Citation: R v Pipio [2019] NSWDC 354
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 April 2019
Judge: M L Williams SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 53-year-old married businessman with two children and no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to one count of supplying 135 grams of cocaine contrary to s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offending came to light through a police strike force investigating drug supply on Sydney's Northern Beaches. The offender had been supplying cocaine in one-ounce deals to another man, and was himself sourcing the drug from a separate supplier.
The offending occurred across five separate supply transactions between 11 October and 4 November 2015. On the final occasion, police stopped the offender in his vehicle and located 27.6 grams of cocaine. He had collected cash from the recipient and was on his way to complete the delivery when he was intercepted.
The offender explained that he had begun using cocaine recreationally, developed a habit costing up to $1,000 per day, and supplied cocaine to fund that habit rather than for significant financial profit. He had served two days in custody at arrest and had been on onerous bail conditions, including daily reporting, for several years prior to sentencing.
Legal Issues
- Whether the strong mitigating factors, including good character, early guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects, justified a sentence other than full-time custody.
- What discount, if any, should apply for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea.
- Whether an intensive corrections order (ICO) was an appropriate sentencing disposition given the serious nature of drug supply offending and the demands of general deterrence.
Decision
His Honour acknowledged the gravity of drug supply offending, noting that courts have consistently recognised its serious social consequences, including corruption, violence, and the undermining of legitimate businesses. Citing Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284, the court observed that where drug dealing occurs to a substantial degree, a sentence of imprisonment will ordinarily be required, and a non-custodial sentence will typically fail to meet sentencing objectives.
The court nonetheless gave significant weight to the offender's subjective circumstances. His Honour accepted unchallenged evidence that the offender had instructed his counsel to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, and allowed a 25 percent discount for the utilitarian value of the plea. The court also took into account the offender's lack of prior criminal history, strong character references, genuine remorse, diagnosed depressive disorder (though no causal link to the offending was established), and the serious deterioration in his family circumstances since arrest.
Drawing on Yardley v Betts (1979) 1 A Crim R 329, his Honour noted that community protection is itself served by the successful rehabilitation of offenders. Balancing the need for general deterrence against the compelling subjective case, the court concluded that an 18-month term of imprisonment served by way of an intensive corrections order was the appropriate outcome.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of the offence.
- A sentence of imprisonment of 18 months was imposed.
- Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentence was directed to be served by way of an intensive corrections order commencing 18 April 2019.
- The offender was required to report to the Officer in Charge at the Leichhardt office of Community Corrective Services by 5 pm on 26 April 2019.
- Conditions of the order included: no further offending; compliance with all directions of Community Corrective Services (including assessment, therapy, treatment, counselling, and urinalysis); and abstention from all illicit drugs.
- Non-compliance may result in formal warning, more stringent conditions, or revocation of the order by the Commissioner of Corrective Services or the State Parole Authority.
Key Takeaways
- In drug supply cases involving substantial dealing, the District Court confirmed that imprisonment is ordinarily required, consistent with the Court of Criminal Appeal's position in Parente v R, and that a non-custodial sentence will typically fail sentencing objectives.
- An intensive corrections order remains available as a sentencing option even for serious drug supply offences, where the combination of subjective factors, including good character, early plea, genuine remorse, and strong rehabilitation prospects, is sufficiently compelling.
- A 25 percent discount for the utilitarian value of a guilty plea was applied where the offender had instructed counsel to plead guilty before the first court appearance, even though a trial date had at one stage been set.
- Community protection, as a sentencing purpose, encompasses not only deterrence and incapacitation but also the successful rehabilitation of offenders, a principle the court drew from Yardley v Betts.
- Onerous pre-sentence bail conditions, including extended periods of daily reporting, formed part of the sentencing court's overall assessment of the burden already imposed on the offender before sentence was passed.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 7(1)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25
Cases
- Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
- Yardley v Betts (1979) 1 A Crim R 329