AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 2 August 2022

Blankevoort v R

[2022] NSWDC 571

Drugs
CRIME APPEAL SEVERITY OF SENTENCE DRUG TRAFFICKING

Citation: Blankevoort v R [2022] NSWDC 571
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 August 2022
Judge: Neilson DCJ

Background

The appellant was sentenced in the Local Court at Waverley on 18 May 2022 following a guilty plea to seven offences. The principal offence (sequence 1) was the supply of methadone, a prohibited drug, in a quantity greater than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity. The supply occurred on 17 November 2021 at Maroubra, when the appellant delivered at least 40 methadone tablets to a purchaser who believed he was buying oxycodone.

The purchaser died in the early hours of 19 November 2021. The court noted, however, that there was no evidence before it to establish that the death was caused directly or indirectly by the ingestion of the tablets the appellant had supplied.

Police subsequently executed a search warrant at the appellant's Pyrmont residence and located methamphetamine, Seroquel (quetiapine), and property suspected of being stolen. Those matters, together with possession of a suspected stolen debit card and keys, and custody of a knife in a public place, comprised the remaining six charges. The learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of imprisonment on the principal offence, with the remaining matters dealt with by way of conviction under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or taken into account on a Form 1.

  • Whether the custodial sentence imposed by the Local Court was appropriate in all the circumstances.
  • Whether the discount applied by the Magistrate for the guilty plea was sufficient, having regard to the timing of the plea and the applicable sentencing principles.
  • Whether new evidence concerning the appellant's personal circumstances (his mother's health and his brother's capacity to provide care) should affect the re-sentencing exercise.

Decision

The District Court accepted the Magistrate's starting point of two years' imprisonment as appropriate for the principal offence. Neilson DCJ described the actual supply of a prohibited drug for reward as a very serious offence amounting to drug trafficking, and noted the appellant's extensive criminal history dating from age 18, including multiple drug, dishonesty, and assault offences.

The court found, however, that the Magistrate's guilty plea discount of approximately 12.5 per cent was insufficient. While the current matter did not fall within the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea (EAGP) regime, Neilson DCJ reasoned that a slightly late plea of this kind would, prior to the EAGP regime, have attracted up to the maximum 25 per cent discount. In the circumstances, a discount of 20 per cent was appropriate.

Applying that adjusted discount to the same two-year starting point, the court reduced the head sentence from 21 months to 19 months, with the non-parole period reduced from 14 months to 12 months. The court also identified special circumstances justifying a non-parole period that is proportionally shorter than the standard ratio.

The new personal circumstances evidence regarding the appellant's mother was given no weight, as there was no evidence before the court as to her current condition or the appellant's brother's actual capacity to care for her.

Orders Made

  • The appeal was allowed.
  • The Local Court sentence imposed on 18 May 2022 was set aside.
  • The appellant was re-sentenced to a total term of 19 months' imprisonment, comprising:
  • A non-parole period of 12 months, commencing 19 November 2021 and expiring 18 November 2022.
  • A balance of term of 7 months, commencing on expiry of the non-parole period and expiring 18 June 2023.
  • The Form 1 matters were taken into account in imposing the sentence.
  • Special circumstances were found.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed a two-year starting point for the supply of methadone in an indictable quantity, treating actual supply of a prohibited drug for reward as a serious drug trafficking matter warranting a custodial sentence.
  • A guilty plea discount of 12.5 per cent was held to be insufficient where a 20 per cent discount was appropriate, even though the plea was slightly late and the matter did not fall within the EAGP regime.
  • Outside the EAGP regime, the timing of a guilty plea remains relevant to calibrating the appropriate discount, with a slightly late plea attracting a reduction from the maximum 25 per cent that could otherwise have applied.
  • New evidence on appeal concerning personal hardship circumstances will carry no weight unless adequately supported by evidence establishing the relevant facts.
  • An extensive criminal history, including prior drug, dishonesty, assault, and domestic violence offences spanning over two decades, was treated as a significant factor reinforcing the need for a custodial sentence, with the court observing that rehabilitation becomes increasingly difficult as offenders become older and more entrenched in offending patterns.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including ss 10A and 12
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases:
- No cases were cited in the judgment.