AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 7 November 2024

R v Grills

[2024] NSWDC 545

Drugs
CRIME SENTENCE SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG ON ONGOING BASIS SUPPLY COMMERCIAL QUANTITY COCAINE

Citation: R v Grills [2024] NSWDC 545
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 November 2024
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender faced sentencing on four drug supply offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, arising from police surveillance conducted between approximately April and August 2023. Police used telephone intercepts and surveillance devices to monitor the offender's dealings, during which he used encrypted messaging platforms including Telegram and communicated in coded language.

The offending involved the supply of methylamphetamine and cocaine to multiple recipients across regional New South Wales, including a co-offender named Tomlinson and a person named Edwards, among others. Transactions occurred across locations including Forster, Cessnock, Maitland, Kurri Kurri, Somersby, and Rutherford, with drugs exchanged for cash and bank transfers totalling tens of thousands of dollars per transaction.

The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was sentenced on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. A Form 1 document, listing three additional drug supply offences, was also taken into account.

  • What were the appropriate indicative sentences for each of the four offences, having regard to the maximum penalties and applicable standard non-parole periods?
  • What discount applied to reflect the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas?
  • How should the Form 1 offences affect the sentence for the substantive cocaine supply offence?
  • How should the totality principle apply to determine a just aggregate sentence across multiple serious drug offences?

Decision

The court applied a 25 per cent discount to each offence to reflect the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas, consistent with established sentencing principles. The discount was applied before calculating each indicative head sentence and non-parole period.

In relation to the Form 1 matters, which included additional drug supplies with the largest involving 86 grams of cocaine, the court found that personal deterrence warranted a moderate increase to the indicative term for the sequence 2 cocaine supply offence. The court noted, by reference to Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18, that Form 1 matters do not automatically increase a sentence and that the particular circumstances of the case must be considered.

The court set indicative terms for each offence separately before turning to totality. The indicative head sentences ranged from four years three months to four years nine months. The court determined that some notional accumulation among the sentences was required to reflect the overall criminality, but emphasised that totality principles required more than simply adding the individual terms together.

Applying the totality principle and the need for partial accumulation, the court imposed an aggregate head sentence of seven years and eight months, with a non-parole period of five years and four months, both commencing from 26 March 2024.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of all four offences.
  • Indicative sentences were nominated as follows:
  • Sequence 6 ongoing supply: head sentence of four years, six months (after 25% discount)
  • Sequence 10 ongoing supply: head sentence of four years, three months (after 25% discount)
  • Sequence 2 supply commercial quantity of cocaine (including Form 1 matters): head sentence of four years, five months; non-parole period of three years, one month
  • Sequence 6 supply large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine: head sentence of four years, nine months; non-parole period of three years, four months
  • Aggregate head sentence: seven years, eight months, commencing 26 March 2024 and expiring 25 November 2031
  • Non-parole period: five years, four months, expiring 25 July 2029

Key Takeaways

  • A 25 per cent discount applied uniformly across all four counts, reflecting early guilty pleas and their utilitarian value to the criminal justice system.
  • Under the approach confirmed in Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18, Form 1 offences do not automatically increase a sentence; a court must consider personal deterrence, retribution, and the specific circumstances before deciding whether and how much to increase the substantive penalty.
  • The totality principle required the court to notionally accumulate sentences without simply adding them together, resulting in a final aggregate substantially below the sum of the individual indicative terms.
  • Maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods (including a life maximum and a 15-year standard non-parole period for large commercial quantity methylamphetamine supply) serve as important guideposts but do not determine the outcome mechanically.
  • Offending conducted over months using encrypted communications, coded language, and multiple distribution channels across regional NSW was treated as reflecting serious and organised drug trafficking conduct.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

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

Cases
- Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
- Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59