AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 23 February 2026

Cardaklija v R

[2026] NSWCCA 9

DrugsFraud & dishonestyFirearms & weapons
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE APPEAL DISMISSED.

Citation: Cardaklija v R [2026] NSWCCA 9
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 23 February 2026
Judge(s): N Adams CJ at CL, Hamill J, Emmett J (Emmett J writing the principal judgment)

Background

The applicant was sentenced on 6 September 2024 to an aggregate sentence of 8 years and 11 months' imprisonment (with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months) for three offences: manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (13,276 grams), possessing an unlawful firearm, and dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime. The drug manufacture charge carried an indicative sentence of 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a 5-year non-parole period, and also took into account on a Form 1 a supply offence involving a further 246.35 grams of methylamphetamine.

The offending came to light when police executed a search warrant at the applicant's home in May 2022 as part of an investigation into methylamphetamine supply in the southwest Sydney area. Officers found crystallised material and chemicals consistent with methamphetamine manufacture in the garage and laundry, a loaded pistol in the applicant's bed head, prohibited weapons, and significant quantities of cash totalling approximately $229,000. Financial records also revealed $129,000 in transfers from an associate into the applicant's bank account over a period of less than three months.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the sole ground that the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the drug manufacture offence. In substance, the appeal raised two complaints: first, that the sentencing judge had placed undue emphasis on the quantity of the drug; and second, that the sentencing judge had erred in rejecting the applicant's evidence that his role was limited to merely "washing" or rinsing an already-finished product with acetone.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by placing excessive focus on the quantity of the drug in assessing the objective seriousness of the manufacture offence, contrary to the principles in Wong v The Queen.
  • Whether it was reasonably open for the sentencing judge to reject the applicant's sworn evidence that his role was limited to rinsing the methylamphetamine product.
  • Whether the sentencing judge's findings as to the applicant's role in the drug manufacturing operation were properly drawn beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether the lack of specificity in the sentencing judge's findings about the applicant's role constituted error.

Decision

On the approach to quantity: The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentencing judge did not err. Emmett J, reading the sentencing remarks "fairly and without an eye for error," found that the primary judge did not treat quantity as the sole or primary determinant of objective seriousness. Rather, the sentencing judge considered quantity alongside other relevant factors — including that the manufacturing took place in the applicant's home, that it was a "successful exercise," and that the applicant was a trusted member of what appeared to be a drug syndicate. The Court applied the principles from Wong v The Queen, which caution against treating quantity as the sole touchstone of seriousness, but found no such error had occurred here.

On the rejection of the applicant's evidence: The applicant had given sworn evidence that his involvement was limited to rinsing finished methylamphetamine with acetone — essentially a washing or purification step. The sentencing judge declined to accept this account, even on the balance of probabilities, noting that it was inconsistent with the $129,000 in bank transfers from an associate and the scale of the operation found at the premises. Importantly, the sentencing judge had given proper notice during closing submissions that she might not accept the applicant's version of events, thereby affording the applicant's counsel an opportunity to address the issue. The Court applied Hancock v The King [2025] NSWCCA 213 and held that it was reasonably open for the sentencing judge to reject this evidence.

On the findings as to role and the lack of specificity: Having rejected the applicant's evidence about his limited role, the sentencing judge was left with relatively sparse evidence about the precise nature and extent of his involvement. The Court held, applying R v Olbrich, that the lack of detailed findings about the applicant's role simply reflected the limited evidence the sentencing judge was prepared to accept, and did not itself constitute error. What the sentencing judge did find — that the applicant was a trusted member of a drug syndicate conducting manufacturing in his own home — was properly drawn beyond reasonable doubt on the available evidence. The Court distinguished O'Neill-Shaw v The Queen on its facts.

The Court was ultimately satisfied that the sentencing judge's assessment of the offence as falling within the mid-range of objective seriousness was not attended by any error of the kind described in House v The King.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal was granted (including an extension of time to bring the application).
  • The appeal was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • Quantity is a relevant but not determinative factor: The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that sentencing judges are not precluded from giving significant weight to the quantity of drug involved in a manufacturing offence, provided it is considered alongside other relevant factors such as the offender's role, the location and sophistication of the operation, and connections to organised crime. The principles in Wong v The Queen require a holistic assessment, not an artificial discounting of quantity.

  • Procedural fairness requires notice before rejecting an offender's sworn evidence: Where a sentencing judge proposes to reject an offender's testimony about their role, proper notice of that possibility must be given so that counsel can make submissions in response. The primary judge's foreshadowing of her scepticism during closing argument was held to satisfy this requirement, consistent with Hancock v The King.

  • Sparse findings may reflect sparse accepted evidence, not appellable error: A sentencing judge who rejects an offender's account of their role is not required to construct a detailed alternative narrative. It is sufficient that whatever findings are made are established beyond reasonable doubt on the accepted evidence, even if those findings are necessarily general.

  • Circumstantial evidence can support significant inferences about an offender's role: The combination of the scale of manufacture, the location in the offender's home, the presence of a loaded firearm, and unexplained financial transfers was held capable of supporting an inference that the offender held a significant and trusted position within a drug supply network, even absent direct evidence of the specifics of that role.

  • In dismissing the application, the Court reaffirmed that ex tempore sentencing remarks are to be read generously: Appellate courts will consider such remarks fairly and as a whole, without an overly critical focus on individual phrases, when assessing whether error is disclosed.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 24(2)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 7(1)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C(1)
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 3.5(5)

Cases:
- Hancock v The King [2025] NSWCCA 213
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- O'Neill-Shaw v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 42
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
- Weir v The Queen [2011] NSWCA 123
- Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64