• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. The offender, Justin Andrew James, is to be sentenced for one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years of imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.

2. Pursuant to pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) the offender has asked that the following additional offence be taken into account when making a sentence-related order for the principal trafficking offence: (a) Possess prohibited weapon contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 5 years, a fine of $80,000, or both.

Facts

3. Between 4 June 2024 and 7 November 2024, the offender trafficked in small quantities of heroin and methylamphetamine.

4. On 6 November 2024, the offender possessed heroin and methylamphetamine with intent to sell. During a search of the offender's house a spring-loaded baton was found.

5. The offender is known by the name "Juddo". As of June 2024, the offender resided at [redacted]. In September 2024, the offender moved to an adjacent unit block at [redacted].

6. Between 4 June 2024 and 7 November 2024, the offender was operating as a street level dealer selling heroin and methylamphetamine out his unit in Reid. The offender sold small quantities of these substances with transactions typically ranging from $20.00- $500.00 in value. Sales occurred on an almost daily basis. Customers often deposited money directly into the offender's bank account. Between 4 June 2024 and 7 November 2024, approximately $40,000 was deposited into the offender's account from the sale of drugs.

7. On 5 June 2024, NK decided to purchase some heroin. Mr K contacted the offender. Mr K arranged with the offender to purchase a gram of heroin. Mr K then attended the offender's unit at [redacted] where he paid $80 for the heroin.

8. Mr K later administered the heroin he purchased from the offender to another person. That person died as a result. The forensic pathologist concluded that the cause of the death of the deceased was heroin and alcohol overdose.

9. On 6 November 2024, police attended the offender's address with a search warrant for both his property and person. Police observed the offender near the road of [redacted] and searched him.

10. The offender had on him two plastic wraps of a white chalklike substance and a small clip seal bag containing a crystalline substance. (a) The first plastic wrap contained 14.135 grams of Heroin. (b) The second plastic wrap contained 14.134 grams of Heroin. (c) The clip seal bag contained 3.485 grams of methylamphetamine.

11. Police went on to search the offender's residence and seized the following items: (a) A gold set of scales with a clip seal bag containing white powder from under one of the couch cushions. (b) Bulk quantities of small clip seal bags in a kitchen draw. (c) A spring-loaded extendable baton.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

12. The maximum penalty for the offence reveals it to be objectively serious. The factors which inform an assessment of the objective seriousness of a trafficking offence are set out in Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5 at [41]: (a) The role of the accused is an important consideration, those whose level in the operation is at a higher level of the hierarchy being more culpable: MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44 at 50; [33]. (b) While, as decided in Wong v The Queen at 609; [67]-[70], the weight of the amount of drug is not of chief importance in determining the appropriate sentence, it remains a relevant factor, particularly in the context of the harm from its distribution effects: R v Bezan (2004) 147 A Crim R 430 at 438; [34]. (c) The motivation for the offence is highly relevant, the purpose of profit being a more serious matter: R v Speechly (2002) 133 A Crim R 26 at 30; [20]: R v Day (1998) 100 A Crim R 275 at 277.

13. It was conceded that the offender’s role was at the low end of the chain of the drug supply operation being a ‘street level’ dealer. The weight of the heroin was 28g, 5 times over the trafficable quantity. The weight of the methylamphetamine was 3.5g which was under the trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine. There was no evidence as to purity of either substance.

14. The offending involved actual trafficking (as well as being ‘deemed’ trafficking by virtue of the quantity of heroin involved) over a period of months.

15. In Cicciarello v R [2009] NSWCCA 272 per Allsop P, Fullerton J and McCallum J (as her Honour then was) a sentencing error was established after a drug supply offence was found to be motivated by “financial gain” after the offender gave evidence that he was supplying drugs only to fund his own drug habit and was not making any profit. In concluding there was error in such an approach the Court held at [17]-[18]: Whilst one should be careful about generalising in relation to such factors outside the circumstances of any particular case, here, quite clearly, when one understands the background of this young man and what he was doing, he was not selling for greed or for financial gain, he was selling to feed a drug habit that he had acquired. This does not detract from the fact that he committed a serious offence, but what it does mean is that it was an error, and an important one, to characterise this as selling for financial gain and thus to characterise it as an offence falling within the mid-range. In our view, that latter conclusion must clearly have been affected by the finding of financial gain because no other basis in the facts could found such a conclusion. In our view, there was an error of the sentencing judge in this regard. This error led to his Honour characterising the objective criminality of the offence as more serious than it was. It was not within the mid-range of objective seriousness. It was lower than that, in particular given that it was to feed his habit. A less severe sentence was warranted in law: the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3).

16. The amount of money involved over the period of the trafficking whilst not insignificant did not afford the offender a lifestyle of excess. It was an amount of money consistent with his report that his motivation for the offence was to fund his own addition to illicit substances. The prosecution accepted that the offender in this matter was not trafficking drugs for greed or profit alone.

17. The scheduled offence, as the maximum penalty indicates, is also an objectively serious offence. A weapon is commonly a ‘tool of the trade’ for drug dealers. The offender’s possession of the prohibited weapon underscores the danger and risk of anti-social behaviour that drug dealing presents to the community. The observation in R v McCallum [2020] ACTSC 15 per Murrell CJ at [25]-[26] is apposite (though I acknowledge it came in a matter which involved possession of more than one weapon and included a taser): In this case, the offender was a drug dealer and the items were located in his vehicle (as were a number of items associated with drug dealing). The possession of the weapons by the offender, who was engaged in drug dealing, posed a serious risk to the public ... Subjective circumstances

18. A pre-sentence report (PSR) recorded the following details about the offender’s personal circumstances.

19. The offender is 41 years old. He was born in Tasmania and his parents separated when he was young. He was predominantly raised by his mother but recalled spending time in care due to his mother’s mental ill-health and issues with alcohol. At age 12 the offender moved to Canberra with his mother, but he was left in the care of family friends when she travelled overseas. From age 13 the offender was homeless. He lived with friends or “on the streets”. He has two siblings and two half-siblings. He reported telephone contact with his mother but no contact with any other family members. His father died in 2018. The offender’s relationship which had been ongoing for 18 months ended when he was remanded in custody for the offence. He has no children.

20. The offender submitted an application to Housing ACT though had also considered a return to Tasmania to be with his family and have access to pro-social supports. He had not, at the time of the writing of the PSR, discussed those arrangements with his family.

21. The offender left school after completing year nine. He commenced a tiling apprenticeship but ceased after two years due to a conflict with his employer. He was last employed in 2010, when he worked as a labourer and foreman for a bricklaying business. The offender was employed within the AMC kitchen as a sweeper but was dismissed due to poor attendance.

22. The offender was receiving Centrelink payments prior to his remand in custody. He accepted that he in the past supported himself through illegal activity. He reported a history of problematic gambling, which ceased with periods of pandemic related lockdowns but he returned to gambling at a moderate level once lockdown restrictions were lifted.

23. The offender has a history of illicit substance use which first commenced with cannabis as a teenager. The offender commenced methylamphetamine use at age 21 and heroin at age 30. He reported that he was using both heroin and methamphetamine daily prior to entering custody. He described himself as physically dependant on heroin. The offender has been abstinent from substance use for almost a year while he has been in custody and he has not received any opioid replacement therapies while in custody. Two urinalysis drug tests performed whilst he has been in custody returned negative results. The offender attended a residential rehabilitation program in Queensland in 2005 and reported a period of abstinence from 2006 to 2010. The report author concluded that the offender may benefit from engaging in treatment programs whilst at the AMC.

24. The report author confirmed with Canberra Health Services that the offender was assessed upon admission to the AMC in November 2024 and there was no evidence of any major mental health illness.

25. The offender acknowledged that his offending conduct was driven by his own addiction. He further acknowledged that a person had died from the substances sold by him about which he expressed some guilt to the report author. He explained that he did try to mitigate risk when selling illicit substances by educating people on safe use and refusing to sell to those he considered to be too young or under the influence.

26. The report author assessed the offender as requiring a high level of supervision from ACT Corrective Services.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

27. The offender bears a high degree of responsibility for the offending which he deliberately engaged in over the course of several months. The offending is explained to a significant degree by the offender’s own substance addiction which I accept was a driving force behind the offending behaviour. As in Ciciarello the offending was not, as the prosecution fairly conceded, motivated purely by greed.

28. Whilst counsel for the offender accepted that the material before the court did not permit a conclusion that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 and R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 were enlivened, it is nonetheless evident that the offender experienced a challenging childhood.

29. I accept that the offender has expressed some remorse for his offending. Statements attributed to him in the PSR revealed that he has insight into the harm occasioned by drug trafficking and that he understood the gravity of that harm revealed in the circumstances which drew him to police attention.

30. The offender is currently without employment or stable accommodation. He has remained abstinent from drug use for the substantial period that he has been in custody since his arrest. It would be naïve to assume that this was achieved by virtue only of his presence in the AMC. It can be accepted that the use of illicit substances remains a distinct possibility for many inmates at Canberra’s prison should they wish to continue using drugs whilst incarcerated. Through his counsel the offender expressed willingness to engage in residential rehabilitation. The author of the PSR recorded his outlook as “positive” in terms of his capacity to remain abstinent, with the offender stating he felt “free” no longer dependant on heroin or opioid replacement therapy.

31. The offender has a long history of substance misuse. It seems likely that he was set up for that challenge by a childhood which did not afford him significant stability or opportunity. He has not engaged in any substantial therapeutic support as far as I can tell at any time in his life or more recently whilst in custody. The offender is now 41 years of age and I am prepared to accept that this period in custody may well have led him to reflect on his life. I also accept that the realistic prospect of drug use at the AMC means that his abstinence, without substantial therapeutic or medical support, relied to some degree on a commitment to his own sobriety.

32. Rehabilitation remains a possibility for the offender, but it will require him to maintain in the community the motivation he has found whilst in custody. This provides the foundation for a conclusion that a long period of parole supervision will be in the offender’s interest and the community’s interest to support him in that endeavour.

Criminal History

33. The offender has a lengthy criminal history which commenced in 2006. Of significance, he was convicted in 2006 for trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis and a suspended sentence order was imposed upon him. In 2022 he was convicted for weapons related offences and sentenced to a period of imprisonment which was served full time. The offender has convictions for common assault, property offences, dishonesty offences and driving offences. His history is consistent with a lifetime challenge with addiction.

Time in custody

34. The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 6 November 2024. On 21 August 2025 he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 1 month in the ACT Magistrates Court for an unrelated offence. The sentence imposed will be backdated to take account of the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody referrable to this offence.

Plea of guilty

35. The offender pleaded guilty on 26 August 2025 upon arraignment in this court. The timing of the plea had significant utilitarian value. Consistent with the analysis in DPP v Joliffe- Cole [2024] ACTSC 256 and DPP v Creighton (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 511, as to the discount for a plea of guilty entered at arraignment, a reduction in the sentence of 25 per cent is appropriate.

Sentencing practice

36. The prosecution identified the following comparable sentencing outcomes: (i) DPP v Jember [2024] ACTSC 311: The offender was searched and found to have 13g of methylamphetamine as well as $2,175.00 in cash. He was 31 years old, had two previous convictions for the supply of illicit substances, and was on bail at the time of the offences. The starting point for the trafficking offence was 18 months imprisonment. (ii) DPP v Kayvashokoohi [2024] ACTSC 386: Located inside the offender's vehicle was around 50g of amphetamine, $10,000 in cash and other indicia of trafficking. The sentencing judge said he "may have been a street level dealer". The offender was 30 years old and had a significant criminal history. The starting point for the trafficking offence was 24 months imprisonment. (iii) DPP v McConnell-Imbriotis [2024] ACTSC 319: Located inside the offender's vehicle was 32g of methylamphetamine as well as a significant quantity of GBL. The offender was 32 years old and had a significant criminal history. The offender was on an intensive corrections order (ICO) for an offence of drug trafficking at the time of the instant offence. The starting point for trafficking in methylamphetamine offence was 24 months imprisonment.

37. I was also provided with sentencing statistics from this court for this offence by counsel for the offender.

38. The outcomes identified by the prosecution included two matters where, unlike this offender, the offenders were on conditional liberty at the time of the offending. All three outcomes involved deemed, not actual, trafficking. I bear in mind the limitations of comparative outcomes and statistics. The consistency they assist to promote is in the application of legal principle. A sentence that is “just and appropriate” must pay regard to the facts and circumstances particular to the offending and the offender.

Determination

39. Methylamphetamine and heroin are substances that cause considerable harm to individuals and to the community more broadly. Both substances are highly addictive resulting in immeasurable damage to users and their family members who for the most part can only watch on in horror at the havoc wrecked upon the life of their loved one because of addiction.

40. Whilst the death of the person who was administered drugs trafficked by the offender is not a factor which elevates the objective seriousness of the offending, it is undoubtedly a matter which tragically highlights the grave harm which comes directly from drug use, facilitated by those willing to supply drugs. It is a circumstance which makes plain the need for significant weight to attach to general deterrence and denunciation. As I observed in DPP v O’Keefe [2024] ACTSC 210 at [76]: Our communities bear the brunt of the anti-social consequences, indeed in some cases, the misery, visited upon the lives of individuals and families because of drug use and drug dependence. The offender himself is a good example of the havoc drug addiction can wreck upon individual lives and the ripple effects of that havoc. Drug addiction steals futures, fractures families and harms communities. It is because of the extent of the harm done through drug use that sentences imposed for drug trafficking must deter others from risking involvement, however big or small, in the drug trade. It bears repeating an observation at first instance endorsed by the Court of the Appeal in Lawrence v The Queen [2007] ACTCA 10; 1 ACTLR 158 at 161 [6]: [D]rug dealing is a blight upon the Australian community and it seems to me that the consideration for general deterrence require that a custodial sentence, a full-time custodial sentence, be imposed.

41. Clearly then punishment, denunciation and general deterrence are primary considerations in sentencing the offender: see R v Baker (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 365; R v Gladman [2019] ACTSC 371. In light of the offender’s relevant criminal history, deterring him from engaging in further offending is a compelling consideration. It was accepted on the offender’s behalf that the only appropriate outcome for the offence is a period of imprisonment.

42. I must take the scheduled offence into account in determining the sentence to be imposed. I need not identify precisely the effect the scheduled has on the sentence I impose. It will result in a longer sentence being imposed for the trafficking offence than otherwise would have been the case, noting as I already have the offender’s history of weapons related offences and the need for specific deterrence the scheduled offence demonstrates.

43. There are some positive indications of the offender’s capacity for reform being the period of abstinence he has now achieved and his expressed commitment to continuing to remain clean and sober upon his release. His consideration of whether a return to Tasmania where he will have a broader network of family support might improve his prospect of rehabilitation demonstrates insight and a desire to maintain his progress. The test for the offender will be upon his return to the community. His decades of addiction and his preparedness to engage in criminal conduct to fund it are reasons for caution not to overstate the significance of his more recent period of abstinence and point to the need for a structured, substantial period of parole supervision.

44. The starting point for the offence is 32 months of imprisonment.

45. In coming to set a non-parole period I am mindful that a non-parole period is the minimum period that justice requires the offender serve in actual custody having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending, the offender’s subjective circumstances, the purposes of sentencing including punishment, and the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation.

Orders

46. I make the following orders: (1) The offender is convicted on the charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis (CAN11119/2024) and sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment to commence on 6 December 2024 and end on 5 December 2026. (2) The non-parole period is to commence on 6 December 2024 and will expire on 17 February 2026.

I certify that the preceding forty-six [46] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor.

Associate: N. Dwyer Date: 16/12/2025