AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 23 April 2025

R v Wong

[2025] NSWDC 146

Drugs

Citation: R v Wong [2025] NSWDC 146
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 April 2025
Judge: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty at Downing Centre Local Court on 30 July 2024 to two counts of supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The drugs involved were Butanediol (963.5 g) and Gamma Butyrolactone (812.3 g), both found during a police search of the bedroom she shared with a co-offender at a Balmain residence in September 2023. Methylamphetamine (65.22 g) and $2,535 in cash were also found, and two further matters were placed on a Form 1 to be taken into account on sentence.

Phone evidence revealed the offender had been actively engaged in drug supply in the weeks before her arrest, including communications about pricing, arranging deliveries, and photographing product for buyers. She was arrested on 6 September 2023 and declined to be interviewed by police.

At the time of offending, the offender was on parole following a November 2020 sentence for offences including robbery and causing grievous bodily harm. Her parole was revoked effective 6 September 2023 on grounds she had breached the good behaviour condition. She had a prior criminal history that included drug supply, dishonesty offences, and the serious 2020 matters.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the supply offences, having regard to the nature and quantity of the drugs and the surrounding circumstances?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including a reported gambling addiction said to have driven the offending, and her claim that some drugs were for personal use?
  • How should the offender's parole status at the time of offending affect the sentence?
  • What was the appropriate commencement date for the sentence, given the revocation of parole?

Decision

Fitzsimmons SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offences as moderate. While the quantities of Butanediol and Gamma Butyrolactone were significant, the court took into account that both drugs attract lower maximum penalties than methamphetamine and that the methylamphetamine was addressed only through the Form 1 rather than as a principal offence. The evidence of active supply via phone messages, along with the presence of scales, multiple phones, and other paraphernalia, pointed to an organised retail-level operation rather than a peripheral role.

On the subjective case, the court accepted the psychologist's evidence that the offender had a significant gambling addiction and a complex personal history including emotionally abusive relationships, substance misuse, and financial instability. These factors were treated as providing some, but limited, mitigatory weight. The court acknowledged the offender's guilty plea (with the discount applied), her completion of programs in custody, and her letter of apology as genuine indicators of remorse and rehabilitation. Claims that some drugs were for personal use were considered but given reduced weight given the volume involved and the phone evidence.

The offender's parole status at the time of the offending did not elevate the objective seriousness of the offences themselves but operated as an aggravating factor bearing on punishment, deterrence, and community protection, consistent with the Court of Criminal Appeal's analysis in Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105. The court exercised its discretion to backdate the sentence commencement to 1 November 2023, accounting for the period served following revocation of parole. Relevant considerations included the length of time the offender had been on parole before reoffending, the drug-related nature of some prior offences, and that the imprisonment for the revoked parole arose from the original sentence rather than new conduct.

The court structured the aggregate sentence to reflect the totality principle, ensuring that the combined effect of the sentences was proportionate to the overall criminality. Given the commencement date and the non-parole period set, the offender was eligible for immediate release at the time of sentencing.

Orders Made

  • The offender is convicted of the offences.
  • A total aggregate sentence of 2 years and 2 months imprisonment, commencing 1 November 2023 and expiring 31 December 2025.
  • A non-parole period of 1 year and 5 months, expiring 31 March 2025.
  • The offender is eligible to be released forthwith.
  • The offender is directed to report to Community Corrections NSW at their Sydney office within 5 days of release.
  • The offender is to accept the supervision of Community Corrections NSW and abide by their reasonable directions during the parole term.

Key Takeaways

  • Being on parole at the time of offending does not increase the objective seriousness of the new offence, but it does aggravate the sentence by affecting the weight given to punishment, deterrence, and community protection, consistent with Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105.
  • Where parole has been revoked as a consequence of the new offending, the sentencing court retains significant discretion to backdate the sentence commencement, weighing factors such as the length of time spent on parole, the similarity of offences, and the fact that time served for the revoked parole derived from the original sentence.
  • A reported gambling addiction may carry mitigating weight as a driver of drug supply offending, but its value is reduced where the quantity and nature of the drugs, and surrounding phone evidence, are inconsistent with a purely personal-use or financially desperate narrative.
  • Completion of rehabilitative and vocational programs in custody, combined with a letter of apology and character evidence, can contribute to findings of genuine remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, even where an offender has a significant prior record.
  • The totality principle requires that an aggregate sentence reflect the overall criminality, particularly where Form 1 matters are taken into account alongside the principal offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C
- Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105
- Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
- Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- R v Brown [2023] NSWDC 477
- Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23
- DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81
- Giles-Adam v R; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122
- Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220
- Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
- Pham v R [2013] NSWCCA 217
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149
- Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
- Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84
- R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
- NGO v R [2017] WASCA 3