AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 16 October 2020

R v Veidre

[2020] NSWDC 839

DrugsFirearms & weapons
CRIME SENTENCE SUPPLY COMMERCIAL QUANTITY MDMA UNAUTHORISED POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Citation: R v Veidre [2020] NSWDC 839
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 October 2020
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender was charged following a police attendance at the family home in Toongabbie on 21 June 2019. Officers had initially attended for an unrelated incident in which the offender was himself the victim. In the course of that investigation, police discovered large quantities of drugs, drug precursors, and various weapons concealed throughout the premises.

A subsequent search of the offender's bedroom uncovered approximately 1.815 kilograms of methylamphetamine (more than three times the large commercial quantity), 455 grams of MDMA (just below the large commercial quantity threshold), an airgun, ammunition, a silencer, a taser, and knuckle dusters. Beneath the house, police found approximately 8.9 kilograms of iodine and 18.4 kilograms of safrole, both drug precursors, along with glassware capable of being used in drug manufacture.

The offender turned himself in at Fairfield Police Station on 4 July 2019. He pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to three principal offences and asked the court to take into account five further matters on a Form 1 document (a procedural device under NSW law that allows a sentencing court to take additional offences into account without imposing separate sentences for them).

  • What was the appropriate sentence for supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, taking into account the offender's role as a warehouseman rather than a principal distributor?
  • How should the court assess objective seriousness where the offender held the drugs for at most two days and was not himself involved in actual supply?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's personal circumstances, including youth, good character, and the availability of rehabilitation?
  • Whether an Intensive Correction Order (a community-based custodial alternative) could substitute for full-time imprisonment given the gravity of the offending.
  • What aggregate sentence, consistent with totality principles, was appropriate across the two drug offences?

Decision

Bourke SC DCJ accepted that the offender was acting as a warehouseman, holding the drugs on behalf of others in the drug supply hierarchy. The court accepted that possession lasted no more than two days and that there was no suggestion the offender actually supplied drugs to anyone. The supply charges were established by the deemed supply provisions in the legislation, which treat possession of a quantity exceeding specified thresholds as supply, regardless of whether any transaction occurred.

Despite accepting the warehouseman characterisation, the court rejected any suggestion that this trivialised the role. By using the family home as a storage facility, the offender provided the enterprise with a cloak of anonymity in a residential setting unlikely to attract police attention. The quantity of drugs involved also indicated that significant trust had been placed in the offender by those higher in the organisation, placing him above the level of a mere courier.

The court gave the offender a 25 percent discount for the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea. Substantial mitigating factors were also identified: the offender's youth, prior good character, absence of prior criminal history, strong family support, expressions of remorse, and genuine prospects of rehabilitation. A finding of special circumstances was made, allowing the non-parole period to be reduced below the standard one-third ratio, given that this was the offender's first time in custody and that a meaningful period of supervised parole would be beneficial.

The court declined to impose an Intensive Correction Order, concluding that an aggregate sentence of three years or less would be inadequate to address all the circumstances, particularly the need for general and specific deterrence. An aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was imposed across the two drug offences.

Orders Made

  • Offender convicted of all three principal offences (supply large commercial quantity methylamphetamine; supply commercial quantity MDMA; unauthorised possession of a firearm).
  • Aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years imposed for the two drug offences (sequences 1 and 2), both commencing 4 July 2019; head sentence to expire 3 July 2024, non-parole period to expire 3 July 2022.
  • Indicative sentences noted: sequence 1 (with Form 1 matters) four years six months, non-parole period two years nine months; sequence 2 three years, non-parole period one year ten months.
  • Finding of special circumstances made, adjusting the standard non-parole ratio.
  • Matters 4, 9 and 11 withdrawn and dismissed.
  • Five Form 1 matters taken into account in sentencing.

Key Takeaways

  • A warehouseman's role in a drug supply operation is not treated as minimal. The District Court found that providing a residential safe house confers significant operational value on a drug syndicate, even where the offender holds the drugs briefly and is not involved in actual distribution.
  • Where deemed supply provisions apply, the absence of any proven actual supply transaction does not, of itself, reduce the seriousness of the offending to a lower tier of culpability.
  • Quantity is an important but not dominant factor in sentencing for drug supply offences. Role, duration of possession, and position within the supply hierarchy all bear on the assessment of objective seriousness.
  • An Intensive Correction Order is unlikely to be available where the aggregate criminality requires a head sentence exceeding three years, particularly where general deterrence is a significant sentencing consideration.
  • Strong personal mitigating factors, including youth, prior good character, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation prospects, can meaningfully reduce a sentence but will not override the need for adequate punishment and deterrence in serious commercial drug cases.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including s 37 and standard non-parole period provisions
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (implied by the offence definitions and deemed supply provisions)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (implied by the unauthorised possession charge)

Cases
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
- The Queen v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73