AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 5 October 2021

R v Wu

[2021] NSWDC 634

Drugs

Citation: R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 634
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 October 2021
Judge(s): M L Williams SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a woman aged 26 at the time of sentencing, pleaded guilty to supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (cocaine) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

The offender worked as a runner for a large cocaine supply syndicate operating across Sydney from July to November 2019. The syndicate ran a text-message ordering system, dispatching runners to deliver deal bags of cocaine to customers. The offender supplied not fewer than 416 deal bags during that period, totalling approximately 266 grams of cocaine, which exceeded the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams. She also cleaned the syndicate's premises and purchased items such as rubber gloves and freezer bags for use by other members. She received between $8,320 and $10,400 for her involvement.

The offender had a prior conviction for a similar supply offence from 2016, for which she had received an intensive corrections order that was subsequently revoked for breach. She had been in custody since her arrest on 5 November 2019, a period of approximately two years before sentencing.

  • What sentence was appropriate for a runner in a commercial cocaine supply syndicate, bearing in mind the standard non-parole period of 10 years for the offence?
  • What weight should be given to the early guilty plea, entitling the offender to a 25% discount?
  • How should the court treat the offender's subjective circumstances, including her difficult family background, drug addiction history, prior criminal record, and conduct in custody?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify a non-parole period proportionally shorter than the standard ratio.
  • What weight should the additional hardship of serving custody during the COVID-19 pandemic carry in the sentencing exercise?

Decision

His Honour noted that the sale of illicit drugs causes serious harm not only to individual users but to the community at large, fuelling broader criminal activity and family breakdown. General deterrence was therefore required to feature prominently in the sentencing exercise. The offender's prior conviction for a materially similar offence was an aggravating factor, as was the fact that she had been on notice as to the consequences of drug supply and had not been deterred.

On the subjective case, his Honour accepted the offender's expressions of remorse and her genuine desire to rehabilitate. Her two years of abstinence in custody, engagement in addiction programs, employment as a sweeper (described as a trusted position), and continued contact with a psychologist all indicated meaningful progress. Her difficult upbringing, including family conflict, bullying, and an early experience of sexual assault, also attracted some mitigation. However, the sentence assessment report noted that she had been evasive about her offending and had initially attempted to minimise her role.

The court found that the early guilty plea justified a 25% sentence reduction. His Honour also found special circumstances, noting both the genuine need for extended supervision on release and that this was, in practical terms, the offender's first period of full-time imprisonment. The added burden of serving custody under COVID-19 restrictions, including suspended family visits, reduced programs, and more frequent lockdowns, was taken into account as common ground between the parties. The defence submission that time already served should constitute the entire non-parole period was rejected as unduly optimistic.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of the offence.
  • A sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed, commencing 5 November 2019 (reflecting a 25% discount for the early guilty plea).
  • A non-parole period of two years and one month was set, expiring 4 December 2021.
  • Special circumstances were found, based on the need for an extended period of post-release supervision and the fact that this was effectively the offender's first period of full-time custody.

Key Takeaways

  • A runner in a commercial cocaine supply syndicate who supplied over the commercial threshold, and who had a prior conviction for materially similar conduct, crossed the threshold for full-time imprisonment without contest.
  • Under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, the maximum penalty is 20 years' imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years, and the District Court treated general deterrence as a weighty consideration in fixing the sentence.
  • An early guilty plea attracted the full 25% discount to the head sentence, reducing what would otherwise have been a longer term of imprisonment.
  • Special circumstances were established where the offender was serving her first effective period of full-time custody and where her rehabilitation trajectory indicated a genuine need for extended post-release supervision.
  • Serving a custodial sentence under COVID-19 pandemic conditions, including suspended family contact, reduced program access, and more frequent lockdowns, was treated as a relevant mitigating consideration that increased the overall burden of the sentence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5

Cases:
- R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 519 (sentencing of co-offenders in the same syndicate, delivered by the same judge on 18 June 2021)