AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 July 2019

R v Slater

[2019] NSWDC 471

Drugs

Citation: R v Slater [2019] NSWDC 471
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 July 2019
Judge(s): Grant DCJ

Background

NSW Police established a strike force in 2016 to investigate illicit drug trafficking in the Riverina region. The investigation deployed undercover operatives who conducted a series of controlled drug purchases. Over several months, the offender supplied methylamphetamine to an undercover officer on multiple occasions, using encrypted messaging applications including Wickr and an encrypted BlackBerry device to communicate and coordinate transactions.

The offender faced four charges arising from this investigation: one State charge of knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (998 grams) under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and three Commonwealth charges of trafficking in a controlled drug under the Criminal Code (Cth), covering separate supplies of 55 grams, 55 grams, and 83 grams of methylamphetamine. The offender pleaded guilty to all four charges in the Penrith Local Court in January 2019 and was committed for sentence.

At the time of sentencing, the offender had spent just over two years in custody referable solely to these charges. The sentencing proceeded on the basis of agreed facts.

  • What discount should apply to the guilty pleas for both the State and Commonwealth offences, and at what rate?
  • What weight should be given to objective seriousness, deterrence, and personal circumstances in determining the overall sentence?
  • How should the totality principle be applied when sentencing for multiple State and Commonwealth offences?
  • Whether imprisonment was the appropriate sentencing disposition.

Decision

Grant DCJ applied a 25% discount to both the State and Commonwealth sentences, reflecting the guilty pleas entered at an early stage in the Local Court. For the Commonwealth charges, the judge followed the principle from Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4, confirming that the utilitarian value of a plea applies even where an offender does not demonstrate a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

The judge took into account the standard non-parole period of 15 years applicable to the State charge and the maximum penalties as important guideposts, without treating them as a target. Consistent with the High Court's approach in Markarian v The Queen, the judge avoided a mathematical approach to sentencing and instead weighed all relevant factors holistically, including the objective seriousness of the offending and the need for strong general and specific deterrence.

On the question of totality, Grant DCJ applied the principle described by Street CJ in R v Holder; R v Johnson (1983), evaluating the overall criminality across all four offences to ensure the aggregate sentence was proportionate rather than mechanically additive. The judge determined that 12 months of accumulation of the Commonwealth sentences upon the State sentence was appropriate. The court was satisfied that no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Orders Made

  • State charge (Charge 1): sentence of imprisonment imposed, with a 25% discount applied for the early guilty plea.
  • Commonwealth charges (Charges 2, 3, and 4): aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment, commencing 26 June 2019.
  • After two years of that sentence (to 25 June 2021), the offender is to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for 12 months pursuant to s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
  • Commonwealth sentences to accumulate by 12 months upon the State sentence, reflecting the totality principle.

Note: The full terms of the State sentence order were not reproduced in the text provided.

Key Takeaways

  • A 25% guilty plea discount applied to both State and Commonwealth charges where pleas were entered at an early stage in the Local Court, consistent with established sentencing principles for each jurisdiction.
  • Under the Commonwealth sentencing framework, the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty is a recognised discount factor independent of any expression of remorse or willingness to cooperate, as confirmed in Xiao v R.
  • The totality principle, as described in R v Holder; R v Johnson, requires a sentencing court to assess overall criminality across multiple offences and adjust the aggregate sentence downward where a straightforward accumulation would produce a result disproportionate to the total conduct.
  • Maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods function as guideposts in the sentencing exercise, not as targets, and do not displace the need for a holistic assessment of all relevant factors.
  • Where an offender is sentenced for a combination of State and Commonwealth drug offences arising from the same investigation, the court must navigate distinct statutory regimes while still achieving an overall sentence that reflects the full extent of criminality without being crushing.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
- Criminal Code (Cth), s 302.4(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 17A, 21A(3)(k), 22
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(g), s 19AC

Cases
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 215 ALR 213
- Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
- Yeung v R [2018] NSWCCA 52
- R v DP [2019] NSWCCA 55
- R v Holder; R v Johnson (1983) 3 NSWLR 245