Citation: R v Templeton [2024] NSWDC 254
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 June 2024
Judge: Scotting DCJ
Background
The offender, a 58-year-old man from Sydney's Northern Beaches, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to supplying a large commercial quantity of cocaine contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He appeared in the District Court for sentencing. He also asked the court to take into account a separate charge of possessing a prohibited weapon (a taser) under the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998.
The offender was detected through his use of the ANOM encrypted communications platform, operating under the username "Deadpool" from February 2019 until his arrest on 31 May 2021. Over that period, he supplied a total of 7,697.7 grams of cocaine across 23 separate transactions, buying from wholesale suppliers and on-selling to a limited number of buyers, including at least one buyer in Queensland.
Police arrested the offender at his Narrabeen residence and found $283,000 in cash stored in a bag. An active taser was located in a wall unit in his lounge room.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for the supply of a large commercial quantity of cocaine, having regard to the standard non-parole period of 15 years and the maximum penalty of life imprisonment?
- What weight should be given to mitigating factors including guilty plea, good character, lack of significant criminal history, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation?
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying a non-parole period that departed from the statutory ratio?
- How should the sentence reflect parity with a co-offender who had already been sentenced?
Decision
Objective seriousness
The offending spanned two years and involved 23 separate supplies totalling approximately 7.7 times the large commercial quantity threshold (at [62]). The offender traded in wholesale amounts and, as the amounts grew over time, demonstrated a sustained commercial operation (at [63]). However, his involvement was not described as sophisticated: he frequently arranged transactions at his own residence and relied primarily on the assumed security of the ANOM platform rather than any elaborate concealment measures (at [61]).
Role and motivation
The court accepted that the offender supplied cocaine principally to fund his own methamphetamine use, operating mainly as a sole trader without apparent connection to a larger criminal organisation (at [63]). The psychiatrist's evidence established that the offender suffered from cannabis and stimulant use disorder, and that this condition probably impaired his capacity to appreciate the wider consequences of his conduct at the time of the offending (at [60]).
Deterrence
General deterrence was treated as a fundamental consideration, requiring a sentence of sufficient severity to signal to would-be participants in the drug trade that financial rewards would be neutralised by the risk of severe punishment (at [65]). The need for specific deterrence was reduced by the offender's genuine insight into his addiction, his abstinence in custody, his completion of rehabilitation programs, and the availability of family and community support (at [66]).
Mitigating factors and special circumstances
The offender received a 25 percent discount on sentence for his early guilty plea (at [6]). The court found he had no significant prior criminal history and was a person of good character with a solid work history (at [68]-[69]). His remorse was assessed as genuine, and his prospects of rehabilitation were described as excellent, supported by program participation, consistent employment in the prison kitchen, and the support of longstanding friends and his elderly mother (at [70]-[71]). The court also noted that custody conditions were made more onerous by COVID-19 restrictions (at [72]). Special circumstances were found to exist, justifying a longer parole period given that this was the offender's first time in custody and his drug addiction issues required sustained post-release intervention (at [77]).
Parity
The court had regard to the sentence imposed on co-offender Mr Myers, who received an aggregate term of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 2 months. The court noted that Mr Myers was higher up the supply chain and was younger, but that the offender's total involvement across many more transactions and a much greater quantity of cocaine justified a higher sentence (at [74]).
Orders Made
- Ian William Templeton is convicted.
- A term of imprisonment of 8 years is imposed, with a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing 31 May 2021.
- The non-parole period expires on 30 May 2026; the head sentence expires on 30 May 2029.
- The offender is eligible for release on parole on 30 May 2026.
Key Takeaways
- General deterrence remains a primary sentencing consideration in large commercial drug supply matters, requiring a sentence that neutralises the financial incentives of the drug trade (at [65]).
- A finding of cannabis and stimulant use disorder, supported by psychiatric evidence, can reduce the need for specific deterrence and inform the court's assessment of the offender's culpability, without excusing the conduct (at [60], [66]).
- Supplying cocaine primarily to fund one's own drug use, while operating as a sole trader without organisational backing, is relevant to assessing an offender's role in a drug network, though it does not diminish the objective gravity of wholesale-level supply (at [63]).
- Special circumstances were established where the offender's first period in custody, combined with diagnosed substance use disorders, supported a longer period on parole to allow for sustained rehabilitation (at [77]).
- Parity with co-offenders remains a live consideration even where the co-offenders occupied different positions in the supply chain: the District Court imposed a higher sentence on the offender whose total quantity and transaction count significantly exceeded those of the already-sentenced co-offender (at [74]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases
- Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270