AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 16 March 2021

R v Stephen-Biles

[2021] NSWDC 353

Drugs

Citation: R v Stephen-Biles [2021] NSWDC 353
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 March 2021
Judge(s): M L Williams SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a woman approaching 30 years of age and mother of three young daughters, appeared for sentencing on serious drug supply charges. She had no prior criminal record and was described by a forensic psychiatrist as presenting as open and caring, with good prospects for rehabilitation. Her offending arose from involvement with a partner who used methamphetamine and had been violent towards her when unable to obtain drugs.

The offender pleaded guilty to two principal charges: supplying not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (330.2 grams), and supplying cannabis (approximately 4,489 grams). A further supply offence involving 14 grams of methylamphetamine was taken into account on a Form 1. Her role was described, in her own words, as that of a "middle man": she hired vehicles, travelled to Sydney to collect pre-ordered drugs from up-line suppliers, and delivered them to co-offenders in the Queanbeyan area.

Police intercepted telephone calls using coded language (including "vegies" and "salad" for cannabis, and "white" for methylamphetamine), and ultimately stopped her vehicle on the Hume Highway, where the drugs were found in magnetic lock boxes under the driver's seat and vacuum-sealed bags in the boot. She immediately acknowledged ownership of the drugs and directed police to the cannabis in the boot.

  • What was the appropriate head sentence for each offence, taking into account the standard non-parole period for the methylamphetamine supply charge and the applicable maximum penalties?
  • What discount applied to reflect the offender's early plea of guilty?
  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate across the two principal offences?
  • Whether the sentence should be served by way of an intensive correction order (ICO) rather than full-time detention, having regard to the purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the offender's subjective circumstances.
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio.

Decision

The court treated the two principal drug supply offences as the focus of sentencing, with the Form 1 matter (a further methylamphetamine supply) taken into account in relation to Sequence 2. The maximum penalty for the methylamphetamine supply charge was 20 years imprisonment, with a ten-year standard non-parole period; the cannabis supply charge carried a maximum of 15 years. Williams SC DCJ acknowledged these penalties as important yardsticks and assessed the objective seriousness of the offending as significant, given the quantity of drugs, the commercial nature of the supply, and the repeated pattern of conduct.

On the subjective side, the court gave substantial weight to the offender's lack of prior criminal history, her early plea of guilty (attracting a 25 percent discount), her remorse, her role as primary carer of three young children, her vulnerability at the time of the offending, and the strong evidence of good character and rehabilitative potential documented in psychiatric and sentencing assessment reports. The court found that her motivation included financial pressure, a desire to provide for her children, and coercion arising from her partner's violence and drug dependency.

On the question of an ICO, the court applied the framework from Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318, noting that any determination must proceed without a preconception in favour of full-time custody as the only path to rehabilitation. The court concluded that serving the sentence in the community under an ICO was appropriate and consistent with the purposes of sentencing, including rehabilitation and the interests of the offender's children.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of each offence.
  • Indicative sentence for Sequence 2 (methylamphetamine supply, including Form 1 at Sequence 5): two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of fourteen months (after 25% plea discount).
  • Indicative sentence for Sequence 7 (cannabis supply): sixteen months imprisonment (after 25% plea discount).
  • Aggregate sentence imposed: two years and three months imprisonment.
  • Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentence is to be served by way of an intensive correction order (ICO) commencing 16 March 2021.
  • Standard ICO conditions imposed, including no further offending and supervision by Community Corrective Services.
  • Additional conditions: 200 hours of community service; rehabilitation and treatment as recommended by Dr Richard Furst in his report of 5 March 2021; reporting to the Queanbeyan CCS office by 5pm on 23 March 2021.
  • Sequences 8 and 9 withdrawn.

Key Takeaways

  • An ICO was available and was imposed despite the objective seriousness of commercial-quantity drug supply, where strong subjective factors (no prior record, early guilty plea, genuine remorse, primary carer status, and good rehabilitative prospects) collectively outweighed the pull towards full-time custody.
  • Under Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318, a sentencing court must approach the ICO question without any presumption that incarceration is the only appropriate vehicle for rehabilitation.
  • A 25 percent discount was applied to reflect the utilitarian value of the offender's early guilty plea, consistent with the principles governing plea discounts under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • No question of parity with co-offenders arose at the time of sentencing, as neither co-offender had yet been dealt with by the court.
  • The coercive context of a domestic relationship involving violence and a partner's drug dependency was treated as a relevant mitigating consideration when assessing the offender's moral culpability, though it did not diminish the objective seriousness of the offending itself.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 7(1)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25(1), 25(2)

Cases
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
- Jadron v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA
- R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
- Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318