AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 September 2026

R v Martin

[2026] NSWDC 338

Drugs
SENTENCE

Citation: R v Martin [2026] NSWDC 338
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 September 2026
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ

Background

A then 21-year-old offender was engaged via encrypted messaging applications to help extract what he believed to be drugs concealed within a large cast iron pulley imported from China. Unknown to him, Chinese authorities had already intercepted the consignment in January 2023, removed and seized approximately 187.1 kilograms of pure methamphetamine, and delivered an empty pulley as part of a controlled AFP operation.

Over two days in May 2023, the offender and a co-offender hired a truck, guarded the pulley overnight, performed counter-surveillance driving, and spent several hours attempting to cut into the pulley with angle grinders. Police arrested the offender on the morning of 6 May 2023 while he was seated on a forklift photographing his co-offender attempting to cut open the consignment.

The offender entered a plea of guilty approximately two weeks before a scheduled jury trial. The sentencing hearing proceeded before Mahony SC DCJ, who had also sentenced one co-offender, SH, in earlier proceedings.

Legal Issues

  • What was the appropriate assessment of objective seriousness having regard to the offender's role in the enterprise and the quantity of drugs involved?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's childhood disadvantage, trauma, and mental health diagnoses under the principles in Bugmy v The Queen and DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa?
  • What utilitarian discount applied to the late plea of guilty?
  • Whether the offender's bail conditions, including a period of home detention, amounted to quasi-custody warranting a sentence reduction?
  • How did the parity principle apply as between this offender and the co-offender SH?
  • What sentence, including non-parole period, was appropriate in all the circumstances?

Decision

Objective seriousness and role

The court placed this offending in the lower range of objective seriousness for offences of this kind, primarily because of the offender's role (at [118]). His function was to accompany the co-offender Cucek, assist in unpacking the drugs, and communicate with a person known only as "Nike" higher up in the hierarchy. He did not drive the truck, did not hold a key to the premises, and had no involvement in the further distribution of the drugs (at [115]-[117]). The court found as a matter of inference that the offender knew a large quantity of border controlled drugs was involved, even though the Crown conceded he did not know the specific amount or type (at [114]). The fact that the consignment was intercepted and no drugs entered the community reduced the objective seriousness to a degree, but the court noted the significant potential harm and law enforcement cost involved (at [121]-[122]).

Subjective circumstances: childhood disadvantage, mental health, and youth

The court gave full effect to the principles in Bugmy v The Queen, finding that the offender's significant childhood disadvantage, including severe physical abuse by his father, exposure to domestic violence, his father's drug addiction, and repeated relocations during critical developmental years, reduced his moral culpability and diminished the weight of both specific and general deterrence (at [127]-[130]). The court accepted the clinical psychologist's diagnoses of PTSD, moderate depressive disorder, and severe cocaine use disorder in early remission, finding these conditions were causally connected to the offending (at [127]). The offender's age of 21 at the time of offending was a significant factor, with the court noting the well-established principle that rehabilitation should be emphasised over general deterrence, denunciation, and retribution for young offenders (at [134]-[135]).

Plea of guilty and quasi-custody

A 15% utilitarian discount was applied to the plea of guilty, entered two weeks before trial. The court noted the plea had some utilitarian value given that the co-offender Mokdassi's trial occupied four weeks, but that it did not represent a first-opportunity plea (at [124]). The court found that the offender's bail conditions, including four months of home detention followed by over two years of strict conditions including a curfew, amounted to quasi-custody, warranting an allowance of approximately two months on sentence (at [136]-[137]).

Parity with co-offender SH

The court declined to treat the offender's role as equivalent to that of SH (at [142]-[143]). SH was 17 years old at the time of the offence and 19 when sentenced, had no prior convictions, spent only 14 days in custody, and was found to be at the very lowest rung of the enterprise. This offender was older, had a prior conviction for armed robbery, had communicated with those above him in the hierarchy over several days, participated in hiring the truck, and guarded the pulley overnight. His role was above that of SH, and the principles applicable to children under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which made rehabilitation a paramount consideration for SH, did not apply in the same way here (at [142]-[143]).

Sentence

The court identified a starting point of six years imprisonment, reduced to five years after applying the principles of parity and proportionality (at [144]). A non-parole period of two years and three months was imposed to allow further rehabilitation. The sentence was backdated by 300 days to account for 237 days in remand custody and the quasi-custody allowance of approximately two months (at [138], [144]).

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug pursuant to sections 11.1 and 307.5 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).
  • Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, commencing 21 November 2025.
  • Non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months, commencing 21 November 2025 and terminating 20 February 2028.
  • Balance of term: 2 years and 9 months, commencing 21 February 2028 and terminating 20 November 2030.
  • Parole eligibility date: 20 February 2028.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that the primary factor in assessing objective seriousness for drug importation offences is the role played by the offender, with the large quantity of drugs a relevant but secondary consideration, particularly where the offender was unaware of the specific amount (at [114], [118]).

  • Full effect was given to Bugmy v The Queen principles where the offender's childhood disadvantage, including severe physical abuse, exposure to parental drug addiction, and domestic violence, was found to reduce moral culpability and diminish the weight of both specific and general deterrence, even in cases involving significant planning (at [127]-[130]).

  • A period of home detention plus extended strict bail conditions exceeding two years, including nightly curfews and electronic monitoring, was held to constitute quasi-custody warranting a sentencing reduction of approximately two months (at [136]-[137]).

  • Parity does not require equal outcomes: the court imposed a higher sentence on this offender than on co-offender SH, citing differences in age, prior criminal history, the nature of each offender's role, and the distinct sentencing regime applicable to the younger co-offender under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) (at [141]-[143]).

  • Youth at the time of offending remains a significant mitigating factor even for serious Commonwealth drug offences, with the court emphasising that rehabilitation should be weighted over general deterrence, denunciation, and retribution for offenders in their early twenties (at [134]-[135]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Children ( Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
- Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

Cases
- Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143; [2008] HCA 15
- Baines v R [2023] NSWCCA 302
- BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 372; [2010] NSWCCA 159
- Bridge v R [2026] NSWCCA 40
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 27
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Elchiekh v R [2016] NSWCCA 225
- KT v R (2008) A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51
- R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186
- R v Irusta (2000) 117 A Crim R 6
- R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238
- R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387
- Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79
- Shehade v R [2026] NSWCCA 107
- Tasdik v R [2024] NSWCCA 195
- Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146
- Testici v R [2025] NSWCCA 88
- YA v R [2026] NSWCCA 38
- Yildiz v R [2020] NSWCCA 69