AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 February 2021

R v Meis and Bloom

[2021] NSWDC 166

DrugsFirearms & weapons
CRIME SENTENCE MANUFACTURE METHYLAMPHETAMINE FAIL TO KEEP FIREARM SAFELY SUPPLY METHYLAMPHETAMINE

Citation: R v Meis and Bloom [2021] NSWDC 166
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 12 February 2021
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ

Background

Two offenders appeared for sentence following their involvement in the operation of a clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory at a residential property in Glen Alpine, NSW. The laboratory operated from around November 2017 until it was raided by police on 31 October 2018. A third participant, Ross Hitchen, was separately implicated in the manufacturing operation.

Craig Bloom was charged with knowingly taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine and a separate Firearms Act offence of failing to keep a firearm safely. Evidence showed he attended the laboratory premises on multiple occasions, purchased ice (frozen water) used in the production process, and spent money on equipment including an ice machine and ducting for the lab.

Christian Meis operated the laboratory from the garage of his own home. He faced charges of manufacturing methylamphetamine, supplying methylamphetamine (24.58 grams, exceeding the indictable quantity), and two precursor possession offences involving approximately five kilograms each of iodine and hypophosphorous acid held with intent to use them in drug manufacture.

  • What guilty plea discount applied to each offender, particularly given earlier offers to plead guilty made in the Local Court proceedings
  • Whether the Local Court plea offers were to offences "reasonably equivalent" to the indictment charges, within the meaning of s 25E(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
  • What individual sentences were appropriate for each offence, taking into account objective seriousness, subjective circumstances, and applicable maxima
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the standard ratio between head sentence and non-parole period for Meis
  • How the totality principle applied to the multiple charges against Meis, including the degree of overlap between the precursor possession offences and the manufacturing offence

Decision

Guilty plea discounts. The central contested issue on sentencing was the size of the discount each offender should receive for their guilty pleas, which were entered on the first day of trial. The Crown argued for only a 5% discount in both cases. Bourke SC DCJ rejected that position in relation to Bloom, finding that the offence of conspiracy to manufacture (to which Bloom had offered to plead guilty in the Local Court) was "reasonably equivalent" under s 25E to the charge of knowingly taking part in manufacture on the indictment. A 25% discount was applied to both of Bloom's offences. The same reasoning applied to Meis in respect of his two indictment charges, and a 25% discount was awarded. However, only a 5% discount was allowed for Meis's two s 166 certificate matters because his earlier Local Court offer had sought the withdrawal of those charges entirely.

Bloom's sentence. Bloom received an aggregate sentence of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years. His Honour found that Bloom played a supporting role in the manufacturing operation rather than being the primary operator, and that his moral culpability fell below that of the laboratory operator. The firearms offence was dealt with on the s 166 certificate. His subjective circumstances, including prior criminal history, were taken into account.

Meis's sentence. Meis, as the operator of the clandestine laboratory, was treated as the principal offender. His Honour found special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard non-parole ratio, based on three factors: it would be Meis's first time in custody; his psychological condition would make custodial time more difficult; and there was a need for a lengthy period of post-release supervision. On totality, the court recognised considerable overlap between the precursor possession offences and the manufacturing offence, warranting significant concurrency between those matters. The supply offence was treated as discrete, requiring some accumulation.

Orders Made

Craig Bloom:
- Aggregate sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment
- Non-parole period of two years

Christian Meis:
- Aggregate sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment
- Non-parole period of one year and eight months, commencing 12 February 2021
- Head sentence to expire 11 May 2024; non-parole period to expire 11 October 2022
- Copy of Mr Harold Hanlon's report directed to be sent to Corrective Services, Community Corrections, and Justice Health
- Sequences 5 and 6 withdrawn and dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, an offer to plead guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methylamphetamine made in Local Court proceedings can qualify as "reasonably equivalent" to a charge of knowingly taking part in manufacture on indictment, entitling the offender to a 25% discount even where the plea was not entered until the day of trial.

  • Where an offender's Local Court plea offer expressly sought the withdrawal of particular charges, a court may limit the discount on those charges to 5%, reflecting that the offer provided no practical utility toward those counts.

  • Special circumstances for varying the standard non-parole ratio can be established on the basis of a combination of factors: a first period in custody, a psychological condition affecting the experience of imprisonment, and the need for extended supervisory support on parole.

  • The totality principle requires close attention to the degree of factual overlap between offences. The District Court held that the precursor possession charges and the manufacturing charge arose from substantially the same conduct, justifying a high degree of concurrency, while the discrete supply transaction warranted some accumulation.

  • A participant who supplies equipment and materials to a clandestine laboratory but does not operate it may be treated as having lesser moral culpability than the principal operator, a distinction that can influence the head sentence imposed.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 24(1), 24A(1a), 25(1)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 25E, 25E(2), 166

Cases:
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510