AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 April 2026

R v Daramy

[2026] NSWDC 108

Drugs
SENTENCING

Citation: R v Daramy [2026] NSWDC 108
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 April 2026
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender was tried on 12 counts relating to the importation of border controlled drugs (cocaine and methamphetamine) into Australia between approximately September 2021 and June 2022. The jury acquitted him on one count but convicted him on the remaining 11 counts. Ten counts charged him with aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the importation of border controlled drugs (both marketable and commercial quantities). One count charged him with attempting to obtain possession of an unlawfully imported commercial quantity of methamphetamine.

The offending involved the offender using multiple mobile phone handsets and encrypted messaging (including WhatsApp) to facilitate drug importations. He provided consignee addresses, contact phone numbers, and other logistical information to overseas associates to enable consignments of cocaine and methamphetamine to be sent to Australia. The consignments were intercepted by the Australian Border Force at various points. The offender had no prior criminal convictions.

  • What was the appropriate aggregate sentence for 11 Commonwealth drug importation offences, spanning both marketable and commercial quantity thresholds?
  • What was the offender's role in the offending, and how should that role be characterised for sentencing purposes?
  • How should the standard of proof apply to disputed facts on sentence (beyond reasonable doubt for facts adverse to the offender; balance of probabilities for facts favourable to him)?
  • What mitigating and subjective factors were relevant, including the offender's background, lack of prior convictions, and character evidence?
  • How should the principles of totality and proportionality apply across the multiple offences, consistent with Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 and Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295?
  • What weight, if any, should be given to considerations arising from Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 (social disadvantage) and the recently decided The King v McGregor [2026] HCA 3?

Decision

The court found the offender played a significant facilitative role in multiple drug importation operations over a period of roughly nine months. He acted as a coordinator, providing Australian delivery addresses and consignee contact details to overseas suppliers to enable consignments concealed in everyday items (such as plastic mugs) to reach Australia. The drugs involved included both cocaine and methamphetamine, with quantities ranging from marketable to commercial thresholds. Three of the 11 counts (Counts 7, 8, and 11) involved commercial quantities, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

On the question of fact-finding, Mahony SC DCJ applied the orthodox principles from Filippou v The Queen and Savvas v The Queen: adverse facts required proof beyond reasonable doubt, while mitigating facts relied upon by the offender needed to be established on the balance of probabilities. The Crown's proposed statement of facts (77 paragraphs of detailed evidence) was agreed to by the defence and annexed to the sentencing remarks. Evidence from intercepted communications, seized handsets, and ABF consignment records grounded the factual findings.

In mitigation, the court considered the offender's lack of prior convictions, character references (including from a pastor, former colleagues, and family members), a psychological report, his custodial record (clean, with no infractions), and family circumstances (including an affidavit from a family member). The court also considered the periods the offender had spent on remand. The parties agreed that any sentence of imprisonment should commence on 24 December 2024 to account for time already served.

Applying the principles governing aggregate sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) as adapted for Commonwealth offences, and the totality principle from Postiglione and Pearce, the court imposed an aggregate sentence. The judgment reflects careful consideration of recent appellate guidance, including Ozgen v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 65 and The King v McGregor [2026] HCA 3, on the approach to sentencing for multiple related offences. The full text of the sentencing remarks (including the annexed agreed facts) was not available beyond the truncated extract, so the precise aggregate term imposed is not reproduced here.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted on 11 counts (Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12).
  • An aggregate sentence of imprisonment was imposed (the precise term is not available in the truncated judgment).
  • The sentence was backdated to commence on 24 December 2024, reflecting time served in custody on remand.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court addressed Commonwealth drug importation offences spanning both marketable quantity (maximum 25 years) and commercial quantity (maximum life imprisonment) thresholds, with the sentencing approach across 11 counts reflecting the sharp differential between those two penalty tiers.

  • In applying the fact-finding framework from Filippou and Savvas, Mahony SC DCJ proceeded on the basis that neither the Crown's adverse version nor the offender's favourable version was established to the required standard where the evidence did not clearly resolve the dispute. This neutral pathway proved significant in a multi-count drug prosecution where the offender's precise knowledge and role were contested.

  • A broad range of subjective case material was received and considered despite the seriousness of the Commonwealth drug offences, including psychological reports, custodial conduct records, character references from community and religious figures, and family affidavits, in circumstances where the offender had no prior criminal record.

  • Aggregate sentencing for Commonwealth offences was applied by invoking the totality principle and the Pearce requirement that each offence receive independent consideration even within an aggregate framework. The Court cited and applied recent High Court guidance in The King v McGregor [2026] HCA 3 on this topic.

  • To accurately capture the full custody chronology across a protracted prosecution, the sentence was backdated to account for all periods of remand custody, including a period on Supreme Court bail falling between two remand stints, reflecting the parties' agreement on the correct calculation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Code (Cth), ss 307.1(1), 307.2(1), 307.5(1), 11.1(1), 11.2(1)
- Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Key Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 27
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
- Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
- Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295
- The King v McGregor [2026] HCA 3
- Ozgen v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 65
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
- R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238
- Chiarlini v R [2023] NSWCCA 227
- Elzein v R [2021] NSWCCA 246
- R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
- El-Ghourani v R [2009] NSWCCA 140
- *