AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 29 October 2024

R v Cantarakis

[2024] NSWDC 650

Drugs

Citation: R v Cantarakis [2024] NSWDC 650
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 October 2024
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

A police investigation targeting a drug distribution network in Wollongong captured the offender, a young man born in 2001, acting as a courier on a single occasion. On 25 May 2023, he collected approximately 195 grams of cocaine on behalf of an associate and delivered it to that associate's apartment. A subsequent search warrant confirmed the quantity, and he was arrested shortly afterwards.

The offender was not a principal in the supply operation. He was a courier, recruited by an associate who ran a broader network. His precise motivation was not established on the agreed facts, though some form of reward was anticipated and his own drug use may have been a factor.

He spent just under four months on remand before being granted strict bail, which operated in practical terms as home detention. The matter proceeded to the District Court after negotiations resulted in a fresh indictment, to which he entered a late guilty plea to one count of supplying a prohibited drug under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the offence, given the offender's role as a courier and the quantity of drugs involved?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his age, limited criminal history, time on remand, and prospects for rehabilitation?
  • What discount applied for a late guilty plea entered to a fresh indictment?
  • Whether an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was appropriate in place of full-time custody, having regard to the paramount consideration of community safety under the Stanley framework.

Decision

His Honour found the offending was serious. The quantity of 195 grams considerably exceeded the indictable threshold of 5 grams, and the offender's role as a courier, while not that of a principal, was not without significance. The court applied the principle from R v Shi and R v Blair that drug distribution networks depend on the willingness of couriers to take on risk, and that couriers therefore cannot be treated as peripheral. The maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) informed the sentencing range as a guide to Parliament's view of the offence's seriousness.

On the subjective side, the court identified a number of mitigating factors. The offender was young, had effectively no meaningful prior record, had served nearly four months on remand under strict bail conditions, and had the support of family and his church community. A psychologist's report described a maturing young man who, while lacking direction at the time of the offence, had since re-engaged with his studies and demonstrated sound accountability. His Honour accepted that the offender showed some regret and shame, though noted the material revealed limited insight into the broader community impact of drug supply. Full remorse credit was not extended, but he was not penalised for the absence of it.

The late guilty plea, entered after a fresh indictment was presented, attracted only a 5% utilitarian discount under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The offender also received a reduction to reflect the period of effective home detention during strict bail.

Applying the framework in Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3, the court found that an ICO was appropriate. Corrections officers had assessed the offender favourably and his rehabilitation prospects were genuine. Imprisonment was accepted as the only appropriate sentencing form, but the total sentence fell below two years and, weighing all factors including community safety and the offender's rehabilitative prospects, the balance of the sentence was ordered to be served in the community under intensive correction.

Orders Made

  • Total sentence of 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment, served subject to an Intensive Correction Order (ICO).
  • Standard ICO conditions apply, including no further offences and submission to supervision by Community Corrections.
  • Additional condition: 125 hours of community service work.
  • The offender was directed to report to Wollongong Community Corrections within seven days.

Note: the initial sentence assessed after the plea discount was 1 year and 8 months; a further reduction for the remand and strict bail period brought the final sentence to 1 year and 4 months.

Key Takeaways

  • A courier's role in a drug supply network does not remove objective seriousness from the offending. The District Court confirmed that couriers are essential to the functioning of distribution networks, and this colours the sentencing exercise even where the offender played no organising or directing role.
  • Under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a late plea entered to a fresh indictment attracts only a 5% utilitarian discount, rather than the larger discounts available for earlier guilty pleas.
  • Where a young offender with limited criminal history demonstrates genuine rehabilitative prospects, courts may give significant weight to those prospects alongside the need for general deterrence, particularly in cases where the individual had not developed settled criminal habits.
  • Applying the Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3 framework, an ICO remained available and was found appropriate here despite the seriousness of drug supply offending, given the combination of the offender's age, the Corrections assessment, and the community safety benefit of supervised rehabilitation over full-time incarceration.
  • Time spent on remand under strict bail conditions that operate as effective home detention is a recognised factor reducing the balance of a sentence, distinct from the utilitarian plea discount.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25D

Cases
- Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
- R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
- R v Blair (2005) 152 A Crim R 462
- Blakeney v R [2022] NSWCCA 277
- Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
- Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
- Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
- R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
- Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
- R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
- R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203