AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 6 October 2021

R v Jin

[2021] NSWDC 755

Drugs
CRIME SENTENCE DEEMED) OFFENDING AT BOTTOM OF RANGE PRIOR GOOD CHARACTER IN FULL

Citation: R v Jin [2021] NSWDC 755
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 October 2021
Judge: Neilson DCJ

Background

The offender rented a ground-floor apartment at Wentworth Point and, in exchange for drugs to sustain his own addiction, allowed members of a drug syndicate to store illicit substances and supply paraphernalia there. On 28 February 2020, Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at the premises and found nearly one kilogram of MDMA (at 38% and 16.4% purity), approximately 200 grams of cocaine (at around 77-81% purity), over 14 grams of methylamphetamine, roughly 14 kilograms of benzocaine, ammunition, scales, heat sealers, and other drug supply equipment.

The offender pleaded guilty to two substantive charges: supplying a large commercial quantity of MDMA under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (carrying a maximum of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years), and supplying 200.6 grams of cocaine under s 25(1) of the same Act (maximum 15 years). He also asked the court to take four further matters into account on a Form 1, including possession of ammunition, personal-use quantities of MDMA, supply of methylamphetamine, and possession of benzocaine.

The court accepted that the offender's role was that of a passive facilitator at the bottom end of the offending range. He did not organise or direct the supply operation; he provided storage in return for drugs to feed his addiction.

  • How to characterise the objective seriousness of the offending, given the offender's limited and passive role within the syndicate
  • What weight to give to the offender's prior good character, rehabilitation efforts, mental health history, and prospects of reoffending
  • Whether an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was an appropriate sentencing disposition, having regard to the statutory framework under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the serious nature of the drug offences
  • The proper mechanics for calculating and recording the ICO where pre-sentence custody had been served

Decision

Neilson DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offending as falling at the bottom of the range for this type of offence. The offender was not a principal in the supply operation but rather permitted others to use his premises as a storage facility, motivated by his own drug dependence rather than financial gain.

The court placed significant weight on a range of subjective mitigating factors. The offender had no prior criminal history, had demonstrated genuine rehabilitation by engaging with drug treatment and psychiatric care for mental health conditions, and was in full-time employment at the time of sentencing. His prospects of reoffending were assessed as low.

His Honour applied the standard sentencing approach established in Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120, having regard to the standard non-parole period as a guiding benchmark rather than a fixed starting point. The guilty plea was credited in the usual way, and all Form 1 matters were taken into account in sentencing on the principal offence.

The court determined that an ICO was appropriate in all the circumstances, producing an aggregate sentence of two years and 330 days to be served in the community with strict conditions, including 500 hours of community service work, supervision, mandatory treatment, and abstention from alcohol and drugs.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted on both charges
  • Aggregate sentence of two years and 330 days, commencing 6 October 2021 and expiring 30 August 2024, to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order (ICO)
  • For the s 25(2) MDMA offence (Sequence 5, inclusive of Form 1 matters): head sentence of two years and seven months, with a non-parole period of 18 months
  • For the s 25(1) cocaine offence (Sequence 6): head sentence of 18 months
  • ICO conditions:
  • No further offences
  • Supervision by a Community Corrections Officer
  • 500 hours of community service work
  • Participation in rehabilitation and treatment programs, including continued treatment with a nominated psychologist and treating psychiatrist
  • Abstention from alcohol and drugs
  • The offender was directed to report to Hornsby Community Corrections by telephone within seven days

Key Takeaways

  • A passive role in a drug supply syndicate, where the offender provided storage in exchange for drugs to maintain a personal addiction rather than for profit, can place offending at the lowest end of the objective seriousness range even where large commercial quantities are involved.
  • Prior good character, genuine rehabilitation, engagement with psychiatric treatment, and stable employment are capable of supporting an ICO disposition even for offences carrying very substantial maximum penalties, including a standard non-parole period of 15 years.
  • Under the sentencing framework in Muldrock v R, the standard non-parole period operates as a guiding reference point, not a mandatory starting figure; its significance is calibrated against all the circumstances of the individual offending.
  • Where pre-sentence custody exists, the District Court applied the approach from R v Kutami (drawing on the procedural requirements in ss 70 and 71 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) to ensure the ICO was co-extensive with the term of imprisonment, with the recorded sentence adjusted to account for time already served.
  • Low prospects of reoffending, when supported by concrete post-offence conduct such as treatment compliance and sustained employment, carry material weight at the sentencing stage for serious drug offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25(1) and 25(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 24(2), 47(2), 70, 71

Cases
- Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
- Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
- Ninness v R [2014] NSWCCA 288
- R v Kutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
- R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17