AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 8 July 2021

R v Evrim

[2021] NSWDC 363

Drugs

Citation: R v Evrim [2021] NSWDC 363
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 July 2021
Judge: M L Williams SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 33-year-old man with no prior criminal history, appeared for sentencing on two principal drug supply charges. Police executed a search warrant at a Croydon unit where the offender and a co-offender were residing, and found multiple prohibited drugs, scales, packaging materials, and $7,000 in cash. The offender was jointly in possession of those items with his co-offender.

The primary charge (Sequence 1) involved the supply of a commercial quantity of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), totalling 1,529 millilitres against a commercial threshold of 1,000 millilitres. The secondary charge (Sequence 6) involved the supply of an indictable quantity of methamphetamine (37 grams). Six further supply offences involving cocaine, ketamine, MDMA, cannabis, alprazolam, and amphetamine were listed on a Form 1 to be taken into account on sentence.

The offender had been held in custody for 78 days before being granted bail. Since his arrest, he had engaged extensively with rehabilitation programs through the Salvation Army, a psychologist, and a drug and alcohol service, and had been employed consistently at a garden care business.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the offending, having regard to the offender's role relative to the co-offender?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his lack of prior convictions, early guilty plea, demonstrated rehabilitation, drug addiction, and remorse?
  • Whether the sentence should be served in custody or by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), having regard to community safety and the purposes of sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Decision

The court assessed the objective seriousness of the GBL supply offence as significant, given the commercial quantity threshold was exceeded by 529 millilitres. However, the offender's role was qualified: on the agreed facts, it was his co-offender who arranged the purchase of the GBL and was responsible for selling it to customers. The offender's participation was limited to being aware of the drugs and permitting them to be stored on the premises.

The subjective case was treated as weighty. The court accepted that the offender's drug addiction had contributed to the offending. His rehabilitation since arrest was described as remarkable, supported by extensive evidence from the Salvation Army, two psychologists, his employer, and his own letter expressing genuine remorse. He had adhered without deviation to strict bail conditions including daily reporting and a curfew. The Sentence Assessment Report assessed him as a low risk of reoffending.

The court applied a 25% discount to the indicative sentences to reflect the early guilty pleas. The indicative sentence for Sequence 1 (incorporating the Form 1 matters) was 13 months with an indicative non-parole period of 8 months. Sequence 6 attracted an indicative sentence of 6 months. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

Having regard to the purposes of sentencing, community safety considerations, and the principles discussed in R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264, the court directed that the aggregate term be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. The court noted that both the Crown and defence shared that position.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of each offence.
  • Indicative sentence for Sequence 1 (including Form 1 matters, Sequences 3, 4, 5, 7, 17, 21): 13 months imprisonment, with an indicative non-parole period of 8 months.
  • Indicative sentence for Sequence 6: 6 months imprisonment.
  • Aggregate sentence of 15 months imprisonment, directed to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order under s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, commencing 8 July 2021.
  • ICO conditions included: 200 hours community service work; continued mental health treatment and drug rehabilitation as directed by Community Corrections; abstinence from illicit drugs; telephone reporting to Community Corrections by 5pm on 15 July 2021.
  • Sequences 22 to 32 (possess prohibited drug): withdrawn and dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • An Intensive Corrections Order remained available even where the principal offence involved a commercial drug quantity carrying a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, where the offender's role was facilitative rather than organisational and the subjective case was compelling.
  • Distinguishing between co-offenders' roles is material to the assessment of objective seriousness: the court treated the offender's conduct less seriously than the co-offender's because the co-offender arranged procurement and conducted sales, while this offender permitted the premises to be used.
  • Strong, independently verified rehabilitation evidence, including confirmed abstinence through pathology testing and consistent compliance with strict bail conditions, carried substantial mitigating weight at sentencing.
  • Under the approach endorsed in Attorney General's Application No 1 of 2002, Form 1 offences are taken into account to increase the sentence on the principal charge rather than being treated as separate offences.
  • A 25% guilty plea discount was applied consistently with established sentencing principles under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

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

Cases
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
- R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264