Citation: R v Naghdi [2021] NSWDC 635
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 October 2021
Judge(s): M L Williams SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 29-year-old woman, pleaded guilty to one count of supplying a prohibited drug in excess of the commercial quantity under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. She had worked as a runner for a Sydney cocaine distribution syndicate between July and November 2019, supplying not fewer than 615 bags of cocaine (approximately 393 grams) and receiving $20 to $25 per bag sold.
The syndicate operated through a call centre and distributed around 200 bags of cocaine per week across Sydney, with an estimated value of $60,000 per week. Those higher in the organisation, including three previously sentenced co-offenders, ran the operation. The offender also performed ancillary tasks, including cleaning the syndicate's premises and purchasing materials such as rubber gloves and freezer bags.
The offender had been held in custody for 44 days following her arrest in November 2019 before being granted bail. Her sentencing was considered alongside the earlier sentences imposed on co-offenders and, most directly, the recently sentenced co-runner Isabella Wu.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for a street-level runner in a large cocaine distribution syndicate, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offending?
- How should the court weigh a substantial subjective case, including severe childhood trauma, mental health conditions, domestic violence, immigration detention, and sole-carer responsibilities?
- Whether the hardship caused to the offender's dependent daughter and ill mother justified a departure from the ordinary sentencing range or warranted a finding of special circumstances.
- How the sentence should be calibrated relative to the co-offender Wu, who had performed a similar role but with a prior conviction for comparable drug supply.
- Whether a 25% discount for the plea of guilty was applicable, and how the 44 days of pre-sentence custody should be accounted for.
Decision
His Honour identified the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of 10 years as important yardsticks. He assessed the offending as serious: the syndicate was substantial and the offender's role, while at street level, involved a significant volume of cocaine over several months and included ancillary support activities. However, her moral culpability was lower than that of the co-offenders who organised and managed the operation.
The offender's subjective case was found to be extensive and compelling. She had fled Iran as a child, was held in the Woomera Detention Centre where she witnessed severe trauma, was later separated from her mother in foster care, and was subsequently the victim of prolonged domestic violence. She had a diagnosed history of PTSD and had been receiving psychological treatment since her release on bail. The court accepted she had demonstrated genuine remorse, insight, and rehabilitative progress.
His Honour addressed the question of hardship to third parties with care, citing the established principle that hardship to family is a tragic but almost inevitable consequence of imprisonment and cannot ordinarily deflect a sentence that is otherwise justified on grounds of retribution, deterrence, or community protection. Nonetheless, the court accepted that special circumstances existed, warranting a significant departure from the standard parole ratio, given this would be the offender's first full-time custodial period and that she required extended supervision and counselling.
The court was not persuaded that the sentence should fall within a range permitting an Intensive Corrections Order. It found a justifiable basis for a meaningful reduction compared to Wu's sentence, principally because the offender supplied nearly three times the volume of cocaine Wu had supplied, but her subjective circumstances were considerably more severe and her prospects of rehabilitation were assessed more favourably, with no comparable prior drug supply conviction.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of the offence of supply prohibited drug in excess of the commercial quantity.
- A sentence of three years and ten months imprisonment was imposed, commencing 31 August 2021, incorporating a 25% discount for the plea of guilty.
- A non-parole period of 18 months was fixed, expiring 28 February 2023.
- Special circumstances were found, resulting in a significant reduction in the standard statutory non-parole period ratio.
Key Takeaways
- A street-level runner in a large drug distribution syndicate will generally be assessed as having lower moral culpability than organisers, but the volume of drugs supplied remains a significant objective factor in sentencing.
- The District Court confirmed that hardship to a dependent child and ill parent, while a relevant consideration, will not ordinarily deflect a sentence that is otherwise warranted on grounds of deterrence, denunciation, and punishment, consistent with the principles in R v Edwards and Wirth.
- Special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole period ratio can be established where an offender faces their first period of full-time custody, has complex trauma and mental health needs, and requires extended post-release supervision and rehabilitation.
- Parity with co-offenders sentenced for comparable roles is an important consideration, but differences in the volume of drugs supplied and the depth of subjective circumstances can justify measurable divergence between sentences.
- A 25% guilty plea discount applied where the plea was entered in circumstances the court accepted as justifying that reduction, and pre-sentence custody of 44 days was factored into the sentencing calculation.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A
Cases
- R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 5 and [2021] NSWDC 519
- R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 534
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291
- Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157
- Kelly v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 44
- R v Hopley [2008] NSWCCA 105