supply of 1,100 grams of GBL (at [16]) and the arrangement of a cocaine supply of 14.2 grams for $4,000 (at [17]-[18]). The court assessed the GBL supply as below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, the cocaine supply as toward the lowest end, and the methylamphetamine supplies to Kisielewicz as well below the middle of the range, while the counterfeiting involvement and the major drug supply charges were assessed at the middle of the range (at [102]-[111]).

Counterfeiting

The court found that the offender actively participated in a scheme with Hassian to manufacture counterfeit Australian currency. He provided advice on the quality and usability of counterfeit notes, sourced materials including polymer and specialist paper, and supplied a stamp required for the printing process (at [78]-[86]). The court noted that general deterrence is a paramount consideration for counterfeiting offences given their capacity to undermine the economy as a whole (at [100]).

Plea discount and subjective circumstances

A discount of 25% was applied to reflect the timing of the guilty pleas (at [5]). The court accepted that the offender had a very limited criminal history confined to driving offences and two common assault convictions, with no prior drug-related convictions (at [115]-[116]). The court was satisfied that he is remorseful (at [148]), has good prospects of rehabilitation, and is unlikely to reoffend (at [146]-[147]).

Special circumstances and parity

The court found that special circumstances existed under section 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, justifying a variation of the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. The primary basis was the offender's need for a longer period on parole to address his drug addiction (at [149]). The court rejected parity concerns with co-offenders Kisielewicz, Murray, and Burnes on the ground that none of those individuals was involved in drug supply to the same extent as the offender (at [154]).

Orders Made

  • Aggregate sentence of ten years imprisonment, commencing 20 September 2016 and expiring 19 September 2026, with a non-parole period of six years commencing 20 September 2016 and expiring 19 September 2022.
  • The total effective sentence (including the separate counterfeiting-related component) is ten years and four months with a non-parole period of six years and four months.
  • In relation to the possession of ammunition charge: fine of $200.
  • In relation to possession of cannabis (24.5 grams): conviction under section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act without further penalty.
  • Forfeiture orders made pursuant to section 18(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 in accordance with a short minute of consent order dated 9 March 2018.
  • Multiple sequences withdrawn as set out in the court's exhibit C.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that an offender's role and level of criminality within a drug supply enterprise is a more significant sentencing consideration than the raw quantity of drugs involved (at [96]).
  • Where multiple drug supply offences form part of a single continuous criminal enterprise, a sentencing court may impose an aggregate sentence with moderate accumulation to reflect the overall criminality, while also partially accumulating separate sentences for distinct conduct such as counterfeiting (at [163]).
  • A 25% discount on sentence was applied for guilty pleas across both State and Commonwealth charges, with the court finding that the pleas demonstrated genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice (at [5], [159]).
  • Special circumstances warranting a departure from the statutory non-parole ratio were established where the offender had a serious drug addiction requiring longer supervised support on parole following release (at [149]).
  • Parity with co-offenders does not arise automatically: the court declined to apply parity principles where the other persons sentenced were customers or lower-level participants, and the principal offender's conduct was objectively more serious than theirs (at [154]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
- Firearms Act 1996
- Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989

Cases
- R v Medd [2016] NSWCCA 216
- Lam v R; Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 221 87
- Baquiran v R [2014] NSWCCA 221
- R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38