AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 10 July 2026

R v Pagano

[2026] NSWDC 235

Firearms & weapons

Citation: R v Pagano [2026] NSWDC 235
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 July 2026
Judge(s): Montgomery DCJ

Background

The offender, aged 35 at sentence, pleaded guilty to three principal firearm offences arising from conduct between March and May 2024: supplying an unregistered pistol (a Jennings J-22) and possessing two unauthorised pistols (a .357 Smith and Wesson and a Beretta 950BS). The offending occurred in the context of a police strike force investigation into drug and firearms supply in the eastern suburbs and greater Sydney area.

The offender was one of several co-offenders. The supply of the Jennings J-22 pistol, sold for $33,000, involved encrypted communications through the messaging application Threema. The offender's role was distinct from co-offenders Santa Ana and Toman, who had also been involved in drug supply.

Following arrest in May 2024, the offender was granted bail on strict conditions requiring residential rehabilitation. His progress through that process was uneven: he breached his bail and rehabilitation centre conditions by using illicit substances in December 2024, was expelled from the centre, and later incurred a further drug possession charge in May 2025. He ultimately completed the rehabilitation program on 29 January 2025 before his bail was again revoked.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for three firearm offences, including the supply of an unregistered pistol and two counts of possessing unauthorised pistols, after applying a 25% guilty plea discount?
  • How should Form 1 matters (including possession of a further unauthorised pistol, possession of ammunition, and drug possession) be taken into account?
  • To what extent should pre-sentence custody be backdated, including time that was only partially referable to the subject offending and time spent under restricted liberty at a residential rehabilitation centre?
  • How should the principles of parity and totality operate in light of sentences previously imposed on co-offenders Santa Ana and Toman?

Decision

Issue 1: Guilty plea discount and Form 1 matters

The offender entered guilty pleas at the first available opportunity, attracting a 25% discount under s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). At the sentencing hearing, he admitted the Form 1 matters and asked for them to be taken into account. These included possession of a further Glock-style pistol, two ammunition offences, and a drug possession charge.

Issue 2: Objective seriousness and personal circumstances

The court identified the supply of the Jennings J-22 pistol as the most serious count. The possession offences, while serious, involved firearms kept at home and carried somewhat lower objective gravity. The offender had a prior criminal history of weapons and drug offences and had committed the present offending in breach of an Intensive Correction Order. The court noted that a claim of ongoing abstinence from illicit substances was not supported by any evidence, and that the offender had breached both his bail and rehabilitation centre abstinence conditions in December 2024 before again offending with drug possession in May 2025.

Issue 3: Backdating for pre-sentence custody and quasi-custody

The court calculated the time the offender had spent incarcerated solely referable to the subject offending, time partially referable to a separate drug possession sentence, and time spent under restricted liberty at the Mudgee Private Rehabilitation Centre. An allowance of 56 days (approximately 30%) was made for time at the rehabilitation centre, reflecting the restricted nature of that liberty without treating it as equivalent to full custody. The total backdating applied was 538 days, with the sentence commencing 18 January 2025.

Issue 4: Parity and totality

Montgomery DCJ had previously sentenced co-offenders Santa Ana and Toman to aggregate terms of 6 years 9 months (NPP 4 years 3 months) and 5 years 11 months (NPP 3 years 5 months and 5 days) respectively, reflecting their involvement in multiple drug and firearms supply offences. Applying both the parity principle and the totality principle, the court determined an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months was appropriate for the offender, whose criminality was of a lesser overall character than those co-offenders.

Orders Made

  • Count 1: Convicted.
  • Count 2: Convicted.
  • Count 3: Convicted.
  • Aggregate sentence of 3 years imprisonment, backdated to commence 18 January 2025 and expiring 17 January 2028, comprising a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months expiring 17 November 2026.
  • The offender is to comply with all reasonable directions of Corrective Services.
  • Recommendations made:
  • Consult a medical practitioner to obtain a Mental Health Plan.
  • Engage with psychological treatment for substance use rehabilitation and management of General Anxiety Disorder.
  • Be referred to psychiatric and psychological care as required by the Mental Health Plan.
  • Be referred to Odyssey House for Alcohol and Other Drug assessment and intervention.
  • Remain abstinent.
  • Comply with random drug testing as directed by Community Corrections.

Key Takeaways

  • Time spent in residential rehabilitation under strict bail conditions is capable of attracting a backdating allowance as a form of quasi-custody, though at a discounted rate relative to full incarceration. The District Court applied approximately 30% of the rehabilitation centre period (56 days) in calculating total backdating.

  • Where pre-sentence custody overlaps with a separately imposed sentence (here, a 2-month term for a later drug possession offence), the court may make a partial allowance for that shared period rather than treating it as wholly referable to the subject offending.

  • Parity with co-offenders requires careful attention to the relative seriousness of each offender's conduct. The court reached a substantially lower aggregate sentence for the offender than those imposed on Santa Ana and Toman, reflecting his more limited role and the lesser overall criminality charged against him.

  • Unsubstantiated claims about an offender's rehabilitation or current abstinence carry little weight at sentencing. The court noted that defence counsel's assertion of ongoing abstinence was unsupported by evidence and was inconsistent with the offender's recent history of breaches.

  • Under the totality principle, indicative sentences for individual counts must be reviewed against the overall picture of criminality before an aggregate term is fixed, particularly where multiple counts involve possession of firearms in a domestic setting that substantially overlaps in time and character.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 25D(2)(a)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 4C, 7(1), 36(1), 65(1), 65(3), 66
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10(1)

Cases:
- Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186
- Owen v R [2017] NSWCCA 54
- R v Najem [2008] NSWCCA 32