AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 8 September 2025

R v Hallam

[2025] NSWDC 375

DrugsFraud & dishonesty
SENTENCING DRUG OFFENCES DEALING WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME COCAINE RELATED OFFENCES NO CRIMINAL HISTORY

Citation: R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 September 2025
Judge(s): Sutherland SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a young man with no criminal history, was sentenced on six charges arising from his involvement in a cocaine supply network operating in Queanbeyan and the surrounding region between January and September 2022. The most serious charge was attempting to possess a large commercial quantity of cocaine (1 kg), which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

Police had been investigating the group since September 2021 using telephone intercepts and surveillance devices. The group was led by a co-offender (Lawrie) who relocated to Queensland but maintained remote control. The offender joined the group in January 2022 and participated in supplying cocaine, transporting drugs, receiving proceeds of crime ($55,000 on behalf of the group), and attempting to procure 1 kg of cocaine from an upline supplier. He acted under the direction of Lawrie at all times.

Two co-offenders (Cassie and Ellis) had already been sentenced. The offender had spent approximately 1 year and 7 months in pre-sentence custody before being released to bail in April 2024, and had spent a further 1 year and almost 5 months on bail at the time of sentencing.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for six drug and proceeds-of-crime offences, plus two offences on a s 166 certificate, considering the offender's lesser role, lack of criminal history, and rehabilitation on bail?
  • How should parity with the sentences imposed on co-offenders Cassie and Ellis be assessed?
  • What discount should apply for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea?
  • What were the practical consequences of an aggregate head sentence exceeding three years, given the offender's extensive pre-sentence custody and time on bail? Specifically, how did s 135 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) affect release to parole?

Decision

The Court accepted that the offender held a comparatively lesser role and was involved for a shorter period than the co-offender Cassie, who had been sentenced to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. The offender had no prior criminal history. The sentencing judge, Hunt DCJ (when sentencing Cassie), had expressly noted the offender's similar but shorter involvement compared to Cassie.

The Court gave weight to significant subjective factors in the offender's favour: his genuine remorse, extensive family support, educational achievements both in custody (hospitality and cleaning certificates, work safety qualifications) and on bail (Certificate IV in Building and Construction), his stable employment in the family building business, and his demonstrated rehabilitation over the extended bail period.

A 10% discount was applied for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea.

A notable aspect of the sentencing was the Court's treatment of the interaction between the head sentence and the parole regime. Because the aggregate head sentence exceeded three years, the offender was not entitled to automatic release on statutory parole at the expiry of the non-parole period. Instead, under s 135 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the State Parole Authority would need to make a parole determination. This meant that despite the non-parole period having effectively expired (given the offender's extensive pre-sentence custody), the offender was required to enter custody so that the Parole Authority could exercise its jurisdiction, even though the Court's intention was for his immediate release to parole.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment exceeding 3 years (the precise aggregate figures are not fully set out in the truncated judgment, but the head sentence exceeded 3 years).
  • Pre-sentence custody of approximately 1 year and 7 months was taken into account.
  • A 10% discount was applied to reflect the utilitarian value of the guilty plea.
  • The offences on the s 166 certificate (possession of steroids and possession of ammunition without a licence) were dealt with as part of the overall sentencing exercise, with the Court indicating these would be addressed by way of orders under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (conviction without further punishment) or equivalent.
  • The offender was required to enter custody so that the State Parole Authority could make a parole determination, notwithstanding the effective expiry of the non-parole period.

Key Takeaways

  • A head sentence exceeding three years triggered the State Parole Authority's discretion under s 135 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, removing automatic statutory parole. The District Court noted this could require an offender with lengthy pre-sentence custody to re-enter custody pending a Parole Authority determination, even where the non-parole period had effectively been served.

  • Where the interaction between pre-sentence custody and parole arrangements risked producing an unintended outcome, the Court treated it as a material sentencing consideration. A sentence intended to result in near-immediate release could instead require the offender to return to custody pending a Parole Authority determination if the head sentence crossed the three-year threshold.

  • Parity with co-offenders was a significant factor in the sentencing exercise. The District Court carefully compared the offender's role, duration of involvement, and criminal history against those of co-offenders who had already been sentenced, and differences in the level of participation and culpability were precisely quantified in determining the ultimate sentence.

  • Rehabilitation on bail carried real weight in the sentencing determination. The offender's completion of vocational qualifications, stable employment, and strong family support during an extended bail period were clearly influential, and affidavit evidence from family members describing the offender's changed behaviour was found to be persuasive in establishing rehabilitation prospects.

  • Under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a 10% discount was applied for the guilty plea. The District Court held that this discount reflected the utilitarian value of the plea rather than a broader recognition of contrition, which was addressed separately as a subjective factor.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) s 135
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 10A, 53A
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 93T, 193B
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 65
- Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) s 16

Cases cited:
- Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81
- McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344
- R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477
- R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913
- R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
- R v Hawi [2015] NSWSC 206
- R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
- R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877
- R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
- R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889
- Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47
- Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141