AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 June 2025

R v Stone

[2025] NSWDC 334

Drugs
CRIME SENTENCE

Citation: R v Stone [2025] NSWDC 334
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 20 June 2025
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ

Background

The offender was sentenced for two offences of supplying methylamphetamine under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The first and more serious charge involved supplying a quantity not less than the large commercial quantity (635.6 grams, against a threshold of 500 grams). The second charge involved supplying a quantity more than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity (189.3 grams, against a threshold of 5 grams). Both quantities were found in the offender's motor vehicle following a police search on 9 May 2023.

The relevant events unfolded over 7 to 9 May 2023, involving the offender and a co-participant named Dylan Shaw. The offending centred on a series of exchanges in which low-quality methylamphetamine was to be returned to a supplier and substituted for different product. The offender participated primarily by transporting Shaw and communicating with him during the exchange process.

At the time of the offending, the offender was on parole for a prior drug offence. Only Shaw's fingerprints were found on the bags containing the drugs.

  • What was the objective seriousness of each offence, having regard to quantity, purity, value, and the offender's role?
  • What was the offender's role relative to co-participant Shaw, and did that role justify characterising him as an equal co-offender?
  • Whether an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to community safety as the paramount consideration and the requirements under s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
  • What discount applied for the guilty plea, and how should time on bail refusal be accounted for?

Decision

On objective seriousness, the court assessed the four commonly relevant factors: quantity, purity, value, and role. The quantities involved in both charges exceeded their respective thresholds, but the purity of the drugs was low (6% for sequence 4, 7% for sequence 1). No evidence of drug value was before the court, and the court declined to speculate adversely to the offender on that point.

The Crown submitted that the offender was an equal co-offender with Shaw. The court rejected that characterisation. On the agreed facts, the offender played a significantly lesser role, doing no more in substance than transporting Shaw on 9 May 2023. This finding bore on the assessment of objective seriousness.

The court applied a 25% discount for the guilty plea and accounted for three months spent on bail refusal, reducing the notional aggregate sentence to two years and three months. For the principal offence (sequence 1), an indicative sentence of two years and five months was reached after the plea discount. For sequence 4, an indicative sentence of one year and one month was reached.

The court concluded that the offender's risk of reoffending would not be better addressed by full-time detention, and that community safety would be more fully served by an ICO. The court applied s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and followed the High Court's guidance in Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3 in reaching that conclusion.

Orders Made

  • Intensive Correction Order (ICO) of two years and three months, commencing 20 June 2025
  • Mandatory conditions: no offending; submission to supervision by a community corrections officer
  • Additional conditions imposed:
  • Compliance with the treatment plan in the psychologist's report (Ms Hawil)
  • Abstention from all illicit drugs and any unprescribed lawful drugs
  • Reporting to the officer in charge of Gosford Community Corrections before 4pm on Tuesday, 24 June 2025
  • Registry directed to forward the psychologist's report to Gosford Community Corrections

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court rejected the Crown's submission that the offender was an equal co-offender, finding his role was significantly lesser than that of his co-participant, which was a material factor in the objective seriousness assessment.
  • Where drug value is not established in evidence, a sentencing court will not speculate adversely to the offender when assessing objective seriousness.
  • Under s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and consistent with Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3, community safety is the paramount consideration when determining whether an ICO is appropriate, and the court assessed that an ICO would serve that purpose more fully than full-time custody in the circumstances.
  • Low drug purity was treated as a relevant mitigating factor in assessing the objective gravity of both charges, despite the quantities exceeding their respective statutory thresholds.
  • Time spent on bail refusal was applied as a reduction to the aggregate sentence, with the court treating that period as exclusively referable to the charges before it.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25(1), 25(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 66

Cases:
- Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3