Citation: R v Williamson [2019] NSWDC 72
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 March 2019
Judge: Grant DCJ
Background
The offender was a young man who, during a period of personal difficulty and escalating drug dependency, agreed to store MDMA at his residential premises for a co-accused drug dealer. In exchange, he received both cocaine and cash payments of $500 per ounce processed. Over approximately three months, his involvement extended to placing MDMA powder into capsules for distribution on the co-accused's request.
Police raided the offender's Turramurra home in November 2017 and found 71.39 grams of MDMA ready for supply, together with additional quantities linked to a second supply charge. The offender was cooperative from the outset, voluntarily directing police to the drugs. He was held in custody for seven days before being granted bail.
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to two counts of supply a prohibited drug under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), with two additional matters placed on a Form 1 (possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of a small quantity of cannabis).
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate given the objective seriousness of the supply offences and the offender's role in the drug supply chain?
- How should the sentence compare to that imposed on the co-accused, given the principle of sentencing consistency and the differences in their respective roles?
- Whether the three-year aggregate term of imprisonment should be served by way of an intensive correction order (ICO), having regard to community safety as the paramount consideration under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Decision
Grant DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offending by reference to the offender's role as a storeman and capper of MDMA capsules, the total quantity involved (118.69 grams across both counts), and the financial element of the arrangement. His Honour accepted that drug quantity is a relevant but not determinative factor, consistent with the High Court's approach in Wong v The Queen and Markarian v The Queen, and that general deterrence was the major sentencing consideration.
The co-accused had received a head sentence of five and a half years with a non-parole period of three and a half years. His Honour accepted the defence submission that a disparate, lesser sentence was warranted because the co-accused had been dealt with for a commercial quantity, had made actual supplies to an undercover operative over a lengthy period, and had a far greater financial stake in the enterprise. The offender's role was more limited.
On the subjective side, His Honour gave weight to the offender's early plea (attracting a 25 per cent discount), his cooperation with police, his stable upbringing with supportive family, his drug dependency arising from relationship breakdown and depression, and his apparent rehabilitation since arrest. The psychologist's report noted no antisocial or criminogenic history. The offender had remained drug-free since his arrest, complied with bail, and engaged with treatment.
His Honour imposed an aggregate sentence of three years and ordered that it be served by way of an ICO. In doing so, the court referenced the legislative purpose behind the ICO reforms, including the parliamentary statement that community supervision is more effective than short-term imprisonment at reducing reoffending, and that the community safety requirement in new section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act is best served in appropriate cases by structured community-based orders.
Orders Made
- Count 1 (supply 71.39g MDMA): two years imprisonment
- Count 2 (knowingly take part in supply 47.3g MDMA): one year imprisonment, cumulative on Count 1
- Total aggregate sentence: three years imprisonment
- The aggregate term to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order commencing 1 March 2019, subject to the following conditions:
- Must not commit any offence
- Must appear before the Court if called upon
- Must perform 500 hours of community service work
- Must abstain from consuming illicit drugs and drugs proscribed under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
- Must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer
- Must report to the Hornsby Community Corrections office within seven days
Key Takeaways
- Drug quantity is a relevant sentencing consideration for supply offences, but NSW courts have consistently held it is not the sole determinant; the full circumstances of the offending must be weighed.
- Where co-offenders are sentenced separately, significant differences in role, quantity, and financial benefit can justify a materially disparate sentence, provided the sentencing court explains its reasoning.
- An aggregate term of imprisonment of up to three years remains available for an ICO under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, with community safety as the paramount consideration when determining the mode of serving that sentence.
- Early guilty pleas, genuine cooperation with police, demonstrated rehabilitation, and supportive personal circumstances can collectively carry significant weight in mitigation, particularly for an offender with no prior criminogenic history.
- The District Court treated the ICO not as a lenient alternative, but as the sentencing mechanism most likely to address the risk of reoffending, consistent with the legislative intent expressed in the 2017 parliamentary debates on the ICO reforms.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 53, 53A, 54, 66
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 7(1)
Cases
- Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
- R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264