//
[2025] NSWDC 515
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-10-14
Neilson 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 Sangarathasan [2025] NSWDC 515
Hearing dates: 10, 14 October 2025
Date of orders: 14 October 2025
Decision date: 14 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision: See pars [71]-[73].
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – Early guilty pleas – 2 substantive offences (1) supply 9.5g of cocaine (2) supply 426.58g of methylamphetamine – Prior good character – Offending out of character – A number of vicissitudes affecting offender’s behaviour, including loss of career – Offender not a user – Little likelihood of reoffending – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Concurrent sentences, head sentence 2 years 6 months, non-parole period 1 year 8 months
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25
Cases Cited: Nil.
Texts Cited: Nil.
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Offender - Mathurshan Sangarathasan
Representation: Counsel:
Crown – Ms Strati, C. (Solicitor)
Offender – Mr Hanna, N. (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Offender – Hanna Legal
File Number(s): 2024/00125859
Publication restriction: Nil.
HIS HONOUR: Mathurshan Sangarathasan stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a number of charges.
The first charge is known as Sequence 14. The offence is pleaded in this fashion:
“On 3 April 2024 and 4 April 2024, in Toongabbie in the state of New South Wales, Mathurshan Sangarathasan did supply a prohibited drug, namely, 9.5 grams of cocaine.”
That is an offence contrary to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (‘the Act’) s 25(1). The maximum penalty imposed by Parliament for that offence is imprisonment for 15 years. There is no standard non‑parole period. It is important to bear in mind the taxonomy established by the Act for this type of offence. The small quantity of cocaine is 1 gram. The trafficable quantity of cocaine is 3 grams. The indictable quantity is 5 grams. The commercial quantity is 250 grams. The large commercial quantity is 1 kilogram or 1000 grams.
The amount which the offender had in his possession, 9.5 grams, represents almost twice the indictable quantity but is very small when compared to the commercial quantity of the drug, 250 grams. The offender actually trafficked 3.5 grams and a further 6 grams were found at his home at the time the police executed a search warrant there.
The second substantive offence to which the offender pleaded guilty is known as Sequence 18. It is pleaded thus:
“Between about 19 October 2023 and 4 April 2024, in Toongabbie and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, Mathurshan Sangarathasan did supply an amount of prohibited drug, to wit, 426.58 grams of methylamphetamine being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.”
That is an offence contrary to the Act, s 25(2). The maximum penalty imposed by Parliament for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years. There is a standard non‑parole period of 10 years. The taxonomy for the drug known in State law as methylamphetamine but in federal law as methamphetamine is the same as that in State law for cocaine. The commercial quantity is 250 grams. The large commercial quantity is 1 kilo. Clearly, the amount exceeded the commercial quantity that was not more than twice the commercial quantity and certainly substantially less than the large commercial quantity.
In respect of the last mentioned offence, Sequence 18, the offender asks me to take into account on a Form 1, Sequence 16. Sequence 16 has been pleaded thus:
“On 4 April 2024, in Toongabbie in the State of New South Wales, Mathurshan Sangarathasan did supply a prohibited drug, namely, 90 grams of methylamphetamine.”
That is an offence contrary to s 25(1) of the Act*.* The 90 grams of methylamphetamine were found at the offender’s home at time the police executed the search warrant, shortly after the offender’s arrest.
“On or about 4 April 2024, NSW Police attached to the Cyber Crime Squad intercepted a gold BMW bearing New South Wales registration 22BMW belonging to Mayuran Devakumar on Francesco Crescent in Bella Vista. The car contained Devakumar, the current offender and Harpreet Singh Flora. Each was arrested for the supply of prohibited drugs. Each of them was involved in such supply or deemed supply.”
The arrest of the three offenders followed from an investigation known as ‘Strikeforce Cyans’ into the supply of prohibited drugs, mainly methylamphetamine and cocaine, by a dark net vendor known as ‘HQoz’ on a dark net marketplace known as ‘Abacus Market’.”
The investigation involved the use of an online covert operative to whom I shall refer as “UCO”. He sought to purchase drugs as part of a controlled operation using cryptocurrency. Following a purchase of drugs in that manner, the dark net vendor typically distributed the ordered commodity to the purchaser via the ordinary mail system.
Each controlled operation resulted in one or more of the three members of the gang to which I have referred, engaging in receiving the order, preparing the prohibited drugs, packaging them and placing the packages in what the agreed facts describe as a “mail facility”, which is better known as an ordinary posting box.
Between 20 October 2023 and 3 April 2024, the local police undertook 11 controlled operations, which amounted to 11 occasions when prohibited drugs were supplied by one or more of this group of offenders. On each occasion the quantity of prohibited drugs contained in the package ranged between 3.5 grams to 42 grams of either methylamphetamine or cocaine. The current offender was involved in ten of the 11 controlled operations.
In addition to the purchases ordered by the UCO, on about 3 April 2024, members of the New South Wales police conducted surveillance during which they observed the members of the group place an item into a posting box on Magowar Road, Girraween. Upon inspection of that item, the police located 25 grams of methylamphetamine.
Following the arrest of the three offenders, the police seized a number of digital devices which were present in the vehicle at the time. They included a Lenovo ThinkPad computer which was handed over to specialist investigators who conducted an examination of the device. Whilst examining that device, the investigators located an Excel spreadsheet tracking the drugs supplied since approximately February 2022. A review of that Excel spreadsheet led to the conclusion that about 1.9 kilograms of methamphetamine had been supplied since February 2022.
Of the 1.9 kilograms, this offender was involved in the supply of a commercial quantity totalling 426.58 grams, which began after the involvement of Devakumar. This 426.58 grams included ten supplies to the UCO between 20 October 2023 and 3 April 2024.
Members of the New South Wales police also executed search warrants at Devakumar’s residence, this offender’s residence and the residence of Flora. During the search of this offender’s residence, police located 90 grams of methylamphetamine which really is the Sequence 16 offence to which I have referred earlier, and the 6 grams of cocaine which is included in the Sequence 14, the first offence to which I have referred. Each of those amounts is clearly greater than the trafficable quantity and therefore amounts to a deemed supply.
In total, this offender supplied 9.5 grams of cocaine and 426.58 grams of methylamphetamine which is the Sequence 18, or second major offence. There is no dispute between the Crown and this offender that Devakumar was the principal of the group directing the HQoz business. A large amount of the agreed facts clearly indicate that Devakumar was the founder and principal or the boss of this criminal gang.
A little later in the agreed facts I am told that Devakumar was in charge of and aware of the operation of the Abacus Market vendor page and the various cryptocurrency transactions. Devakumar was also the source of the packaging for the drug supplies, and it was he who enforced the debts owed to the business that he conducted. It was a role of this offender and Flora to make postal drops at the direction of Devakumar.
The agreed facts go on to tell me about each of the controlled operations. I shall mention only the first one because it is indicative of how other things proceeded.
On 20 October 2023, the first controlled operation was conducted by the UCO. He managed to access the dark web anonymously. He entered the dark net marketplace, Abacus Market, in which were advertised products and services which included the provision of prohibited drugs. Using an assumed online identity, the UCO then obtained a cryptocurrency wallet address and bitcoin, and that digital currency was later used to pay for goods and services.
On the same day, the UCO sent a bitcoin payment of 0.0011 bitcoin, worth approximately $50, to an Abacus Market account. He then logged out of the Abacus Market and recorded his transactions. Later on, he again logged in to Abacus Market and purchased 0.018 bitcoin which was worth approximately $850. He then located a product called “Premium meth-Laos import 3.5G strong uncut” which was listed by the vendor HQoz. It was listed for sale with a purchase price of $835 AUD plus $23.10 for express shipping which could be purchased with cryptocurrency, bitcoin or else Monero.
Essentially, the UCO purchased the premium methylamphetamine advertised on HQoz for $858.10 by way of bitcoin. Between 22 October 2023 and the following day, this offender and Devakumar had a number of discussions about meeting up. They did so.
On 23 October 2023, commencing at about 3pm, police conducted surveillance of both this offender and Devakumar. Devakumar was observed driving a vehicle with a number plate GO01FR in which this offender was a passenger. This offender left the vehicle and was observed about ten metres from a yellow and red mailbox situated outside 167 Magowar Road, Toongabbie.
This offender deposited a medium Express Post envelope with a tracking number on it, which was recognised as relevant to the investigation being performed by the police. Other envelopes of a similar nature were sighted and recorded but not seized.
The policed seized the relevant Express Post envelope and deconstructed it. Contained inside was a clear plastic bag containing 3.45 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 81%. Forensic DNA examination of the envelope and its contents returned positive results for the DNA and the fingerprints of the current offender.
Control operation 7 commenced on 29 January 2024. During that controlled operation, there was surveillance both of Devakumar and the current offender. That surveillance recorded a conversation that they had which is of interest as far as the relative positions of Devakumar and this offender are concerned. Devakumar said to this offender:
“What’s your plan. Fuck Flourish. [a business that the offender was trying to run legitimately] Fuck all that. Don’t even think about that as being a plan.”
“You keep hanging out with me, it’s not going to end well for you. I have my own life., I have my own cashflow... if you keep hanging out with me and thinking this type of lifestyle is the norm, it’s not the norm. For me bro, if you come to me and be like bro I’ve got a fulltime job I can’t do the laptop anymore. Cuz, I’ll genuinely be happy not because of the fact you can’t do this anymore.”
The agreed facts tell me that Devakumar was referring to his lifestyle as a drug dealer, perhaps trying to dissuade the offender from following up his lifestyle.
Later, the agreed facts tell me that attempts were made, probably at a suggestion of Devakumar, that the offender use packaging suggesting that the drugs were in fact Asian food or Asian food additives as some sort of disguise within the external packaging of the parcels, which he posted on behalf of the business.
It is common ground that the offender, for the offending which he committed over this period, received not a cent in remuneration for the work he did for Devakumar. However, he was under a promise to be paid for what he did, and it appears to be his incentive to earn the reward offered to him by Devakumar that caused him to be involved in the offending. Why he got involved I shall discuss when considering his personal circumstances.
The offender, at the time of his arrest, made a number of concessions and indeed gave the police voluntary access to both his telephone and the Lenovo laptop computer, which was the subject of oral evidence given by Detective Sergeant Peter Robinson last Friday. The Lenovo laptop is more appropriately known as a Lenovo ThinkPad.
There was extensive and perhaps unnecessary cross-examination of the Detective Sergeant as to the utility of the offender’s providing the passcodes and the like to police. Whether it had actual utility or little actual utility, namely because the police may have been able to obtain access in any event, it clearly shows that the offender was prepared to cooperate with the police saving them time at least, and concern, over trying to get information off the Lenovo ThinkPad which contained the spreadsheets which enabled the various transactions to be identified. The assistance which he gave voluntarily clearly calls for some sort of reward.
I should say at this stage that Devakumar has been committed for sentence at the Penrith District Court but has yet to have a sentence date fixed.
The co-offender Flora was sentenced by a Magistrate Toose sitting in the Local Court at Penrith on 25 August 2025. However, the offences that Flora stood for sentence were much lower in significance and could be the subject of a sentence imposed by the Local Court. In any event, he had a severity appeal listed before this court at Penrith on 9 October 2025, but I have not been told the outcome of that severity appeal, nor is it known whether the severity appeal proceeded on 9 October 2025. In any event, it has not been suggested either by the Crown or this offender, that the sentence given to Flora has any significance vis-à-vis the sentence to be passed upon this offender.
This is a very unusual case in the sense that one would not have expected this offender to have offended at all. He has never been the user of illicit drugs, and during the time that he was involved in trafficking in illicit drugs, he was not using illicit drugs himself. As far as illicit drugs are concerned, he is a “clean skin”. The offender had no addiction to any other substance such as alcohol or any addiction to other behaviour, such as a gambling addiction or the like. He was well educated and had a valuable career which is now lost to him.
I have been sentencing offenders for offences contrary to the drug laws of this State and the Commonwealth for over 20 years now, and I have never come across a man in the position of the current offender.
I turn then to his personal circumstances. As is almost de rigueur in sentencing matters these days, I have been provided with a report of a psychologist, Ms Emma Hubner, a forensic psychologist. She examined the offender by AVL on 23 September 2025, and conducted some psychological testing in advance of that interview. She has provided a report dated 24 September 2025, which is Exhibit 2.
However, the offender’s personal circumstances are best explained by the offender himself in his letter to me, which bears the date 29 August 2025, and is Exhibit 1. It contains this. However, before citing that letter, I should indicate that the offender’s date of birth is known to me, and he is currently 28 years of age. His letter contains this:
“I am from Sydney. My background is Sri Lankan. I have a tightknit family and a large community of Tamil people who I probably should have turned to when I need to the most. I have only now since coming to gaol actually realised how much support I really had, and I won’t waste that in the future.
I moved to Australia at the age of seven and did well enough to attend university and become an intern pharmacist. I was able to help support my family and repay them for all the hard work they put in and all the sacrifices they made immigrating here to shield me from a war-torn Sri Lanka. Life seemed to be going well, but I fell into a period where I struggled mentally and financially. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in late 2021 [when the offender was 24 years old] and started receiving chemotherapy treatment. Having experience in healthcare, I took on my responsibilities of being her primary caretaker. As my father had suffered and passed away from colorectal cancer in 2016 [when the offender was aged 19], my mother was hit hard by her condition and my own anxieties were at an all time high. In late 2019 to 2020 I was seeing a psychologist about my depression and anxious symptoms, but they were never clearly resolved.
In 2022 [at age 25] I had also been suspended from working as an intern pharmacist. I had unintentionally missed my registration renewal and worked a two month period without an active registration. While this matter was being investigated AHPRA, the Board that regulates health practitioners, I was not allowed to work and had to seek legal help as the matter was handled in court. This investigation lasted for over a year and was exhausting as I struggled without a steady income and I was in fear that all my hard work in pharmacy had been ruined.
At the time I had great financial difficulty. I had taken out a bank loan of $50,000 to invest into crypto currency and lost all the money. In hindsight it was a stupid thing to do as it put me in great debt, and I struggled with my loan and other bill payments.
I had to borrow money from my sister to help pay for the legal expenses around my pharmacy registration matter as the little photography work, I did for an income was not enough. I was scared and embarrassed at the position I found myself in and in my time of weakness I looked for an easy way out. This led me into doing things I normally would not. Looking back, it was stupid and completely the wrong thing to do and I ended up further back than I had ever been ruining my life, career, hard work and family sacrifices all in one go.
I was spending a lot of time with my co‑offenders putting my photography and marketing skills to use in their marketing and real estate businesses. It was during this time, thinking I was getting ahead, I got involved in the sale of drugs. I was promised 20% of the net profits but never ended up receiving anything. Upon my arrest, I told the officers everything I knew including the ThinkPad laptop password, my personal laptop and phone passwords as well as the location of where they would find the drugs in my house when it was raided. I was fully aware of the seriousness of my offences being so disconnected from the end user and it seemed like a monotonous task. At the time the consequences of my actions did not register and for that I apologise from every ounce of my being.
Coming to gaol I have now seen the effects that drugs have on people, I never knew the scourge on society, it could create and being in here in a maximum security men’s gaol, far from the modest community I came from, I did not realise the scale of the problem. The community should not have to worry about people like me introducing drugs into circulation and allowing it to create what I have now seen and lived with firsthand. Day to day I have witnessed the impacts of addiction and the slippery slopes it can send people down. Having time to reflect in here, I try every day to keep my eyes open and really see the people in here that are addicts or were addicted and would not have ended up in prison if someone like me had not put drugs out there to start with. I really hope not, but my actions may have led people to commit more crimes down the chain or lead to accidents caused by people under the influence further affecting the community. I am ashamed, I lost myself and I deserve whatever the punishment you and the Court give me today. I hope one day I turn all this around, like I know can be done. I have not given up on myself since coming to jail and I am working to better myself every day. I will never turn to drugs or crime and if the community can see that, one day I hope they we be able to forgive me. I understand the severity of my crimes and if they cannot forgive me, I deserve it for losing their trust.
As I am on remand here at Long Bay Correctional Centre there are not many courses or programs to participate in. I come from a Hindu background and there are no resources for Hindus at the jail and hence I connected with the Christian chaplain to guide me spiritually and keep my mental health in check. Through the chaplain I have been lucky to get a place in the “ForGive to Live” program that uses biblical principles to teach forgiveness and its benefits to aid rehabilitation. I am also in the process of completing a ‘Depression and Anxiety’ program that teaches scientifically lifestyle measures to help manage mental health. The chaplain has also been speaking with me weekly on managing my anxiety which has worsened since my time in jail. Through his guidance I completed the “Incredible Journey” Bible study guide which has taught me biblical principles to living a good and moral life. Whenever there is a Narcotics Anonymous meeting available, I make sure to attend so I can hear about and share stories around the impacts of addiction. It has helped me face the harsh reality of the effects of addictive drugs on the end user and how it has destroyed so many lives.”
The letter goes on to point out that the offender has been working at Long Bay Gaol since he was sent there. When I read Exhibit A, the Crown bundle, I noticed that the records of the Department of Corrective Services indicated to me that the offender had been sent to Long Bay Hospital on 6 June 2024 and still remained there up to the present time which was highly unusual.
When I read the next few paragraphs of the offender’s letter, I knew why he was sent there. He has been a model prisoner. He has become a sweeper. He also presides over library work. He also acts as a translator for those who speak the Tamil language, and he is clearly well regarded by the prison authorities. He has been kept at Long Bay Gaol Hospital not because he is ill, but because he is a model prisoner of great utility to the Corrective Services and the proper administration of the gaol. For that also, the offender is to be congratulated, and ought be rewarded to some extent.
The letter then continues about the offender’s personal ambitions and tells me this:
“I lost my career, trust in myself and the trust of too many people to name. No matter the outcome today I will try and be the best me each and every day. I will also spend a lot of time with my family and repair the damage caused. I will also learn to seek the help and support of my friends, family and wider community so I never walk down the same path again. If I identify anyone in the community struggling with or heading down the path that involves drug use, I want to be the person who they can talk to and the person that can guide them towards help or towards positive change. I think that’s just as if not more important than instead of making a problem I can redirect the path of at least one person.
My interest and passion is still in healthcare, so I wish to study and re-establish myself within the sector. My hope is to work within the disabled community as I believe I can be helpful and make an impact there. I have been researching and trying to find employment opportunities in the field when I can get out. I look forward to the future challenges and I will again be the meaningful and productive community member I once was. I look back on the path I took to escape my problems with shame. I have learnt from the past and will face life’s issues head on.”
The offender clearly accepts that his conviction for the drug offences for which he stands for sentence has ended his ability to work again as a pharmacist. He will have to re-establish himself in the healthcare sector in some other role. He realises that, which is at least a display of pragmatism and common sense. He will need to work hard to re-establish himself in a role that has the same importance and consequence in the community as that of a pharmacist, but more importantly, his clear skills, his intelligence and background may enable him to help others gain in their lives in the future.
What the offender’s letter does make clear is that he is remorseful, that he has clear insight as to the effect of his offending, the damage it does to other people who end up being addicted to drugs and what the scourge of drug addiction can cause to people in our community. Drug addiction destroys lives, destroys families. He must realise this now, and realise that he has to make up for his offending by taking a worthwhile place in our society.
There are a large number of testimonials before me, largely from members of the Tamil community, including his family members. One is from his sister who is now 37 years old and is a sonographer. She confirms that from January 2022, she was bedridden for four months because of complications from pregnancy and how the offender’s offending affected her lifestyle and of the fact that the offender did borrow money from her, confirming the story which he gave to me in his letter.
Another reference is from Mr Narmada Natkunaratnam, a man who has known the offender for over 22 years, a man who is now a head teacher in English and other language studies in the educational system.
There is another reference from Mr Raajasingam who is now a teacher at the James Ruse Agricultural High School, where he teaches health and physical education. He met the offender in primary school when they were both members of a Tamil cultural organisation, which was a not-for-profit organisation run by volunteers. They have been good friends ever since, and this gentleman has visited the offender in gaol. He speaks well of the offender’s life prior to his becoming involved in dealing drugs. He clearly has high regard and esteem for the offender and clearly accepts that the offender acted completely out of character.
There is also a reference Mr Abhirami Ravishankr who is a solicitor and has known the offender over 15 years. They met when they were each attending Girraween High School in the years between 2009 and 2014. Like the other gentleman to whom I have just referred, he has visited the offender in prison. He speaks of the offender’s active involvement prior to his imprisonment, in the Tamil community, and goes on to say this:
“I know he is deeply regretful of the decisions that led to his conviction. I visited him both at Parklea Correctional and at Long Bay Hospital and we have spoken at length, and I can see the weight of remorse he carries. He understands the seriousness of his actions and is committed to making better choices moving forward. The Mathu I know is not defined by his conviction, but by his capacity for growth, reflection, and compassion.”
There is a reference from Mr Peraveenan Jeyarasa who is a physiotherapist, but is also studying to become a medical practitioner. They first met when each was a student at “Tamil School” which I assume they both attended as boys if not youths. He noted that he was “struck” by the offender’s kindness, generosity and dedication to learning.
There is also a reference from the local State member Mr Sujan Selventhiran, who is a member of the Cumberland Council and also speaks highly of the offender’s background and dedication to his community, and says this of the offender’s present circumstances:
“The conduct before the Court is entirely inconsistent with the Mathu... I have known for two decades. He has always been a caring, community minded and respectful young man, and this offence does not align with his character or history of service.”
“On 23 February 2024, Devakumar discusses getting Sangarathasan $10,000 for his Europe trip and Sangarathasan asked what the “10K is being claimed as” to which Devakumar confirms it is the money he owes Sangarathasan’s sister. Devakumar also discusses meeting with the “boss” and getting “three” for Sangarathasan to “get through”. This is a reference to obtaining prohibited drugs for supply. The two then discuss “crunching the numbers” on the sale of the prohibited drugs. They also discuss receiving “feedback”.
At about 8pm that evening, Devakumar discusses converting bitcoin into “10K” which he had sent to Sangarathasan for Europe”.
The offender was arrested on 4 April 2024. He has been in custody ever since. According to Exhibit A, he has been in prison now for one year six months and 11 days. Exhibit A tells me it was seven days, not 11. That was meant for the sentencing hearing last Friday, rather than for today.
It is clear that the offender committed crimes because of financial pressure and depression. Ms Hubner, the forensic psychologist tells me this in the report on 24 September 2025:
“14. Mr Sangarathasan has faced stressors throughout late adolescence and adulthood. In March 2016, at the age of 19, he lost his father to cancer, a period that also saw his mother become stressed and depressed, coinciding with the onset of his own mental health difficulties. In late 2021, his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent chemotherapy and a mastectomy, during which time he took on the role of primary carer.
15. Professionally his challenges intensified in 2022 when complications arose with his pharmacy registration. In October, he discovered that his details had been removed from the AHPRA register after failing to renew his registration as he had previously received a warning for not properly logging his internship hours, this lapse resulted in the termination of his registration and subsequent legal action. The process incurred expenses of approximately $38,000 which caused considerable financial strain and required him to borrow from a family member. These difficulties coincided with family stressors, including his mother’s illness and his sister’s pregnancy complications.
16. Since his arrest on 4 April 2024 Mr Sangarathasan has reflected on these cumulative pressures, acknowledging how financial and emotional burdens left him overwhelmed and uncertain about the future. Expressed shame over consequence of his actions for his family and community and recognised that during this period he strained from his usual moral standards.”
“19. The MCMI-III results suggests that Mr Sangarathasan demonstrates prominent dependent personality features, reflected in a tendency to rely on others for reassurance, direction and support. In his case, this aligns with his reported closeness to family, his emphasis on supportive relationships, and his expressed difficulty managing autonomy during periods of stress. Such strains may have contributed to his vulnerability to influence or by more dominant associates in the index offences, as well as his current reliance on family and structured supports while in custody”.
20. ….. significant anxiety symptoms were also evident. These are consistent with his presentation of pervasive worry, tension, and disturbed sleep, as well as his preoccupation with legal outcomes and reintegration into the community. His anxiety appears to heighten his sensitivity to stress, reduce his capacity for independent problem-solving, and increase his reliance on coping strategies such as exercise, reading, and engagement in custodial programs.”
“He has no prior pattern of antisocial conduct beyond the index offending and one unrelated drink driving charge in 2018. His dependent and anxious traits increase his susceptibility to external influence under stress, but strong protective factors (family support, education, prosocial values, and insight) suggest good rehabilitation potential.”
I have already pointed out that the offender was not the principal of this group of offenders. The principal was Devakumar. There is evidence in the agreed facts to suggest that the offender was held perhaps in some form of contempt by Devakumar and by Flora who at one stage is recorded as mocking the offender, criticising him. Perhaps, they realised that he had some dependent personality traits and used that to mock him. The important thing however, that does come through, is that the offender was not the guide or rudder of this criminal group but rather the person doing a lot of work for it and trying to belong to it, trying to obtain some money, in which he was completely unsuccessful. Importantly, what it does show is that the offender, of the three persons concerned, was probably the least involved in the running of the business.
As ought be clear from what I have said already, the offender comes before this Court as a man of prior good character. The only blot on his criminal record prior to this offending was a conviction of driving with low range prescribed concentration of alcohol on 26 June 2018, for which he was fined $500 and disqualified for the usual three month period.
I accept that the offending was out of character. I accept that the offending was caused by the extremely unusual and pressing personal circumstances in which the offender found himself fighting for his job as a pharmacist, having borrowed money for court proceedings in respect of that, having incurred debts which he could not see how to get around and perhaps being tempted by the lure of money by Devakumar. I accept that the offender now has insight, he is completely remorseful and has a requisite victim empathy which is always what the Court looks for, not just a ‘Woe is me, what damage did I cause to myself?’ but rather, ‘What damage did I cause to those that I have offended against?’. The damage is done to the community by becoming involved in this form of drug trafficking.
The prospects of reoffending are low. The prospects of rehabilitation are high. The offender has done for himself in prison all that could be done to get himself back into the position of a law-abiding citizen who knows how to behave properly.
I sighted the statistics kept by the Judicial Commission for offences against s 25(1) and s 25(2) of the Act. As far as s 25(1) is concerned, the number of cases involved is 1,372. Of those who offend against that provision, 0.4% are given a Conditional Release Order, either with or without a conviction, 12.3% are given a Community Corrections Order and 48% are given an Intensive Corrections Order. Only 35.8% are sentenced to full-time imprisonment. That is 491 cases. The average or mean sentence is imprisonment for 30 months with a non-parole period of 18 months.
Of the 80% range, the offenders at the bottom of the range are sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months, with a non-parole period of 12 months, and those at the top of the 80% range are sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years.
Given the amount of drug concerned, 9.5 grams of cocaine, and noting where it is on the tariff or taxonomy of the drug cocaine, I would not expect that, if the offender’s only offence were Sequence 14, he would not be sentenced to imprisonment at all.
As far as s 25(2) is concerned, there is a sample of 614 cases. 1.1% of those cases have been dealt with by way of a Community Corrections order. 31.9% of cases have been dealt with by way of an Intensive Corrections order and 66.9% of cases have been dealt with by a prison sentence. The median head sentence is three years and six months, the median non-parole period is two years. At the bottom of the 80% range, the head sentence is two and a half years, and the non-parole period is 18 months.
When I factor in matters involving this offender: there is a Form 1 matter, there are no prior similar convictions, a plea of guilty and the offender’s age and the nature of the drug concerned, I have been given four cases. In one of them there was a head sentence of three years with a non-parole period of 18 months and there was one case of a head sentence of four years with a non-parole period of 30 months and three cases with various head sentences, but non-parole periods of two and a half years.
The question then becomes whether the offences should be concurrent or cumulative. The offender was involved in drug trafficking. The offender could be seen as being perhaps a trader and he was trading in two types of drugs. There is not much difference in that between a greengrocer who sells both peas and beans, the type of drug is, to an extent, irrelevant. These two drugs have the same taxonomy. They are dealt with in the same fashion by the Act. It might be otherwise if the taxonomy of the two offences were different, for example, the taxonomy for the Sequence 16 offence being lesser than that for the Sequence 14 offence. In the circumstances, and it was almost conceded by the Crown when I suggested it to her, that the offences ought be dealt with concurrently because of the greengrocer analogy.
As I said when discussing the matter earlier, if the Sequence 14 were a standalone offence, I doubt that any type of custodial sentence would be imposed.
For Sequence 14, I start with a head sentence of two years. I reduce that by 25% for the utilitarian value of the offender’s plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. That reduces the head sentence to 18 months imprisonment. Were the matter a standalone offence and bearing in mind that there is no standard non-parole period, I would fix a non-parole period of 12 months.
For the Sequence 18 offence, and bearing in mind the Sequence 16 matter on the Form 1, I commence with a head sentence of three years and four months. I reduce that by 25% for the offender’s plea of guilty, which gives me a head sentence of two years and six months. The question then becomes what ought be the non-parole period. Theoretically the non-parole period ought be 21 months, but in my view, there ought be a finding of special circumstances for three particular reasons. First is that I have not allowed any particular discount under s 23 for the assistance that the offender gave to the police at the time of his arrest. It is normal, for example, to quantify that discount if the offender has given, for example, a statement to the police implicating others or indeed himself as to other offending and if the offending relates to others he is prepared to give evidence against them on behalf of the Crown. That very valuable piece of assistance given to the Crown in that fashion could amount to a further 25% discount in addition to a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of an early plea. I will take this into account in my finding of special circumstances.
The next matter I take into account is the fact that the offender has been a model prisoner and the work that he has done for Corrective Services at the Long Bay Gaol ought be taken into account. After all, if good behaviour as a prisoner and good service of a prisoner is not rewarded, there is not much incentive to act in that fashion, and the Courts should encourage good behaviour and cooperation of prisoners with Community Corrections in order that the prisoners behave in an exemplary manner.
However, the special circumstances are generally considered to reflect the need for rehabilitation. Here the need for rehabilitation is the need for this offender to re-establish his career in the community, he cannot return to pharmacy as he freely admits. He has to find other work to do, that other work because of his background, training and intelligence clearly will involve further study. However, it will lead to his being able to repay the community more thoroughly by good work done to those who need assistance in the healthcare sector. I have taken the view that the appropriate non-parole period ought be one year and eight months.
Mathurshan Sangarathasan, on the charge that on 3 and 4 April 2024 in Toongabbie in this State you did supply a prohibited drug namely 9.5 grams of cocaine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 12 months commencing on 4 April 2024 and expiring 3 April 2025. I impose a further period of imprisonment of six months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period expiring on 3 October 2025. The total sentence is therefore 18 months comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be released on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
In respect of the charge that between 19 October 2023 and 4 April 2024 in Toongabbie and elsewhere in this State, you did supply an amount of prohibited drug, namely 426.58 grams of methylamphetamine being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of one year and eight months commencing on 4 April 2024 and expiring on 3 December 2025. I impose a further period of imprisonment of ten months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 3 October 2026.
The total sentence is therefore two years and six months comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. In passing that sentence I have taken into account on the Form 1 the charge that was known as Sequence 16.
Now any other orders?
BRUNNER: No, your Honour.
HANNA: No, your Honour thank you.
**********
R
Sangarathasan [2025] NSWDC 515