AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 4 February 2025

R v Decresci

[2025] NSWDC 81

Drugs

Citation: R v Decresci [2025] NSWDC 81
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 4 February 2025
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

In August 2022, Australian Border Force intercepted four consignments addressed to a Wollongong property containing a total of 16.62 kilograms of P2P glycidic acid (a border-controlled precursor used in drug manufacture) at 82% purity. The offender had nominated his partner and her address to receive the packages, acting as a conduit for unidentified persons higher in the supply chain. Police found no evidence he sourced, paid for, or received financial reward for the importation.

A telephone interception warrant executed from October 2022 to March 2023 revealed the offender was also supplying gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), a prohibited drug, to a small number of customers. He supplied 590 millilitres in total, in amounts ranging from 10 to 180 millilitres, charging approximately $50 per 50 millilitres. The intercepts further revealed that in October and November 2022 he supplied four grams of methylamphetamine.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two charges: aiding and abetting the importation of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor (a Commonwealth offence under s 307.11(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), carrying a maximum of 25 years imprisonment), and supplying a prohibited drug under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), carrying a maximum of 15 years. The methylamphetamine supply was placed on a Form 1 to be taken into account on sentence for the State supply offence.

  • What was the objective seriousness of each offence, having regard to the offender's role and the quantity of drugs involved?
  • What weight should be given to aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record for drug supply and offending while on conditional liberty?
  • What reduction was required for early guilty pleas under both State and Commonwealth sentencing regimes?
  • How should the State and Commonwealth sentences be structured and totalled to achieve a proportionate, non-crushing outcome?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including drug addiction, strict upbringing, and the consequences of an accident in his twenties?

Decision

His Honour assessed the State supply offence as low-level street dealing. The offender was a small-scale supplier with a limited customer base, supplying GBL in modest quantities, partly driven by his own use of the drug. Haesler SC DCJ nonetheless emphasised that low-level dealers are critical to the functioning of illicit drug networks and that a custodial sentence was warranted. The Form 1 methylamphetamine supply required greater weight to be given to personal deterrence and retribution.

On the Commonwealth importation offence, the court accepted the offender occupied a low position in the hierarchy, with an unsophisticated role and no evidence of direct financial benefit. However, the quantity (16.62 kilograms across four consignments) could not be ignored. The fact that those higher in the chain had not been and were unlikely to be prosecuted did not reduce the seriousness of the offender's participation.

Aggravating factors included a prior criminal history of drug supply (including a five-year sentence imposed in 2016) and the fact that the offending occurred while the offender was on bail and engaged in the MERIT Program. These factors confirmed the offending was not an isolated aberration. His Honour noted the offender's good conduct in custody and accepted, without cross-examination, his letter expressing shame, though the court observed he had reoffended despite knowing the consequences.

A 25% reduction was applied to both sentences to reflect the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas. The sentences were structured with a substantial parole period to allow supervised reintegration for as long as practicable.

Orders Made

  • Conviction entered on both the State supply offence and the Commonwealth importation offence.
  • The methylamphetamine supply offence was taken into account on a Form 1.
  • State sentence (supply of GBL): 1 year and 10 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year, commencing 29 March 2023.
  • Commonwealth sentence (aiding and abetting importation of precursor): 4 years imprisonment, commencing 29 November 2023 (8 months after commencement of State sentence), with a non-parole period of 2 years, expiring 28 November 2025.
  • Parole period of 2 years from 28 November 2025; sentence expires 28 November 2027.
  • Total effective sentence: 4 years and 8 months, with a minimum of 2 years and 8 months to be served before parole eligibility.
  • Drug destruction order made in relation to the Commonwealth offence.

Key Takeaways

  • A low-level role in a drug importation or supply network does not preclude a substantial custodial sentence. The District Court confirmed that low-level participants are integral to drug supply chains, and the community harm caused by illicit drug trade demands meaningful punishment even at the bottom of the hierarchy.

  • Under both State and Commonwealth sentencing frameworks, an early guilty plea attracts a 25% reduction, reflecting utilitarian value and cooperation with the course of justice. The exercises are legally distinct but the overall sentence must achieve proportionality across both.

  • Where a Form 1 offence is taken into account, greater weight must be given to personal deterrence and retribution for the principal offence, consistent with the Court of Criminal Appeal's guidance in Attorney General's Application No 1 of 2002.

  • Offending while subject to conditional liberty (here, bail with engagement in a MERIT drug rehabilitation program) remains a statutory aggravating factor, and a prior pattern of drug supply offending is relevant to demonstrating that the conduct was not uncharacteristically aberrant.

  • General deterrence carries substantial weight in drug supply and importation sentencing. The court reaffirmed the well-established principle that stern punishment is warranted in almost every case involving drug supply at any level, given the broader social consequences of the illicit drug trade.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.11(1)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Cases:
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
- Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
- Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
- R (Cth) v Madgwick [2018] NSWCCA 268
- R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
- R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
- R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
- Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
- The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 256 CLR 550
- DPP v Gao [2021] VCC 1513