R v Crichton

Representation: Counsel:
Ms A. Chauvet for the Offender
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Karni Saddik Law Firm for the Offender

File Number(s): 2023/460188

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Raymond Crichton first appeared for sentence on Thursday, 13 November 2025. The parties appeared by AVL from Sydney with the court sitting in Lismore. The offender appeared by AVL from custody. The offender sought an adjournment due to legal aid only being approved the day before and this was not opposed. The matter was adjourned to 18 November 2025 and proceeded at that time. Due to other matters judgment was reserved until 25 November 2025 and this is that judgment.

2. The offender is to be sentenced for 3 offences, each being an offence pursuant to section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985(DMTA) and each has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non parole period of 15 years. The offences have been referred to in the proceedings as sequences 2, 5 and 8. Sequence 2 involves a quantity of 991.85 g of what is commonly referred to as MDMA, sequence 5 involves 995.79 g of MDMA and sequence 8 involves 7 kg of pseudoephedrine.

3. There are no charges to be dealt with by way of the Form 1 procedure nor are there any matters to be dealt with summarily.

4. The offending occurred between 18 May and 13 July 2023 and the offender was arrested on 13 January 2024. He remained in custody following his arrest until 7 June 2024 when he received bail and returned to custody on 13 August 2025 following his pleas of guilty and a section 22B Bail Act application. The total time in custody as at 18 November 2025 was 8 months and 2 days. This sentence is 8 days later so that the time in custody is 8 months and 10 days. In addition to that there is an issue of quasi-custody which will add to the back date.

5. The offender was not on conditional liberty at the time these offences were committed. There is a co offender whose case is still proceeding through the Local Court.

6. In relation to the maximum sentences and the standard non-parole periods, those matters are taken into account as legislative guideposts indicating the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offences to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence. In relation to the standard non-parole period I note that in Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [29] the High Court made clear that it has application even when the offending is not considered to be in the middle of the range of seriousness as that term is used in section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“CSPA”). The standard non-parole period is an indication of the legislative view of the seriousness of the offence.

The facts

7. The agreed facts were set out in the Crown bundle which became exhibit A. The facts lend themselves to being set out largely in chronological form. One benefit of that is that it highlights that conduct relied upon to make out sequence 5, the second MDMA charge, was occurring in the same period that some of the conduct relied on for sequence 8, the supply of the pseudoephedrine, was occurring.

8. The following is my summary of the agreed facts set out in the form of a chronology (but note it moves back in time in part when dealing with sequence 8, the pseudoephedrine count):

| Seq 2 | Section 25(2); supply of 991.85g of MDMA | | 18.5.23 | The facts refer to a platform on which group chats can take place called “Threema”. On the Threema platform was a group chat involving a civilian participant (CP) which I infer means a police operative though not a police officer, a man named Ammar Chahal (the co offender) and the offender. The allegation (and it is not said to be an agreed fact) is that Chahal is a high level figure in the supply of prohibited drugs across Sydney and it is further alleged that the offender is a close associate of Chahal. The purpose of the chat was to coordinate supply of a sample of MDMA. Chahal asked the offender to pass on the sample and the offender replied in the affirmative and suggested to Chahal a meet at the Regents Park area. The CP said to the offender (not Chahal) he could not do it that afternoon and it was agreed by the offender to meet the next day. The CP asked Chahal to send a picture of the full kilogram to confirm the sample and photos were sent. | | 19.5.23 | The CP after dealing with police met the offender. The offender handed him a resealable bag containing MDMA. The offender attended driving a car registered in his name. The offender subsequently texted the group chat that it was all done. The contents of the bag were analysed as being MDMA of 78% purity weighing 2.45 g. | | 20.5.23 | The CP says to the group chat the sample is good and that his guy wants to start with 1 kg on Monday. It was Chahal who responded affirmatively. | | 21.5.23 | Chahal arranged with the CP to meet the next day. After that the offender confirmed that he would meet the CP the next day, though the facts do not say to whom he confirmed this. I deal with it on the basis, favourably to him, that he confirmed it to Chahal, not the CP. | | 22.5.23 | The CP created a new chat so an associate could be added who would collect the MDMA. The chat included Chahal and the offender and with the associate being an undercover officer. A photo was posted of the $50,000 to which Chahal responded positively. Subsequently the CP asked to be provided a picture of the 1 kg of MDMA and Chahal did so. Not long after that the offender met with the undercover officer. Photos were taken of him in the car when the exchange occurred. The offender handed over what was later analysed to be 989.4 g of MDMA with 76% purity. The undercover officer provided the offender with a bag containing $50,000 cash and the offender left and then messaged the group chat saying all done. He sent by text a photo of the cash. The supply amount is the total of the initial sample plus the later supply. | | Seq 8 | Section 25(2); supply of 7kg pseudoephedrine | | 7.6.23 | Whilst each offence needs to be considered separately it is relevant to note that it is only 16 days after sequence 2 that the next offence is put in motion on this day. Sequence 8 is a rolled up charge of 2 occasions where pseudoephedrine was supplied; the first occasion was on 8 June when 3kg was supplied, and the second was 13 July when 4kg was supplied. Again the Threema platform is the means of communication and there was again a group chat including a CP, the offender and Chahal and 3 undercover operatives. The facts are not clearly stated but amount to saying that in consideration of 42 boxes of cigarettes and cash of $50,000, Chahal would supply 3 kg of pseudoephedrine. | | 8.6.23 | The CP was to meet with some of the chat group including the offender and a UCO. UCO was provided by police with $50,000 as payment for the 3 kg of pseudoephedrine, and arrangements were made for the cigarettes to be available in a rental truck. In a different location to the earlier offence, this time in Barela a meeting took place including the CP, the UCO and the offender. There was an exchange between the offender and the UCO of three plastic bags of a white substance which later analysis showed to be a total of 3 kg of pseudoephedrine with 81.5% purity and with the offender receiving $50,000. The cigarettes were also unloaded by the offender and a man named Pele from the rental truck | | 13.7.23 | There were further communications by way of the group chat this time culminating in the supply of 4 kg of pseudoephedrine. The deal here was that Chahal would supply the pseudoephedrine for 4180 cartons of cigarettes worth $250,000 and $70,000 cash. The offender directed the UCO to meet at a certain location and that occurred. At the location the offender provided a shopping bag which contained two large plastic resealable bags containing a total of 4 kg of pseudoephedrine at 81% purity. The UCO handed the offender $70,000 in cash. The facts do not disclose what happened to the $250,000 worth of cigarettes | | Seq 5 | Section 25(2): supply of 995.79g of MDMA | | 23.6.23 | This activity is being carried out at the same time that the conduct constituting sequence 8 is occurring. Again there was a Threema chat group initially including Chahal and not the offender. This chat concerned the arranging of a sample for a new batch of MDMA. The arrangement was for it to be exchanged on 27 June | | 26.6.23 | In a different chat to the one just mentioned the offender and others were added. The offender was told by Chahal to pass the sample of MDMA at 10 AM. Arrangements were made to meet at Regent’s Park the next day. Again, these arrangements were made by the offender, in this case with the CP. | | 27.6.23 | The offender was party to texts confirming that he would be meeting the driver. The meeting occurred and the offender handed over the drugs which on analysis were found to be 1.09 g of MDMA of 35% purity. Later that day the CP requested to purchase 1 kg of the MDMA the following day. After that Chahal requested the offender to meet the CP to supply the 1 kg for $50,000 | | 28.6.23 | The offender was party to texts confirming the meeting. The UCO was provided with the $50,000 to make the exchange. The meeting occurred and the offender provided a plastic bag containing what was later analysed to be 994.7 g of MDMA of 31.5% purity. The offender received the bag from the UCO of $50,000 cash. The supply amount is the total of the initial sample plus the later supply. |

Objective seriousness

9. The hallmarks of the three offences are the degree of trust placed in the offender, his involvement in texting those that he was meeting suggesting he is not simply a person who is given an instruction to carry out and does it but is involved in some part of the arrangements. For example, in relation to sequence 2, his agreement with the CP as to where to meet. Notably however, for a picture of the actual drugs to be supplied, the CP sought it from Chahal, not the offender, and it is Chahal who replies to the CP on 20 May 2023 to the CP saying the sample is good. To facilitate the supply, a new group chat was created, and included in it was the offender. It is Chahal who does the significant correspondence, including providing photos of the drugs to be provided. Again however the offender is not told when and where to be, but is involved in setting the time for the supply and its location. That the offender sent a photo of the cash after effecting the exchange of drugs for money is not of great significance, even though it was done at the request of the CP.

10. The offender on 19 May 2023 attended the meet in a car that was registered to him. This reflects a lack of sophistication on the offender’s part, and a lack of experience. The facts do not state what type of car the offender used on 22 May when the delivery of the 989.40g was made.

11. In respect of sequence 8, the conduct commences 16 days after count 2, and concludes on 13 July 2023, after conduct has begun concerning sequence 5. When the 3kg was supplied, there is no organising carried out by the offender, and he arrives in a truck, not his earlier car. The offender did organise with the undercover operative the location and time of the exchange of the 4kg. The offender arrived in a different car to before, not said to be registered to him. The features of this offense are the same as with the first offence with the decision-maker being Chahal and the offender acting as instructed to give effect to those decisions. There is a degree of autonomy and management in a limited way, in the same way as sequence 2, by the role the offender plays in organising the time and location for the actual supply of the 4kg.

12. Sequence 8 is in its essential respects the same conduct as for seq 2. There is the provision of a sample, followed by supply of just under 1kg of the drug.

13. In terms of the quantity of the drugs, in each case the amount involved is well in excess of the threshold amount required to constitute a large commercial quantity. For sequences 2 and 5, the amount is all but double the threshold amount of 500g; for sequence 8 the amount the threshold amount is 5kg. Quantity of course is not the sole criteria, nor even necessarily a determining criteria. In this case however it is relevant. The offender submits that there is no upper ceiling on a large commercial quantity, which is of course correct, but that is not a mitigatory factor. One can easily imagine cases of greater quantities. What is relevant is that the quantity is what it was, and it is significantly more than the minimum necessary for a large commercial quantity.

14. The role of the offender is not that of a mule, or mere courier. The Crown in its submissions describes the offender as a courier, or delivery driver for an upline supplier, but also submits he performed a significant function and held a position of trust within the criminal milieu. The offender in his submissions accepts the offender played an important role in the supply of these drugs, but seeks to simply categorise the offender as a courier.

15. One problem with the use of labels to describe the role of an offender in a case of drug supply is that they are not flexible, and yet each case is different. In this case, the offender was not a mere courier, he was more than that. Any courier plays a trusted role, because he is delivering the drugs. The offender was not only a trusted courier, but a trusted courier who made arrangements directly with the other party as to where and when large amounts of drugs, cash and cigarettes would be exchanged. This role highlights the degree of trust placed in the offender. At the same time it has to be recognised that nothing was going to happen without the approval of Chahal, and it is very notable that the arrangements made by the offender were limited to the time and place arrangements for the delivery of either a sample or the larger supply, and as can be seen by sequence 8, not on every occasion.

16. I find that the offender held the position of a highly trusted courier. The offending involved large amounts of drugs being supplied in exchange for $50,000 in respect of each of sequences 2 and 5, and for cash of $120,000 and cigarettes worth more than $250,000 in respect of sequence 8. The facts do not allow for a calculation of the total value of the cigarettes, but the cost or price of the pseudoephedrine even without that information approaches $400,000. Nearly all drug supply will involve a price of some kind, and the fact of the offending occurring for consideration of itself does not heighten the seriousness of the offending. Yet these figures demonstrate the extent and scale of the supply that was occurring, and in which the offender played an important trusted role. It is noted, as submitted by the offender, that the agreed facts do not reveal just what was the reward to be received by the offender, if any, though the inference is unavoidable that he would receive money or payment in kind of some sort.

17. What is clear from the above is that decisions are made by Chahal and the offender then carries out the tasks in accordance with those decisions, albeit he enjoys a degree of autonomy in making the arrangements for some of the meets. It is also plain that he is trusted in dealing with significant amounts of money and significant amounts of drugs. The offender also acted in an inexperienced and naive way, best demonstrated by using his own car, and by allowing himself to be photographed.

18. There is little to separate the seriousness of each of the offences; sequences 2 and 5 are particularly similar, and sequence 8 has a very similar modus operandi, but really is a larger transaction, at least in terms of the consideration paid for what was supplied. For that reason I would say it is slightly more serious than sequences 2 and 5.

19. The offender argues that this is not a serious example of this type of offence, albeit not at the lowest end. For the above reasons I reject that assessment. I consider this is a serious example of this type of offence, when viewed objectively.

20. Each of these matters has a standard non parole period. As already noted above, a standard non parole period is relevant whether or not the offence being considered is “in the middle of the range of seriousness” as that term is used in s54A CSPA. The adoption of terminology such as “below mid range” has been said to be unclear; see for example R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61. Whilst this offending is objectively serious I do not find that it is in the middle of the range of seriousness being spoken of by s54A. In an attempt at some clarity or precision, I would place the seriousness each offence towards the bottom of the middle 40% of seriousness (to attempt to utilise the thoughts of Rigg J at [126] of R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191).

Subjective case

21. The offender is entitled to a 25% on his sentence due to the timing of his plea.

22. The offender has no prior criminal history. The offender was born on 23 April 2000, and so was 23 at the time of the offending and is presently 25.

23. The evidence relied on by the offender consisted of a report dated 12 November 2025 of Mr Watson-Munro, a psychologist, numerous testimonials, and affidavits from his mother, father and himself. The offender makes an argument relating to quasi custody based on his bail conditions for the period of just over 14 months, and relies on the court record of his bail conditions set out in a bail acknowledgement document. In addition in that regard, despite the terms of those conditions, the offender asserts without any objection from the Crown, that the offender understood those conditions to mean that he could not leave his family house other than to report to police with his father.

24. The offender gave a history to the psychologist of a background and development free of any notable disadvantage. The offender grew up in a supportive family. He has three full siblings being two brothers and sister. His father had been previously married and the offender has three older half siblings. He has a positive relationship with all of his family. He attended Matraville sports high school on a scholarship due to his rugby league talent. He finished his high school years 1011 and 12 at Westfield Sports High School and played with the St George Dragons when he left school and later switched to rugby union. The league was for about 18 months and union was 2 to 3 years which means that his football discontinued not long before this offending, consistent with the pro social aspects of his life deteriorating at that time.

25. He secured an apprenticeship as a plumber and has achieved some of the necessary certificates in that regard and he wishes to pursue that when back in the community. He was married in 2022 although other evidence suggests it was 2018 (see his mother’s affidavit at [9]) and he divorced in 2024 as a consequence of these offences. He has no children.

26. A significant event in his development was discovering at the age of 14 his 28-year-old cousin who had committed suicide by hanging. The unchallenged evidence is that this was an event which had a long-term and ongoing impact on the offender and indeed the unchallenged opinion which I accept is that it has resulted in him suffering from PTSD. He was not treated in this regard. It is suggested that he was further affected by his mother also suffering PTSD for other reasons connected with her work.

27. In the lead up to the offending it is said he suffered symptoms of depression which I accept. He was a drug user but not to the point of addiction, recreationally using cannabis MDMA cocaine and alcohol. His use of alcohol increased to such an extent when he stopped playing football that he suffered alcoholic blackouts occasionally.

28. The psychologist says it is apparent that this use of substances impacted his judgment as to who he kept company with leading him to be vulnerable to adverse peer group dynamics.

29. At a time prior to the offending he lost his employment and it is said his self-esteem was bolstered by the adverse peer group associations.

30. Incarceration has amplified his symptoms but it is said his judgment is restored, that he has insight into the gravity of the offences and acknowledges the adverse impact his drug use had on his judgment. The offender expressed considerable regret for his behaviour.

31. The report does not state when he lost his employment but in the offender’s affidavit he says he had surgery in 2023 and following that although he received leave pay the company ceased trading and he was made redundant. It would seem this was in the early part of 2023 before the offending.

32. Consistent with his affidavit he told the psychologist that after losing his job there was considerable pressure as he had his wife to support which was the expectation of his culture.

33. The psychologists states there were a broad spectrum of symptoms of a recurring depressive disorder in the history given such as feelings of sadness and pessimism and a sense of failure and feeling guilty and low self esteem.

34. A psychometric test confirm the clinical impression of a depressive disorder.

35. The opinion expressed is that the offender is psychologically troubled with long-standing symptoms of depression and symptoms of PTSD. He came under financial pressure when unemployed which compounded his anxiety and further diminished his self-esteem.

36. The opinion is expressed that the offender impresses as a genuine and well motivated young man. He was cooperative and respectful at the interview and appears to have reflected on his conduct with a strong motivation to not reoffend. His health has improved in custody gaining 20 kg in weight.

37. His depressive condition is such that antidepressant medication should be considered. The intensity of his symptoms presently is due to his incarceration and his appreciation of the gravity of the charges he is facing. Cognitive behaviour therapy and motivational psychotherapy is recommended. The family support is noted. So too is his motivation to complete his apprenticeship.

38. The view of the psychologist is that with continuing support supervision and therapy his prognosis will continue on a positive trajectory, a view expressed taking into account his lack of prior offending, his attitude to the offending, and his expressions of remorse.

39. The offender relied on five testimonials. They were given by a family friend, a church minister, a reverend, jointly by his parents and a family friend with strong church connections. The role the church plays in the family’s life is self-evident. The testimonials demonstrate significant support for the offender and speak of his admirable qualities such as being respectful and hard-working. Overall they also support the view that there is a positive outlook for the offender in that it is considered unlikely that he would offend in the future.

40. There were also a number of affidavits not least from the offender himself. He adds to his remorse by apologising for his behaviour and expresses his regret for his offending. He gives a history in line with what was said to the psychologist. He gives some better detailed as referred to above as to the circumstances preceding the offending with the work injury and the loss of his job and difficulty meeting his liabilities. His use of drugs and alcohol increased and he met up with some old acquaintances from high school and others he had met through work. This led to the offer to assist in the offending and he discloses payment of $1000 approximately each time he assisted. He says it’s the biggest regret of his life and was not worth it in any way.

41. The offender describes his time in custody which must have been confronting for him as it was his first time. He engaged with a drug addiction and an alcohol program and has worked in the jail. When he was released on bail his wife informed him she sought a divorce.

42. He has dealt with this and had the assistance of his family and church community and friends in dealing with it.

43. He described his bail period as signing in twice a day seven days a week without ever missing a sign in. He would stay home all day and would only leave with his father to sign in at 6 AM and at 5 PM. He has been told he could have otherwise gone out with his father but had not read the bail conditions that way.

44. In other words for approximately 14 months the offender adhered strictly to what he believed were the bail conditions which resulted in a significant impingement on his liberty. Clearly it is far better than being in custody with the comforts of home but it will also be a significant restriction and can hardly be equated with the standing of a person not on bail. He did engage in some social media work for a friend and according to his mother which I accept, exercised daily and read his Bible daily and was able to reconnect strongly with his family. Both his parents speak of noting a positive change in him whilst on bail.

45. He also tells of being the subject of a kidnapping gone wrong. In the residence neighbouring his there was a home invasion where people were dragged upstairs and drugs were demanded. He only found out later that this was intended to be targeted on him which shocked and scared him at that time. The point of this evidence is to show that it has been well and truly realised by the offender the extent of the consequences that may eventuate from the conduct engaged in. He describes the experience as challenging and an awakening call and his aim is for a positive life away from that. His ambition is to go back to finish his plumbing qualifications and return to his church and give back to his community. There was no cross examination or other challenge to that affidavit.

46. There are also affidavits of both of his parents and/or his brother and without detailing their contents, they corroborate the overall case of the offender as coming from a strongly principled and pro social background who has a loving family who will provide him with much support and who speak highly of him

Submissions and consideration

47. I find that this offending is overall, an aberration, that is, it is out of character for the offender, albeit it extended for 2 months. The offender comes from a pro social environment. Due to a combination of circumstances including his own psychological make up but more immediately due to financial pressures caused by unemployment and an increase in use of substances he became part of an antisocial milieu from which this offending eventuated.

48. I accept that the offender is remorseful. It is submitted that the prospects of reoffending must be considered low if the offender can regain employment, cease his drug taking and excessive drinking and seek treatment for his psychological concerns. Clearly if he was to be successful in each of those regards his risk of reoffending would be next to nil. The opinions expressed by the psychologist, which I accept support this view. As to his prospects of achieving rehabilitation wholly or partly I consider they are good given his background and the degree of support that he has. Hopefully now that the significance of his PTSD has been recognised, the issue can be dealt with openly and free from any real or imagined perceived shame.

49. The testimonials support the offender’s subjective case that he comes from a solid pro social background and that he will have ongoing support both within the community and at home. I accept those testimonials and I also accept the evidence recounted above taken from the affidavits.

50. The purposes of sentencing are set out in section 3A of the CSPA and are as follows:

(a) To ensure the offender is adequately punished (b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and others from committing similar offences (c) To protect the community from the offender (d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender (e) To make the offender accountable for his actions (f) To denounce the conduct of the offender (g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

51. On the question of quasi-custody the offender relied on Testici v R [2025] NSWCCA 88 which noted that whether bail conditions amount to quasi-custody is a question of fact. In this case due to the bail conditions the offender has treated himself as all but under house arrest and I consider that there should be an allowance for quasi-custody. He was able to do some activities at home and have the home comforts but his movements were very restricted.

52. The submission of the Crown on this point was to accept that such a finding could be made but that the allowance for it should be towards the lower end of the range. The only range referred to is of between 50 and 75% as suggested by the offender.

53. The period of those conditions was slightly in excess of 14 months and in my view approximately half that period should be allowed as quasi-custody so a period of 7 months.

54. I have accepted the submission that the offender is remorseful and I have accepted his personal history as set out in the psychological report. I accept that the prospects of rehabilitation are very positive. The offender’s submissions also recognise the need for the offender to engage in treatment and a finding of special circumstances is sought.

55. The Crown helpfully set out some passages from Parente v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 284 concerning the principles relating to sentencing for drug offences. The emphasis in general terms is on general deterrence and the protection of the community. Reference is also made to the high maximum penalties and standard non-parole period is, which is a significant matter in this case.

56. The Crown does not really challenge the subjective case of the offender, though does note that the incident concerning the offender’s cousin occurred 9 years before the offending and that the intensity of the depressive symptoms is suspected by the psychologist to have arisen from his current circumstances of incarceration and appreciating the gravity of the charges he is facing.

57. The Crown has fairly put the situation and to a certain degree I accept it as put by the Crown. It is not a view however that is inconsistent with my acceptance that this offending has arisen in circumstances of financial strain adding to the psychological features of the offender which resulted in him becoming somewhat desperate and making poor choices. This is not to say there is a causal connection, rather it is simply a way of understanding how this offending came about in a person so pro social and in turn giving a basis on which to assess the likelihood of reoffending and the prospects of the offender.

58. As the parties themselves stated at the hearing there is really not a great divergence of view as to how this case should be treated or in the views taken as to the various issues that it raises. The case is one where in a closed period of 2 months between May and July 2023 the offender committed a serious offence on three separate occasions each of which involved at least two occasions of dealings by him to facilitate the supply of a significant quantity of drugs.

59. The difficulty in setting this sentence is that each of the offences carries a maximum term of life imprisonment and has a standard non-parole period of 15 years. Coupled together with that the nature of the offending requires emphasis on general deterrence and protection of the community. In this regard it is noted that these were controlled operations, and it would appear unlikely the drugs entered the community. Nevertheless, it is the willingness of people to engage in this conduct that leads to illegal drugs entering the community. There is also the need to make the offender accountable, and to denounce his conduct and also for specific deterrence, though it is likely that specific deterrence has already been achieved.

60. There is also the need to promote the offenders rehabilitation. One way in which this can be facilitated is if justified to make a finding of special circumstances. In my view there should be such a finding given that it will be his first time in custody and that he would benefit from and in my view will require some extended period of supervision to ensure so far as possible that he does seek out the counselling and treatment recommended by the psychologist to deal with his PTSD and depression which to date has gone untreated and indeed has effectively been buried under the carpet. I also take into account that with his psychological condition custody may be more onerous for him, though the impact of that on the outcome is modest.

61. The submission was made for the offender that there should be a fair degree of totality in any ultimate sentence. The facts as set out above can be seen to reveal the overlapping nature of the criminal conduct going towards the various offending. Sequence 2 occurs between 18 and 22 May 2023. 16 days later on 7 June 2023 the conduct concerning sequence eight commencees. 16 days after that the conduct concerning sequence 5 commences and ends 5 days later. 15 days after that the offending concerning sequence eight comes to an end. The offender’s life of crime extends for a period of less than two months. At the same time it cannot be ignored that there were three separate offences each involving a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and to make them wholly or largely concurrent would not properly reflect the degree of criminality involved. There will be a fair degree of concurrency, but the aggregate sentence will reflect the degree of criminality involved.

62. In terms of comparable cases the offender made reference to R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477. In that case the offender faced two charges under section 25(2), with one being not less than the commercial supply and the other being not less than a large commercial quantity and being 561 g of cocaine and 3.634 kg of MDMA. There was a third charge of dealing with proceeds of crime. The indicative sentences in respect of the two section 25(2) matters were 2 years for the cocaine in 2 years 7 months for the MDMA. The offender had a significant subjective case involving PTSD, ADHD, methamphetamine use disorder, cocaine use disorder and alcohol use disorder. His abuse of drugs stemmed from abuse as a child. Objectively the conduct of the offender was not a far remove from that of the offender in the present case.

63. Reference to the tables that can readily be found published online by the Public Defenders shows this result is arguably below what might have been expected. What Cobeta demonstrates is the individualised nature of the sentencing process and the fact that the circumstances of each case are different but at the same time the law recognises that there should be like sentences for like offending. A sentence similar to the sentence in Cobeta would be inappropriate in the present case, something supported by the fact that the offender did not seek such a result in this case.

64. In my view there should be an indicative term in respect of each of the offences of 4 years prior to the 25% discount so 3 years after the discount and in each case an indicative non-parole period of 21 months. The reason for the indicative non-parole periods differing from the standard non-parole period is because of the discount of 25%, the assessment of objective seriousness being below the mid point of seriousness and due to the favourable subjective case of the offender and the factors relied on for the finding of special circumstances. Further, the indicative non parole periods approximate the ratio of the balance of term of the aggregate sentence to the aggregate non parole period.

65. The aggregate sentence will be a period of 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 ½ years making the allowance for the finding of special circumstances. The period by which the sentence will be backdated is 15 months and 10 days. The sentence will therefore commence on 16 August 2024.

Orders

1. The offender is convicted of each of the three charges under section 25(2) the Drugs Misuse & Trafficking Act.
2. I note the indicative sentences set out above and the finding of special circumstances.
3. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment to date from 16 August 2024 with a non-parole period of 3 ½ years expiring on 15 February 2028 and with a balance of term of 2 ½ years expiring on 15 August 2030.

**********