AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 8 April 2026

R v Palesoo; Palesoo & Carroll

[2026] NSWDC 319

DrugsFraud & dishonesty
SENTENCING STATE CRIME CONSPIRACY DRUG SUPPLY PLEA DISCOUNT QUASI

Citation: R v Palesoo; Palesoo & Carroll [2026] NSWDC 319
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 8 April 2026
Judge: Beckett DCJ

Background

Three offenders (referred to in the judgment as Crew, Simon, and Carroll) appeared before the District Court for sentence after each pleaded guilty to conspiring to supply a large commercial quantity of cocaine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of up to $550,000. Each offender also had a Form 1 offence of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime (under s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900) taken into account on sentencing.

The three were part of a drug supply syndicate in which each had a defined role. Crew directed the movement of drugs and cash. Carroll stored and delivered prohibited drugs. Simon weighed and packaged them. The syndicate communicated through an encrypted messaging application using aliases, and police identified members following surveillance and a series of search warrants executed in January 2023.

A fourth co-offender, Harrison, had already been sentenced by Herbert DCJ in April 2024 to four years and one month with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. His sentence was relevant to the parity considerations that Beckett DCJ addressed in sentencing the remaining three.

  • What were the appropriate head sentences and non-parole periods for each of the three co-conspirators, having regard to their individual roles and objective criminality?
  • What plea discount applied under s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, given that pleas were entered approximately three months before the trial listing?
  • How should pre-sentence custody (including periods on remand and brief periods related to the offences) be treated as "quasi-custody" and credited against each sentence?
  • Whether parity with the sentence imposed on Harrison required any adjustment to the sentences for Crew, Simon, and Carroll.
  • What forfeiture and drug proceeds orders were appropriate under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act?

Decision

Issue 1: Objective seriousness and individual roles

Beckett DCJ treated the conspiracy as involving a total cocaine supply exceeding the large commercial quantity threshold. The agreed facts for each offender differed in some respects, complicating the sentencing exercise. Crew, as a director of the syndicate's movements, attracted the greatest culpability of the three. Carroll's extensive pre-sentence custody (469 days referable to these offences, plus additional days) significantly affected the practical outcome of his sentence. Simon's role was assessed as less culpable than Crew's, given his more operational function.

Issue 2: Plea discount

Each offender received a 15% discount for their plea of guilty, entered at a Parramatta Plea Resolution Call Over in July 2025, approximately three months before the October 2025 trial listing. The court applied s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in determining the appropriate discount, consistent with the principles in cases such as BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206 and R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133.

Issue 3: Pre-sentence custody and quasi-custody

The court credited each offender's time in pre-sentence custody referable to these offences. Crew had served 36 days (equating to 111 days credited, on the court's calculation), Simon had served one day, and Carroll had served 469 days (equating to 528 days credited). The court backdated or adjusted the commencement date of each sentence accordingly, so that credit for time already served was properly reflected.

Issue 4: Parity with Harrison

The court considered parity with Harrison's sentence (four years and one month, NPP two years eight months) as required by the principle in Hili and Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520. Harrison had been dealt with on a substantive supply offence with a standard non-parole period of 15 years (which did not apply to the conspirators), and his Form 1 contained four offences compared to one for each of the present offenders. These distinctions informed the court's reasoning that the sentences imposed on Crew, Simon, and Carroll were not inconsistent with Harrison's sentence in a manner that would cause a justifiable sense of grievance.

Orders Made

  • Crew: Sentence of four years and six months, commencing 17 December 2025, expiring 16 June 2030. Non-parole period of two years and nine months; eligible for parole from 16 September 2028. Special circumstances finding: 61%.
  • Simon: Sentence of three years and five months, commencing 7 April 2026, expiring 6 September 2029. Non-parole period of two years and one month; eligible for parole from 6 May 2028. Special circumstances finding: 61%.
  • Carroll: Sentence of three years with a non-parole period of 20 months, commencing 27 October 2024, expiring 26 October 2027. Eligible for release to parole on 26 June 2026. Special circumstances finding: 56%.
  • Forfeiture (Carroll): Cash of approximately $19,900 forfeited to the State under s 18(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act; drug proceeds order of $17,477.03 payable to the State of NSW under s 29(1).
  • Forfeiture (Simon): Cash of approximately $30,000 forfeited to the State under s 18; order for disposal forthwith under s 19(3)(a).

Key Takeaways

  • A plea entered approximately three months before a trial listing attracted a 15% discount under s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, reflecting the utilitarian value of the plea at that relatively late stage.
  • Pre-sentence custody directly referable to the offences was carefully calculated for each offender and used to backdate or adjust sentence commencement dates, with the practical effect that Carroll (who had served 469 days in custody) will be released to parole well before the nominal expiry of his term.
  • Parity with a co-offender's sentence requires consideration of whether any disparity would cause a justifiable sense of grievance, but differences in the charges faced (including whether a standard non-parole period applied) and the content of Form 1 offences are legitimate reasons for divergence.
  • Where co-offenders are sentenced by different judges at different times, the sentencing court must scrutinise the earlier sentence and the factual differences between offenders before concluding that parity has been achieved.
  • Forfeiture and drug proceeds orders under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act formed part of the overall sentencing outcome, with cash seized at the time of arrest forfeited to the State and a monetary order made against Carroll for proceeds of the drug enterprise.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25(2)
- Crimes Act 1900, ss 193A, 193 B(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 21 A(3), s 22A
- Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act

Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
- BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
- R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330
- R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133
- R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284
- DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320
- Hili and Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
- DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320
- Edwards v R [2026] NSWCCA 15
- R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73
- Rogers [2018] NSWCCA 47
- Refaieh [2018] NSWCCA 72
- Le [2019] NSWCCA 277
- R v Blakeney [2022] NSWCCA 277