//
[2025] NSWDC 375
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-09-08
Sutherland SC DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
Hearing dates: 18 August 2025
Date of orders: 8 September 2025, 11 September 2025
Decision date: 08 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision: Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months, at [106].
Catchwords: SENTENCING – Drug offences – Supplying less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Participating in a criminal group involved in supplying a prohibited drug – Dealing with proceeds of crime – Attempting to possess a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Cocaine – Related offences – Possessing an anabolic or androgenic steroidal agent – Possessing ammunition without holding a licence, permit, or authority
SENTENCING – No criminal history – Comparatively lesser role and length of time involved in criminal group than co-offenders – Acting under the direction of another – Parity – 10% discount for utilitarian value of plea – Rehabilitation during extended period on bail
SENTENCING – Pre-sentence custody of 1 year and 7 months followed by 1 year and almost 5 months on bail – Head sentence of over 3 years – Consequent requirement for the State Parole Authority to make a parole determination, rather than automatic release to statutory parole on expiry of non-parole period (as with sentences under 3 years) – Offender required to enter into custody despite non-parole period expiring and intention that he be immediately released to parole
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) s 135
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 10A, 53A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 93T, 193B
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 65
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) s 16
Cases Cited: Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81
McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344
R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477
R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913
R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
R v Hawi [2015] NSWSC 206
R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877
R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889
Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47
Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Andrew Hallam (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
T George (Crown)
J Davidson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
North Herring Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/00273742
Publication restriction: N/A
Andrew Hallam appears for sentence in respect of six charges.
Count 1 is an offence of supplying less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 168g of cocaine contrary to the provisions of s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Count 2 is an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 28g of cocaine contrary to the same section. These offences carry a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,000 penalty units.
Count 3 is an offence of participating in a criminal group involved in supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
Count 4 is an offence of dealing with proceeds of crime, namely $55,000, contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Count 5 is an offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, namely $1,050, contrary to the same section. Each of these offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
Count 6 is an offence of attempting to possess for the purposes of supply not less than a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 1kg of cocaine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and has a standard non-parole period of 15 years and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units.
There are two further offences which are on a s 166 certificate. The first offence on the certificate, Sequence 7, is an offence of possessing an anabolic or androgenic steroidal agent, namely testosterone enanthate, contrary to the provisions of s 16(1) of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,000 penalty units.
The second offence on the certificate, Sequence 8, is an offence of possessing ammunition without holding a licence, permit, or authority, contrary to s 65(3) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine of 50 penalty units.
In September 2021 police commenced an investigation into the supply of cocaine in Queanbeyan and the surrounding area using authorised telephone intercepts and surveillance devices.
During the investigation the police identified a criminal group, initially consisting of co-offenders Matthew Lawrie, Joshua Cassie, and Peter Ellis. Lawrie was said to be the principal of the group. The offender Andrew Hallam commenced involvement with the group from January 2022. In that same month Lawrie relocated to Queensland but maintained control of the group’s activities remotely.
At around 8pm on 16 January 2022 Cassie and Hallam attended Jerrabomberra Shopping Centre and met with an unknown person. Recorded conversations established that Cassie and Hallam supplied the person with 168g of cocaine for a purchase price of $58,200. This conduct constitutes Count 1, the offence of supplying less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug.
On 25 January 2022 Cassie and Hallam attended Graham Place, Queanbeyan and met with a male person known as “Jay”. Recorded conversations established that the offender Hallam agreed to supply 28g of cocaine to Jay the following day. This conduct constitutes Count 2, the offence of supplying a prohibited drug.
Between 16 January 2022 and 11 September 2022, the criminal group that was comprised of Lawrie, Cassie, Ellis, and Hallam, under the direction of Lawrie, was involved in the supply of 233.9g of cocaine for financial gain. Hallam participated through organisation, transportation, and supply of cocaine through various street level dealers. This conduct constitutes Count 3, the offence of participating in a criminal group.
Between 25 January 2022 and 23 April 2022 Hallam received, on behalf of the group and in multiple payments, a sum of $55,000. Over the same period the criminal group received, in multiple payments, no less than $125,000. Recorded conversations established that Hallam was to receive 20% of the proceeds of the activities from the criminal group, and thus not the full advantage of the sum of $55,000 which he received. This conduct constitutes Count 4, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime.
On 13 September 2022 Police arrested Hallam and executed a search warrant on his home. During that search police located and seized $1,050 in cash. The offender Hallam admits that this sum was the proceeds of crime, derived from the activities of the criminal group. This conduct constitutes Count 5, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime.
During the same search, police located 37 vials of steroids and four rounds of .22 calibre ammunition. This forms the basis for the two s 166 certificate offences; Sequence 7 and Sequence 8.
Recorded conversations established that between 1 April 2022 and 28 April 2022, the criminal group attempted to purchase 1kg of cocaine from an upline supplier for an approximate sum of $360,000. Recorded conversations establish that on 16 April 2022 a “” on behalf of the group travelled to Sydney to procure the cocaine. They did not return with the cocaine or any of the funds given to him by the group for the purposes of the purchase. On 20 April 2022 Lawrie flew into Canberra from Queensland and on 21 April 2022 Lawrie and Hallam met with members of an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang in an attempt to resolve the issue. This conduct forms the basis of Count 6, attempt to possess a large commercial quantity for the purposes of supply.
At sentence the Court had the benefit of the offender’s criminal history, which I shall interpolate and indicate is non-existent, and an Affidavit by the offender’s father, Mark Hallam, sworn 30 July 2025.
The offender was 24 and 25 years of age at the time of his offending. He has, as I have indicated, no past criminal history.
In his detailed affidavit Mr Hallam senior sets out some family background relating to himself and the offender. The offender is one of 6 children and his parents divorced when he was 5 years of age. Mr Hallam nevertheless described a positive co-parenting relationship with his ex-partner and described having “a close family who are in regular contact with each other and who support each other.” In that regard I note that several members of the offender’s family attended during the sentence hearing.
Mr Hallam described that he has operated his own building company for over 40 years, undertaking most of his work in the Australian Capital Territory. He described the offender working for the business and living with his father since his release to bail. Mr Hallam described the offender as extremely diligent and committed to his work.
In relation to the offender’s background, Mr Hallam senior described that the offender is single and has no children, but is the “favourite uncle” to his 12 nieces and nephews. The offender has always lived in Jerrabomberra or Queanbeyan and generally lived with Mr Hallam in the family home, although when he was younger he did live with his mother as part of a shared parenting arrangement. The offender went to school locally and left school part way through year 11 to start a carpentry apprenticeship. He completed that apprenticeship and became a qualified carpenter in 2018. From 2019 until his arrest the offender worked for the family business. The offender owns land in Wagga Wagga and prior to his arrest had intended to build a home there.
Mr Hallam senior described being shocked at the offender’s arrest and involvement in drugs. He described the offender ringing him every day from custody, and himself visiting the offender with the offender’s mother once a month, which required an extensive trip up to Wellington. He described the offender’s siblings also visiting him regularly. Mr Hallam observed the circumstances that custody and the offender’s separation from his family had a significant adverse effect.
Mr Hallam described that since the offender’s release on bail, they have spoken at length about the offending. The offender expressed genuine and sincere disappointment in himself for letting down the family. Mr Hallam described the offender’s involvement in these matters as having a profound effect on him and causing him to learn a severe lesson. Mr Hallam described the overwhelming support for the offender from his former schoolteachers, colleagues, business clients, and former fellow football players.
It is noted that co-offenders’ Cassie and Ellis have already been sentenced.
Peter Ellis was sentenced in the Local Court for three offences; one of possessing a prohibited drug, one of supplying a prohibited drug, and one of recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime. He ultimately received a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months which was to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order commencing on 27 March 2024. He was subject to additional conditions that he be of good behaviour, accept supervision, undertake 250 hours of community service, abstain from drugs and alcohol, and enter into any rehabilitation or treatment program directed by Community Corrections.
Joshua Cassie was sentenced in the District Court for two indictable offences of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, along with three further offences on a s 166 certificate, being two charges of possessing or using a prohibited weapon without a permit and one charge of attempting to possess a restricted substance. Two further offences of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime and participating in a criminal group were taken into account on a Form 1. Cassie ultimately received an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years to date from 13 September 2022, with the offender eligible for release on 12 September 2024 and the additional term expiring 12 December 2025. At the present sentence proceedings the Court had the benefit of the Remarks on Sentence for the co-offender Cassie, as well as the statement of facts and his criminal history.
In sentencing Mr Cassie, Hunt DCJ noted that he was sentencing him
“on the basis that he was subordinate to the person Matthew Laurie [sic] and took direction from him, although he was involved in acquiring money, delivering drugs and negotiating credit with those who sought to buy cocaine from the group. He had a very similar role to Andrew Hallam, although Andrew Hallam was involved for a shorter period, by about a month, than Mr Cassie.**”
In written submissions for the Crown, Mr George reminded the Court of the factors affecting the assessment of objective seriousness which are set out in McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344, which include the role of the offender; the quantity and purity of the prohibited drug; and factors such as the number of occasions on which the drug was supplied and the planning involved in such supply.
In relation to Count 1, Mr George noted that the offender engaged in an actual supply of 168g for payment of $58,200. The offender had a role in arranging the transaction and the travel required to facilitate it. In relation to Count 2, the offender again engaged in the actual supply of 28g of cocaine. These two counts were the first of the rolled-up offences in the proceedings against Mr Cassie.
In relation to Count 3, the criminal group offence, Mr George noted that the offender was involved with the supply of prohibited drugs for approximately 9 months until his arrest.
In relation to Counts 4 and 5, the proceeds of crime offences, the Crown identified that the offender’s dealing with the funds was not transitory as he stood to personally retain 20% of the group’s earnings.
In relation to Count 6, the attempt to possess the large commercial quantity of cocaine, Mr George noted that there was, among the group, a degree of planning and a large sum of money involved. Following the “runner”, in the Crown’s submission, being “ripped off”, it was the offender and Lawrie who met with the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang to resolve the issue.
In relation to subjective factors, the Crown acknowledged that the offender had no criminal history and a strong family support network, but reminded the Court that this network did not prevent his initial offending. The Crown conceded that having been the offender’s first time in custody, a finding of special circumstances was appropriate.
In relation to parity, the Crown noted the difference in offences charged between the offender and Cassie despite their similar role and the lesser period of involvement by Hallam.
In written submissions for the offender Mr Davidson of counsel conceded that the threshold under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) had been crossed.
Mr Davidson submitted that any sentence should be backdated to take into account time already served.
Mr Davidson noted that the criminal group conducted an organised and planned drug distribution network over a series of criminal acts for financial gain, and that these are inherent characteristics of Count 3. Mr Davidson submitted that the use of any of those factors to aggravate the objective seriousness of Counts 1, 2, or 6 as they relate to the group would be a form of double counting. Mr Davidson similarly submitted that it is an inherent characteristic of participation in the group that the participants would receive a share of the proceeds of crime, and that that could not be used to aggravate Counts 4 and 5. Mr Davidson suggested that there ought to be a degree of totality and concurrence given that each of the activities were conducted by the criminal group.
Mr Davidson ultimately submitted that the offender’s conduct was less objectively serious than his co-offenders, particularly Lawrie, noting his role.
Mr Davidson lastly reiterated much of the subjective material contained in the offender’s father’s affidavit, and submitted that the offender had shown remorse and made substantial efforts to rehabilitate while on bail. In oral submissions he noted the offender had effectively rehabilitated since release, and that his offending resulted from criminal associations, and his strong prosocial family support network would scrutinise those associations closer in the future.
I acknowledge that comparative cases have limited utility in determining a sentence given that individual cases turn on their own subjective and objective circumstances. However, reference to comparative cases can provide some measure of the range of sentences passed in similar matters and can act as a touchstone for comparison with a contemplated sentence (see R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 at [73]).
A number of cases were provided on behalf of the offender. Some of these were comparatives, others were reminding the Court of particular aspects of principle. I will refer to those cases first before turning to a number of other comparative cases obtained through the Court’s own research.
Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141 was concerned with an offender who was a principal instigator in the manufacture of a quantity of methylamphetamine. There was an extensive criminal enterprise involved a total of eight members of a criminal group. Salafia was described by the sentencing judge, Huggett DCJ (as the Chief Judge then was) as being in the “upper management” of the group.
While the quantity of methylamphetamine actually manufactured was not large (31.6 g pure) this outcome had been brought about by the extremely poor quality and small percentage of purity of the pseudoephedrine which had been obtained which was fundamental in the quantity and quality of methylamphetamine ultimately produced. The intention had been to produce a far more substantial quantity and, as Wilson J pointed out in the Court of Criminal Appeal, if the admixture provisions of the legislation had been relied upon, the overall weight of the prohibited drug would have been “much greater”**.
The offender had invested his own money into the enterprise, had obtained the liquid he delivered for use in the manufacture and was to receive a financial return on his investment. A head sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months was not interfered with on an appeal asserting manifest excess. The sentence imposed reflected a discount of 10% following a late plea.
The next case provided by the defence was Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47. Rodgers had been involved in extensive negotiations with a civilian participant who was acting together with the police as an informant, and also with an undercover police officer with respect to an actual supply of 1 kg of cocaine and a second supply of a similar quantity which ultimately did not eventuate. Prior to the supply of the 1 kg quantity he had provided a smaller quantity of cocaine, namely an ounce (or 27 g) by way of a sample. That offence was placed on a Form 1.
In addition to the two State supply charges, each of which carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years, Rodgers had also been involved in the making of a payment to a corrupt Federal police officer in exchange for confidential information which was understood to be in relation to a future importation of drugs from overseas.
The offender pleaded guilty on 2 July 2025, after the matter had been committed for trial but prior to the commencement of the trial, and is therefore entitled to a 10% statutory discount on an otherwise appropriate sentence.
All of the offending derives from Mr Hallam’s participation in the criminal group which was principally directed by the co-offender Matthew Lawrie. According to the Agreed Facts, Lawrie maintained control over the activities of the criminal group notwithstanding his relocation to Queensland in January 2022.
The co-offender Joshua Cassie had been involved in the group, together with Lawrie, prior to any involvement of the present offender. The police investigation into the activities of the group had commenced in September 2021 and, as already noted, included the use of telephone intercepts and surveillance devices, together with physical covert surveillance.
Hallam was introduced into the group in January 2022 in order, it appears, to assist with the physical absence of Lawrie who, as already noted, continued to control the activities of the criminal enterprise.
As I have observed earlier, Cassie has already been sentenced by Judge Hunt. All of the charges against Cassie arose from his participation in the same criminal group as Hallam and there is a substantial question with respect to a determination of an appropriate level of parity with Cassie.
In the Crown’s written submissions, it is acknowledged that the present offender was involved in the criminal group for a shorter period than Cassie. Judge Hunt correctly observed that their roles and participation were similar, albeit that Cassie had been involved some three months earlier than Hallam. It is also significant to note that according to the intercepted and recorded conversations, Cassie was to receive a higher proportion of the distributed profit, namely 30%, than was Hallam who was to retain 20%.
Were the charges against each of these two offenders identical, the sentencing task, notwithstanding some differences in their subjective cases, would be comparatively straightforward.
However, Cassie faced only two substantive indictable offences. The first was a rolled-up charge of supplying more than a commercial quantity of cocaine, which charge was the product of eight separate supply offences, two of which have been prosecuted against Mr Hallam, who participated in each of those two together with Cassie, as separate substantive offences. The balance of the additional six supply offences against Cassie, included in the rolled-up charge, involved four offences committed together with Mr Ellis, one together with the principal Lawrie, and one supply effected by Cassie himself. Two substantive changes, one of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime in the amount of $125,000 and a second being his participation in the criminal group were placed on a Form 1 to be taken into account on the rolled-up supply charge.
“recorded conversations establish that in April 2022, the criminal group attempted to purchase 1kg of cocaine from an upline supplier, for an approximate sum of $360,000.
Recorded conversations establish that on 16 April 2022 a ‘runner’ acting on behalf of the criminal group, travelled to Sydney to procure the cocaine for the criminal group. The ‘runner’ did not return with the cocaine or any money given to him by the criminal group.**”
It can be observed that there is no description at all of what, if anything, Hallam did with respect to these transactions, nor what his role, if any, was up to that point.
The Agreed Facts then indicate that Lawrie flew into Canberra from Queensland on 20 April 2022 and that the following day, 21 April 2022, Lawrie and Hallam met up in Queanbeyan and then drove to Franklin in the ACT “where they met with high*-*ranking members of an outlaw motorcycle gang in an attempt to resolve the issue.” On the basis of those Agreed Facts, the Court can only be certain to the relevant standard that Hallam accompanied the principal Lawrie in an endeavour to “resolve” the problem which had arisen with the non-appearance of the drugs and the disappearance of the buy money. Accordingly, I would assess the objective seriousness of his participation in the attempt as falling towards the lower end of objective seriousness.
I have already noted the offender’s entitlement to the statutory 10% discount following his late plea of Guilty. It is appropriate to note that considerations of remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and any additional utilitarian value are factors which are not to be conflated with the entitlement to a statutory discount. I am satisfied on all of the material before the Court that the offender has excellent prospects of rehabilitation. He has undertaken additional courses in order to ultimately qualify in the building industry and has diligently applied himself to employment in his father’s business during his time on bail. I accept that he is remorseful.
I take into account as part of the instinctive synthesis, the utilitarian value of his plea and the agreement to facts which would otherwise have occupied a substantial period of court time if disputed.
I have dealt with the question of parity earlier and propose to give the consideration of parity appropriate weight.
I note his complete absence of any prior criminal history and the salutary effect on a young man of a period of approximately 1 year and 7 months predominantly served in a maximum security institution.
I also take into account the restrictive conditions attached to his liberty whilst on bail which included a curfew as well as restrictions on his ability to be at large in the community when not subject to the curfew. This extended period on bail, now a period of 18 months, has enabled him to demonstrate his rehabilitation. This is a significant factor in the ultimate synthesis leading to an appropriate sentence.
It is important however to note that considerations of general deterrence must be given appropriate weight notwithstanding the diminution of the need for specific deterrence as a consequence of the demonstrated rehabilitation.
I propose to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the . As such I am required to indicate the sentences which I would have imposed were I to have sentenced for the matters individually and in respect of Count 6, the non-parole period which would have been appropriate. In each case the indicative sentence has been reduced by 10% in recognition of the late pleas of Guilty.
Following the above remarks and the orders set out above on 8 September 2025, Mr Hallam was released. He presented himself to Queanbeyan Community Corrections in accordance with the orders which had been made. No anomaly with respect to his release was brought to his attention at that time by Community Corrections. On 9 September 2025 the State Manager, Sentence Management Operations from Corrective Services NSW forwarded an email to the Court, amongst other recipients, advising that as the head sentence imposed was greater than 3 years, the offender was only able to be released “from custody” to parole by order of the State Parole Authority, pursuant to the provisions of s 135 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW). According to the email communication: “as such, Mr Hallam has been erroneously released and is currently unlawfully at large.” The Court was asked to arrange for an arrest warrant to be issued.
In the event, the terms of the email from Corrective Services were brought to the attention of both the Crown and the legal representatives for Mr Hallam. The Crown provided to the Court a copy of the judgment of Hamill J in R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889. Hamill J had a situation in the sentences which he passed whereby two of the offenders had been on bail for extensive periods of time and the non-parole period fixed by his Honour had in each case (notionally) rendered them eligible for consideration for release to parole. In the case of one offender, more than 18 months earlier, and in respect of the second, approximately 12 months earlier. Whilst Hamill J, who had received a similar email to the communication in the present matter, expressed the view at [165]:
“I am not entirely sure, contrary to the implication in that email, that the legislation requires a person to be in custody before parole is to be, or can be, considered.”
“It is true that the offender finds himself potentially in an unfortunate situation where it may be necessary for him to be returned to custody so as to allow the steps set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to be taken. It is, however, not part of this Court’s function to engage in a process of prediction about what executive or administrative action might be taken in relation to a prisoner’s custody, if a proper and appropriate sentence is imposed.”
In those circumstances, notwithstanding his Honour’s expressed lack of certainty with respect to a person being required to be in custody before parole could be considered (with respect to sentences of more than 3 years), Hamill J directed that both offenders should be returned to custody in order that the Parole Authority decide whether they should be released.
I too, with great respect to Hamill J, agree with his Honour’s expressed reservation where the Parole Authority must not make a parole order “directing the release of an offender unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of the safety of the community.”
It would appear clear that the circumstance requiring a person to formally be placed back into custody, perchance for a period of up to 10 weeks, highlights an anomaly in the legislation.
Against the above background and the notification to the parties, Mr Hallam voluntarily presented himself to Court on 11 September 2025 for the purpose of him going into custody in order that a parole determination might be made in accordance with the provisions set out in s 135 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW):
I accordingly formally note that:
The Offender Andrew Hallam was eligible for release to parole on 8 September 2025;
The Offender was erroneously released on 8 September 2025 and that this was not the error of the Offender;
The Offender reported to Queanbeyan Community Corrections upon his release on 8 September 2025. Nothing involving the anomaly was brought to his attention at that time by Community Corrections. The issue was brought to the Court’s attention by an email received on 9 September 2025 from the State Manager, Sentence Management Operations, Corrective Services NSW;
The Offender has surrendered himself to this Court today, having been notified of the error;
The Offender has been on bail pending trial and sentence for 1 year, 4 months and 30 days and has complied with strict bail conditions, including curfew conditions;
The delay in the finalising of the proceedings has resulted in the provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) not having come into effect;
The delay was in no way attributable to the acts of the Offender; and
It was the intention of the sentence imposed by me that the Offender would be released to parole on 8 September 2025. Had the head sentence been less than 3 years, he would not now be required to go back into custody.
Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the State Parole Authority take action to consider the issue of the Offender’s parole as a matter of urgency.
**********
"8 September 202" in [114](3) amended to "8 September 2025"
R
Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
On all occasions Hallam acted under the direction of his co-offender and the group’s principal, Matthew Lawrie.
Hallam was arrested on 13 September 2022 and spent approximately 1 year and 7 months in custody until his release to bail on 10 April 2024.
Mr Hallam described the offender having undertaken courses whilst in custody and since his release. Annexed to his Affidavit were certificates for courses completed in custody including competencies towards a Certificate II in Hospitality, a Certificate III in Cleaning Operations, and a Certificate in Work Safety and Environmental Work Practices. Also annexed was a Certificate IV in Building and Construction completed since his release to bail.
Mr Hallam senior noted that the offender’s Certificate IV in Building and Construction, along with his existing Certificate III in Carpentry, will enable him to obtain a Class-C building licence to build residential dwellings, following which he will pursue a Class-B licence to build commercial properties. Mr Hallam stated that the offender had expressed a desire to step out of the family business and commence his own building company. Mr Hallam said he supported this and would continue to support his son generally.
The late Judge Toner SC passed a series of overlapping and partially accumulated sentences of 8 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years with respect to the actual supply of 1 kg of cocaine; a sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months with respect to the offer to supply a kilogram; and a sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years with respect to the Commonwealth offence of giving a benefit to a corrupt police officer.
The Commonwealth sentence commenced first (despite being on a date prior to him being charged with that offence) and the State offences commenced respectively 6 months later and 18 months later. The nett effect was an effective 9 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, per Johnson J (Hoeben CJ at CL and N Adams J agreeing), expressed the view that the offender had been “fortunate” that the serious bribing of a Commonwealth official had only increased the overall sentence by 6 months. A challenge on the basis of manifest excess was dismissed.
The next case provided by the defence was Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81. The factual circumstances in that matter involved a commercial business enterprise whereby the offender proposed to invest between half a million dollars and $1 million upfront with respect to the proposed importation of 300 kg of cocaine. Doyle undertook a number of trips to the United States where he participated in meetings with undercover operatives. He described himself as a businessman who was interested in making money. Ultimately, the actual supply with which he was charged related to the supply of 50 kg of what he believed to be cocaine but which was in fact an inert substance assembled as part of an ongoing ploy effected by police.
He pleaded guilty to one count of supplying a “large commercial quantity” and received a 25% discount. The ultimate sentence of 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years was not interfered with on appeal despite legal error in the original sentence. The number of redactions in the Court of Criminal Appeal judgment and particular orders granting first access to the transcript of proceedings and any order, judgment or reasons to the police, for the purposes of indicating redaction which might be required in the event of publication, suggest that there were likely other factors relevant to the determination of sentence.
In such circumstances, other than the numerical outcome and the sheer scale of the quantities of prohibited drugs which were in contemplation, the case does not provide any great assistance by way of a comparative.
In R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577 the offender was sentenced by Haesler SC DCJ in relation to four substantive offences. Two offences were of supplying less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 470g of methylamphetamine and 46g of heroin, an offence of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, namely $28,245, and a fourth offence of participating in a criminal group. Attached to the criminal group offence on a Form 1 were two further offences of conducting drug premises and possessing a prohibited weapon, namely capsicum spray, without a permit. The offender had pleaded guilty and received a 25% discount on sentence.
The offender was a member of a criminal group involved in the supply of prohibited drugs in south Wollongong. The group would source the drugs from upline suppliers in Sydney, then supply the drugs to customers. The offender’s participation included making arrangements for customers to attend the premises so they could be supplied with methylamphetamine and heroin, and using the home to store and process mid-to-large quantities of methylamphetamine and heroin for supply to customers. She acted on the direction of her partner in terms of controlling the quantity and price. The supplying offences were assessed as low in the scale of objective seriousness and the criminal group offence as relatively low. The cash the subject of the proceeds of crime offence were said to be indicative of the group being engaged in a street level operation.
The offender had previous convictions for drug supplies which were said to be similar and disentitled her to leniency. The offender had a drug addiction and acted under the direction of her partner. The offender was ultimately sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months. The indicative sentences for each supply were 18 months, for the proceeds offence 9 months, and for the criminal group offence, 2 years and 3 months.
In R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913 the offender was sentenced by Bright DCJ in respect of three substantive offences of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 40g methylamphetamine, knowingly directing the activities of a criminal group from February to May 2018, and dealing with the proceeds of crime, namely $38,400. Attached to the criminal group offence on a Form 1 were two further offences of supplying a prohibited drug, each relating to 124g of cannabis and 7g of methylamphetamine. The offender was also sentenced for one offence on a s 166 certificate, being an offence of hindering police in the execution of their duty. The offender had pleaded guilty and received a 25% discount on sentence.
The offender had been the principal of a syndicate involved in the street supply of mid-level amounts of methylamphetamine on the Central Coast. The offender sourced methylamphetamine which was distributed to members of a syndicate, who then sold the drugs to their customer bases. The monies collected for the drugs were provided to the offender, and he directed debt collection activities for the syndicate. Factors affecting the objective seriousness of this offending included the offender’s role as the principal of the syndicate providing drugs to street and mid-level suppliers, the fact of the syndicate being unsophisticated and simplistic in its operation, and the direction of the group by the offender. These factors led to an assessment of the objective seriousness of each substantive offence as below or just below the middle of the range.
The offender was 27 years of age at sentence and had a criminal history which disentitled him to leniency. The offender had been sexually abused by a stepfather before being moved to live with his verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive biological father. The offender had a history of substance abuse and had been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. He was held to be genuinely remorseful with very good prospects of rehabilitation by virtue of his age, his abstinence from drugs in custody, his expressed hopes on release, an offer of employment, and the support from his family and friends. The offender was ultimately sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.
In R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877 the offender was sentenced by Haesler SC DCJ with respect to two substantive offences of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 91g of methylamphetamine, and participating in a criminal group. A third offence of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 2.6g of buprenorphine, was placed on a s 166 certificate. There were further matters on a Form 1. The offender had pleaded guilty and received a 25% discount on sentence.
The offender acted as the driver for a co-offender involved in the supply of methylamphetamine in Illawarra. The offender made himself available when contacted by his co-offender, and would drive him to Sydney to collect methylamphetamine from up-line suppliers. The offender also delivered methylamphetamine to his co-offender’s clients, either with him or on his behalf. At sentence the sentencing judge, Judge Haesler SC, noted that the offender’s role was very relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness, and that absent the involvement of drivers, drug distribution networks can simply collapse. The offender was nevertheless more than a driver, playing an essential and important role in obtaining and distributing the drugs.
The offender had a history of drug addiction and gambling. He remained abstinent from drugs in custody and expressed a desire to engage in rehabilitation programs on his release. He had community and family support. The offender was ultimately sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months. The indicative sentence for the methylamphetamine supply was 2 years and 9 months, for the criminal group offence was 1 year and 6 months, and for the supply buprenorphine was 3 months.
In R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477, Scotting DCJ dealt with an offender for two substantive offences of supplying prohibited drugs. The first offence related to supplying more than a commercial quantity of cocaine (561.4 g) and the second offence related to supplying more than a large commercial quantity of MDMA (3.6 kg). Two additional offences, namely dealing with the proceeds of crime ($85,000) and an additional count of a separate supply of cocaine being more than the indictable quantity were each placed on a Form 1.
The offender had an ongoing drug problem but no drug-related charges in his prior criminal history which included three prior offences relating to common assault and affray.
The offences had occurred over a two-month period and the drugs had been supplied in exchange for significant amounts of cash, $85,000 on the first occasion and $171,000 on the second. The offender’s role included being in group chats to arrange the transactions, attending the transactions and transporting drugs and money to or from places.
He was found to have good prospects of rehabilitation, had demonstrated remorse and was unlikely to reoffend. He had served 6 months of pre-sentence custody before being granted bail. The indicative sentences were 2 years with a non-parole period of 12 months with respect to the commercial supply of cocaine and 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 17 months with respect to the large commercial supply.
The appropriate aggregate term was determined to be 3 years.
Cobeta was directed to serve the term of imprisonment by way of an Intensive Correction Order. The term was reduced from 3 years to 2 years and 6 months in order to take into account the 6 months which had already been served by way of pre-sentence custody.
In R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493 a charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, being a rolled-up charge involving 12 discrete supplies, together with an offence of participating in a criminal group resulted in an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 11 months, similarly to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.
I should indicate that in addition to the comparative cases to which I have made reference, the Court has also had recourse to the statistics maintained by the Judicial Commission. They similarly can provide an impression of range, although I do acknowledge of course that the bare statistics are but a blunt instrument, as they are regularly described by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The second substantive charge for which Cassie appeared for sentence was dealing with the proceeds of crime in an amount of $54,650.
Cassie was also sentenced for three summary matters before the court pursuant to a s 166 certificate, namely two charges of possessing prohibited weapons and one charge of possessing a prescribed restricted substance.
In the Crown’s written submissions, the difference in the manner of charging for discrete supplies and the addition of the attempt to obtain a large commercial quantity, an offence not charged against Cassie, renders the perspective of a proper approach to parity “a little less clear”**.
While the determination of which offences are to proceed as substantive charges and which are appropriate to be placed on a Form 1 is a matter for prosecutorial discretion, it can render the task of an appropriate dispensation of justice with respect to 2 participants in the same criminal enterprise substantially more difficult.
There is no doubt that the two substantive supply offences relating to Mr Hallam are but part of the 8 separate supplies which were effected by Cassie and included in the single rolled-up charge against him.
Each of these two offences by Hallam fall well under the mid-range of objective seriousness by reference to his participation, together with Cassie, under the direction of Lawrie.
The participation in the criminal group is difficult to categorise as to objective seriousness without committing the sin of double-counting in circumstances where the activities of the criminal group are the subject of separate charges.
The criminal group was comparatively small involving apparently three people, Hallam, Cassie, and Ellis, operating under the direction of Lawrie. By reference to the size and scope of the criminal group, the objective seriousness of Hallam’s participation falls just below the mid-range of objective seriousness for such types of offending.
With respect to the fourth count of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, the Agreed Facts indicate that Hallam received multiple payments to a total sum of $55,000 on behalf of the group in the period between January and April 2022. During that same period the group itself received a total of $125,000.
By reference to the quantum of the cash received, and by comparison with many other cases involving more substantial sums of money, the objective seriousness of this offence similarly falls below the mid-range.
The fifth count relates to Hallam’s possession of $1050 which he acknowledged were proceeds from his participation in the group. In my view, by reference to the quantum, it falls towards the lower end of the range of objective seriousness.
The last offence to which he has pleaded guilty is the attempt to possess 1 kg of cocaine for the purpose of supply. The Agreed Facts are somewhat opaque with respect to the offender’s role in relation to the attempt to possess. Without providing any detail, the Agreed Facts simply state:
The indicative sentences are as follows:
In respect of Count 1, the supply of less than a commercial quantity of cocaine, 1 year and 4 months.
In respect of Count 2, the supply of cocaine, 1 year.
In respect of Count 3, the participation in a criminal group, 1 year.
In respect of Count 4, dealing with the proceeds of crime, namely $55,000, 1 year and 4 months.
In respect of Count 5, dealing with the proceeds of crime, namely $1,050, 9 months.
In respect of Count 6, attempting to possess a large commercial quantity of cocaine for the purposes of supply, 2 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month.
In relation to the two matters under s 166:
Possessing an anabolic or androgenic steroidal agent, pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), convicted without further penalty.
Possessing ammunition without holding a licence, permit, or authority, pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), convicted without further penalty.
I impose an aggregate sentence of 3 years and 6 months. I make a specific finding of special circumstances. I propose that he be subject to an extended period on parole. I make it clear that I see no point in returning him to full time custody for a comparatively short period. There will accordingly be a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months. The head sentence and the non-parole period will be backdated to commence on 9 February 2024. The non-parole period will accordingly have expired today. The additional term of 1 year and 11 months will expire on 8 August 2027.
I direct the Registrar to provide the State Parole Authority with a draft copy of my judgment, along with the evidence and submissions made in the sentence hearing, by 5pm today or no later than 5pm tomorrow.
I recommend that the Senior Judicial Members of the State Parole Authority be made aware of this case and these notations and recommendations as soon as possible.