AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 July 2025

R v Byrne

[2025] NSWDC 575

DrugsFraud & dishonesty
CRIME SENTENCE PLEAS OF GUILTY PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION EXCELLENT 3 YEAR ICO

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 575
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 July 2025
Judge(s): Neilson DCJ

Background

The offender, a 45-year-old man, pleaded guilty to five offences and asked the court to take four further charges into account on a Form 1. The most serious charge was supplying a commercial quantity (2,068.54 grams) of 1,4-Butanediol (a GHB analogue), contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The second substantive charge was dealing with $600,000 in property suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

On 20 October 2023, the offender and a co-offender were observed on CCTV at a hired Kennards storage unit in Petersham unloading bags and suitcases. When police arrested the offender on outstanding warrants, they found an array of drugs in his backpack and on a trolley at the unit, including heroin, methylamphetamine, buprenorphine (Suboxone strips), MDMA, Valium, Xanax, Oxymetholone, and four bottles of Butanediol disguised as "Plastic Special Glue." Subsequent investigation of the offender's nine bank accounts revealed at least $600,000 in suspicious deposits between September 2020 and December 2023.

Intercepted calls from custody showed the offender making admissions to the co-offender about the drugs found. He attempted to distance himself from the Butanediol by noting it was found on the trolley with the co-offender's belongings rather than on his person.

  • What was the objective seriousness of supplying a commercial quantity of Butanediol, particularly given the drug's relatively low street value and profit margins compared to drugs like cocaine or heroin?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's criminal history, including prior drug-related convictions, against his successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program in custody?
  • Whether the low financial reward associated with Butanediol trafficking was a relevant mitigating factor in sentencing, having regard to Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55 and related authorities.
  • Whether factors of disadvantage under Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 were applicable.
  • Whether an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was an appropriate sentencing disposition despite the gravity of the principal offence, which carries a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

Decision

The court accepted that while the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act does not create a harm-based graduation of penalties among different prohibited drugs, the relatively low financial reward associated with Butanediol trafficking was a relevant consideration to objective seriousness. Following the reasoning in Petkos v R, the court acknowledged that where expected financial reward is small, the offending may be less objectively serious than trafficking in high-value drugs, all other things being equal. The quantity found (approximately double the commercial quantity but half the large commercial quantity) also informed the court's assessment.

The court gave significant weight to the offender's guilty pleas, which attracted a discount of 25% (the pleas being entered at an early stage but not the earliest opportunity). The offender's criminal history, which included prior drug-related matters, was noted. However, Neilson DCJ found the offender's prospects of rehabilitation to be "excellent," based on his successful completion of a drug rehabilitation course while in custody. This appears to have been a decisive factor in the sentencing outcome.

The court also considered the offender's background of disadvantage. While the judgment text as available does not elaborate in detail on the Bugmy findings, the citation of that authority indicates the court took into account the offender's personal circumstances of deprivation or disadvantage in assessing moral culpability.

Taking into account all relevant sentencing factors, including the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas under R v Butler, the nature of the drug, the quantity, the proceeds of crime charge, and the offender's personal circumstances and rehabilitation, the court imposed a three-year Intensive Correction Order rather than a sentence of full-time imprisonment.

Orders Made

  • Three-year Intensive Correction Order (ICO) imposed
  • Guilty pleas entered for five charges (Sequences 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12), with four additional charges (Sequences 2, 3, 7, and 8) taken into account on a Form 1 attached to Sequence 9
  • Remaining charges (Sequences 1, 4, and 5) withdrawn or to be withdrawn

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that the relatively low financial reward associated with a particular drug class, such as GHB analogues, can be a relevant mitigating factor when assessing objective seriousness, following the approach in Petkos v R. The Illicit Drug Data Report was relied upon to assess the modest returns from Butanediol trafficking, with pricing data and profit margins treated as relevant to the sentencing assessment.

  • Successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program in custody was treated as establishing "excellent" prospects of rehabilitation, despite a criminal history that included prior drug offences. This finding proved pivotal in the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order rather than full-time custody for a charge carrying a 20-year maximum sentence.

  • Under s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, the $600,000 dealing-with-proceeds charge was sentenced concurrently as part of the overall criminality. The aggregation of significant financial dealing with drug supply charges, with the offender still receiving an ICO, illustrates that the totality principle and individual circumstances can produce outcomes well below the statutory maximum even where substantial sums are involved.

  • A 25% discount for the guilty pleas was applied, consistent with the structured approach in R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133, reflecting that the pleas were entered at the earliest practicable opportunity.

  • As a first-instance sentencing decision, the outcome was heavily fact-dependent, reflecting the specific combination of a lower-value drug, strong rehabilitation evidence, and early guilty pleas. It does not signal a general softening of approach to commercial-quantity drug supply.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C(1)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)

Cases:
- R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133, [44]–[46]
- Petkos v R [2020] NSWCCA 55, [26]–[28]
- Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
- Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143
- DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50