Citation: R v Raad [2026] NSWDC 173
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 April 2026
Judge(s): Montgomery DCJ
Background
The offender pleaded guilty to a single count of supplying a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in an indictable quantity of 135.6 grams, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offence occurred on 20 February 2024 and involved the offender delivering five bags of methylamphetamine (at 80.5% purity) to an undercover police officer and receiving $19,000 in cash. The offender's role was limited to physical delivery of the drugs and collection of the money at a pre-arranged meeting.
A co-offender, who had been sentenced previously by the same judge, was convicted of significantly more serious offending. That co-offender was sentenced for two supply offences and two further matters taken into account on a Form 1, involving a total of 989.2 grams of methylamphetamine across six supply events, along with firearms offences. The co-offender's role involved organising supplies, negotiating prices, and acting as a go-between.
The offender was arrested on 20 March 2025 and had been in custody for approximately one year and 22 days (387 days) at the time of sentencing. He had an extensive criminal history and had spent more than 12 of the previous 17 years incarcerated.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of the offender's single supply offence, having regard to his limited role as a courier, the quantity of drug, and its purity?
- What weight should the principle of parity with the co-offender carry, given the significant differences in the scope and gravity of their respective offending?
- Whether the risk of institutionalisation and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation constituted special circumstances warranting a sentence other than full-time custody.
- Whether an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) was an appropriate sentencing disposition in the circumstances.
Decision
Montgomery DCJ assessed the offender's conduct as falling well below mid-range objective seriousness for offences of this type. The offender's role was confined to delivering the drugs and collecting money at a single meeting already arranged by the co-offender. The court could not find beyond reasonable doubt what personal financial gain, if any, the offender received. While the quantity was in the mid-range for an indictable offence, the offender's limited role significantly reduced the gravity of the offending.
The court accepted the Crown's submission that parity with the co-offender was not a weighty consideration. The co-offender had been sentenced for far more serious conduct: multiple offences, a much larger quantity of drugs, firearms charges, and a substantially greater organisational role. The indicative sentence for the co-offender's drug supply offending alone had been five years' imprisonment.
On the subjective case, the court gave significant weight to the risk of institutionalisation. The offender, aged 42 at sentencing, had spent most of his adult life in custody. Expert reports, including a Sentence Assessment Report (SAR) and a psychologist's report, indicated the offender had begun to demonstrate genuine insight into his offending and was motivated to change. He had been compliant with a methadone program since his arrest, had largely abstained from illicit drug use in custody, and was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending. He had a history of opioid and stimulant use disorder, linked by the psychologist to childhood sexual abuse and subsequent self-medication.
However, Montgomery DCJ treated some of the mental health history with caution. The psychologist was not a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, did not perform medical testing, and relied partly on the offender's own account of prior diagnoses. The court also found that mental health issues were not causative of the offending, which was planned rather than spontaneous. Taking into account the early guilty plea (attracting a 25% discount), the time already served, the offender's demonstrated willingness to engage with rehabilitation, and the risk that further imprisonment would entrench institutionalisation, the court imposed a sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order rather than further full-time incarceration.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced for the single offence of supply of a prohibited drug in an indictable quantity.
- The sentence was imposed by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (specific terms and conditions were not fully set out in the truncated text).
- A 25% discount was applied for the early guilty plea.
- Time already served in custody (387 days) was taken into account.
Key Takeaways
- Parity with a co-offender was given little weight where the offender's involvement was limited to a single delivery, while the co-offender was sentenced for multiple, far more serious offences including firearms charges and nearly a kilogram of methylamphetamine across six supply events.
- The District Court assessed the offender's role as a courier in a single transaction as falling well below mid-range objective seriousness for supply of an indictable quantity of prohibited drugs, notwithstanding a mid-range quantity and high purity.
- A significant risk of institutionalisation, arising from more than 12 years of imprisonment in the preceding 17 years, was treated as a special circumstance supporting a non-custodial sentencing option to promote rehabilitation.
- Where an offender's mental health history was reported by a psychologist rather than a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, and was based partly on the offender's self-report rather than independent clinical testing, the court treated that evidence with caution.
- Under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the court weighed the competing purposes of specific deterrence and rehabilitation and concluded that an Intensive Corrections Order best served community protection by supporting the offender's first sustained engagement with treatment and abstinence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 66, 67
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1)
Cases:
- Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
- Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205