//
[2025] NSWDC 485
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-11-21
Montgomery DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: 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 Santa Ana; R v Toman [2025] NSWDC 485
Hearing dates: 29 September 2025
Date of orders: 21 November 2025
Decision date: 21 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Decision: Oscar Santa Ana is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months.
Jimmy Toman is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 11 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 5 months and 5 days.
Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – co-offenders – unlawful sale of firearms 3 times or more within a period of 1 year against s 51B(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 – supply of prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) in large commercial quantity against s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act – Form 1 offences – similar but different roles in the drug supply business – relatively low intermediaries between superiors and customer in the chain of drug supply business – similar but different roles in the chain of firearm supply – relatively low intermediaries between superiors and customer in the chain of firearm supply – findings of special circumstances – variation of parole/non-parole ratio pursuant to s 44 of the CSP.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87
Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156
NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited: N/A
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Oscar Santa Ana (Offender)
Jimmy Toman (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Hart (for Santa Ana)
Mr Royce (for Toman)
Solicitors:
Mr Behl-Shanks (for ODPP)
Mr Chaouk (for Santa Ana)
Mr Chidiac (for Toman)
File Number(s): 2024/00142694 (Santa Ana) & 2024/00189654 (Toman)
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 7(b) of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act (NSW), non-publication of sensitive circumstances of childhood trauma.
In this judgment: redactions of sensitive circumstances of childhood trauma and material in closed court proceedings.
Oscar Santa Ana was born in March 1986. He is 39 years of age. The period of offending was 31 January 2024 to 17 April 2024. When arrested on 17 April 2024, he had recently turned 38 years of age.
He stands for sentence for the following two offences:
Sequence 12 – Unlawfully sell firearms 3 times or more within a period of 12 months against section 51B(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 10 years.
Sequence 13 – Supply prohibited drug greater than or equal to large commercial quantity, namely 989.2g of methylamphetamine, against section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and/or 5000 penalty units. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 15 years.
2 charges are to be taken into account on a Form 1. A signed Form 1 was handed up to the Court. The 2 charges to be taken into account on the Form 1 for the purposes of the principal offence, Sequence 12, are:
Sequence 10 – Supply ammunition, namely 6x22mm rifle calibre cartridges to person not authorised, against section 65(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. The maximum penalty for this is 50 penalty units.
Sequence 14 – Possess or use a prohibited weapon, namely a flick-knife, without permit-T2 against section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1996. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 5 years.
In relation to each of the Form 1 offences, Counsel informed the Court that the Offender admitted his guilt and wished the court to take the offences into account. It is appropriate to take the two Form 1 matters into account when sentencing for the principal offence.
Jimmy Toman was born in December 2000. He was 23 years of age at the time of the offending.
He stands for sentence for the following 2 offences:
Sequence 11 – Unlawfully sell firearms 3 times or more within a period of 12 months against section 51B(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 10 years.
Sequence 12 – Supply prohibited drug greater than or equal to large commercial quantity, namely 713.54g of methylamphetamine, against section 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and/or 5000 penalty units. There is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 15 years.
A single other charge is to be taken into account on a Form 1, a signed copy of which was handed up to the Court, when dealing with the Offender for the principal offence, Sequence 11:
Sequence 7 – Supply ammunition, namely 6x22mm rifle calibre cartridges, to person not authorised against section 65(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. The maximum penalty for this offence is 50 penalty units.
In relation to the Form 1 offence, Counsel informed the Court that the Offender admitted his guilt and wished the court to take the offence into account. It is appropriate to take the Form 1 matter into account when sentencing for the principal offence.
Santa Anna (“SA”), Toman (“T”), Buttigieg (“B”) and Pagano (“P”) were co-Offenders.
In October 2023, Police investigation Strike Force Murraguldrie detected the following facts in a controlled operation. Any Police operative in Strike Force Murraguldrie will be referred to simplicity as “w****itness”.
“Threema” is a cross-platform encryption messaging application which allows for text, video, picture and voice messages to be communicated. When I use the terms “messaging” and “messages”, I am referring to individuals communicating via Threema.
Between 31 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, SA supplied a total of 989.2g of methylamphetamine, across six transactions, for a total of $131,150. The methylamphetamine ranged in purity between 79% and 80.5%.
Between 31 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, T supplied a total of 713.54g of methylamphetamine, across four transactions, for a total of $93,150. The methylamphetamine supplied on each occasion had a purity of 80.5%.
This supply was 14.04g of methylamphetamine for the sum of $2,250 on 31 January 2024 at Maroubra.
Between 24 January 2024 and 30 January 2024, SA exchanged messages with a witness. During this exchange, the witness asked SA, *“*Whats your rate ill just grab 1 for first round as a test make sure its all sweet.” SA replied, “4500.” The witness responded, “Obvs you can do a better rate if I get packs yeh” and SA replied, “I think so but I’ll have to speak to our mate.” They agreed to talk the following week.
“1” means 1 ounce of methylamphetamine and “4500” means the price of methylamphetamine per ounce is $4,500.
On 30 January 2024, SA and the witness exchanged further messages. They agreed to meet up the following day. SA asked the witness, “What U need” and the witness replied, “Just 1 tomoz.”
The following day, SA messaged the witness and confirmed the details of the supply. SA asked, “Half yeah 2200” and the witness replied, “Nah full bro.” SA told the witness it was “4200.” They agreed to meet in the vicinity of 7-Eleven, Maroubra for the supply to take place.
“Full” means an ounce of methylamphetamine and “half” means half an ounce of methylamphetamine.
About 5:30 PM on 31 January 2024, SA and the witness met up. SA got into the witness’ car, and they drove to 7-Eleven, Maroubra. T arrived shortly after and got into the witness’ car. The witness asked, “Is it a full or half?” and SA said it was half. T told the witness, “… if you did want the full like, you’d probably have to wait until tomorrow. You know what I mean?”
SA and T were monitored and recorded as they supplied 14.04g of methylamphetamine for $2,250 to the witness.
The methylamphetamine was seized by Police and later analysed. The analysis determined the exhibit to be 14.04g of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80.5%.
This supply was 139.96g of methylamphetamine for $19,000 on 8 February 2024 at Castle Hill.
Between 1 February 2024 and 6 February 2024, SA exchanged messages with a witness. During these conversations, the witness told SA that he would see him this week and asked if he had “stock.” SA sent the following messages to the witness:
“Mad the boys just asking cause I put them on sandbye [sic]”
“We ready Green tea3700 for 5-10”
“The duraib be one is a couple hundred dollars cheaper”
“Sorry more expensive”
“The durian”
“U let me know dat before U come stock will be next door 5 min away my word.”
The witness asked SA for “5 green tea” and asked for a “g samp of durien.” SA replied, “Done after a Couple times seeing us I’ll give U double whatever cash U can come up with. And giv U a time frame if U like. That’s how we are around her up to you [sic].”
On 7 February 2024, SA sent messages to the witness. SA said, “Tomorrow salt n vinegar… Not green tea,” and “But it’s from same people everyone knows they came together.” The witness asked, “Can you do a better rate for it.” SA responded, “I already as low as I can go” and “I’ll get back to u.”
On 8 February 2024, SA and the witness exchanged further messages. SA confirmed that they would meet at 4 PM in the carpark near the Knightsbridge Shopping Centre for the supply to take place.
About 4 PM, the witness arrived at the Knightsbridge Shopping Centre in Castle Hill. SA got into the witness’ car. SA told the witness how the supply would occur and asked the witness, “You want 5, you want 5 of them yeah?” The witness replied, “5, yeah.” SA said, “5, 3-8, so that’s 19 yeah?” and the witness replied, “It’s, you said 3-7 yeah?” SA told the witness, “3-8” and the witness replied*, “Oh okay, no worries, I got more cash. It’s all good.”*
“5” means five ounces of methylamphetamine and “3-8” means the price of methylamphetamine per ounce is $3,800.
Shortly after, an unknown male (“UM1”) got into the witness’ car. SA introduced him to the witness. The witness gave UM1 $19,000 in cash which he counted and gave back. UM1 got out of the witness’ car and walked towards Castle Glen Reserve. He turned, got back into the witness’ car and handed the witness a tissue containing one crystal. A second unknown male (“UM2”) arrived and also got into the witness’ car.
About 5:15 PM, UM2 and the witness got out of the witness’ car and walked towards Glen Castle Reserve. UM2 was monitored and recorded as he supplied the witness with 139.96g of methylamphetamine for $19,000.
The methylamphetamine was seized by Police and later analysed. The analysis determined the exhibit to be 139.7g of methylamphetamine with a purity of 79% and the tissue containing the crystal was 0.26g of methylamphetamine, also with a purity of 79%.
This supply was 135.7g of methylamphetamine for $19,000 on 20 February 2024 at Rosebery.
On 19 February 2024, SA exchanged messages with a witness. During this conversation, the witness said to SA, “Lemme grab another 5 bruz*”* and SA replied, “Only 5 3800.” SA and the witness agreed to meet in the vicinity of the Lakes Hotel for the supply to take place.
“5” means 5 ounces of methylamphetamine and “3800” means the price of methylamphetamine per ounce is $3800.
About 3:30 PM, SA and the witness met up outside 12 Macquarie Street, Rosebery. SA got into the witness’ car and said, “He’s got 5 ready to go.” Emad Raad arrived shortly after and also got into the witness’ car. SA was monitored and recorded as SA and Raad supplied 135.7g of methylamphetamine for $19,000 to the witness.
The methylamphetamine was seized by Police and later analysed. This analysis determined the exhibit to be 135.7g of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80.5%.
This supply was 195.8g of methylamphetamine for $25,900 on 28 February 2024 at Liverpool.
Between 26 February 2024 and 27 February 2024, a witness exchanged messages with SA. The witness asked SA if he was “on this one” and SA asked, “What time you wanna come tomorrow & how many?” The witness replied, “Need 7 bro same plug as last time though?” and “Probably be there around 4” and “Same place yea.” SA replied*, “7 it is bro, Yeah same person, same place & 4 sounds good bro.”* The witness asked if SA could do a “better rate for 7” and SA said, “I’ll talk to the guy & I’ll let you know.” The witness said*, “Thanks bro 3500 would be good do you* [sic] best please.”
On 28 February 2024, SA and the witness exchanged further messages. SA told the witness that, “He wont budge on the price but it’s set for 4pm… I’ll keep trying to get it cheaper for you bro.” They agreed to meet at 4 PM.
About 3:50 PM, the witness arrived at 7 Macquarie Street, Eastlakes. SA got into the witness’ car. SA told the witness he needed “an hour, and hour a bit to source.” He also spoke about his “other mate JT” getting “the same salt and vinegar.” SA asked the witness for a photo of the cash. He took a photo of the cash and got out of the witness’ car.
Shortly after, SA messaged the witness. SA wrote, “Bro just talked to the guy all sorted salt n vinegar” and that he would do the witness a “better price 3700… for making u wait.” They agreed to meet at 7 PM.
About 7 PM, the witness arrived at 7 Macquarie Street, Eastlakes. SA and T got into the witness’ car. T showed the witness videos and photos of a brick of crystalline substance on his phone. SA told the witness, “It’s the durian one… it’s a bit more expensive.” The witness asked if it was the “Same as the other one.” T said, “It’s better” and SA said, “Better.” The witness asked if it was the same price. SA said, “…3-8 yeah?” The witness replied, “Oh, 3-7 you said.” SA said, “Fuckin, let’s go 3-7, let’s go.”
They agreed that 7 ounces of methylamphetamine was to be supplied to the witness for a price of $3,700 per ounce.
T told the witness to drive to 3 Angelo Avenue, Liverpool. During the drive, the witness gave a bag containing the cash to SA. SA counted the cash, separated some into his pocket and handed the bag containing the cash back to the witness.
This supply was 280.1g of methylamphetamine for $37,000 on 20 March 2024 at Liverpool.
On 20 March 2024, a witness messaged SA about purchasing a quantity of methylamphetamine. SA asked, “What’s the number” and the witness said, “I need 10 bro” and “Can you confirm rate with me before you lock it in.” SA told the witness he would get back to him.
Shortly after, SA sent the witness a message which said, “Done same rate as last time” and the witness replied, “Bro im getting 10 surely can do a bit better lol” and asked if it was the “same stuff” and if he was going to “Liverpool? Same Place?” SA confirmed it would be the same. They continued to exchange messages about the timing and location of the supply.
About 8 PM, the witness arrived at Tully Avenue, Liverpool. SA and T got into the witness’ car. The witness gave SA the cash in a manila envelope. SA took some of the cash out and put it into the glovebox, before giving the remaining cash back to the witness. T directed the witness to drive to 3 Angelo Avenue, Liverpool.
A short time after arriving, B got into the witness’ car carrying a green reusable ‘Woolworths’ shopping bag. SA, T and B were monitored and recorded as they supplied 280.1g of methylamphetamine for $37,000 to the witness.
The methylamphetamine was seized by Police and later analysed. The analysis determined the exhibit to be 280.1g of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80.5%.
This supply was 223.6g of methylamphetamine for $28,000 on 28 March 2024 at Maroubra.
On 26 March 2024, SA and a witness exchanged messages. The witness told SA that he needed “more this week” but asked SA if the price could be “a bit better.” SA asked the witness, “What price are you hoping for that way I can talk to them for you & i know what you want.” The witness replied, “10 for somewhere between 3 and 35 would be *okay emoji x 2*.” SA told the witness he would try his best.
After exchanging further messages, the witness asked SA if the price was “8 for 28 yes” and SA said, “28 that’s right.”
They agreed that eight ounces of methylamphetamine was to be supplied to the witness for a total price of $28,000.
About 8:15 PM, the witness arrived at White Avenue, Maroubra. SA got into the witness’ car and directed him to 10 Bennett Place, Maroubra. SA went inside and came out a short time later with T. They had a conversation and further directed the witness to 20 White Avenue, Maroubra.
After they arrived, the witness gave SA the cash. SA counted the cash, took a bundle out and gave it back to the witness. A short time later, another car arrived and parked behind the witness’ car. T got out and went into the passenger seat of the other car before returning to the witness’ car with a shoe box containing methylamphetamine.
SA and T were monitored and recorded as they supplied 223.6g of methylamphetamine for $28,000 to the witness.
The methylamphetamine was seized by Police and later analysed. The analysis determined the exhibit to be 223.6g of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80.5%.
Between 14 March 2024 and 29 March 2024, SA supplied 5 firearms to a witness on 3 separate occasions.
Between 14 March 2024 and 3 April 2024, T supplied a total of 4 firearms to a witness on 3 separate occasions.
Neither SA nor T held a Firearms Licence or Permit in New South Wales (“NSW”) which authorised the possession or use of firearms, imitation firearms, firearm parts or ammunition; nor was either of them the holder of a Licence or Permit which authorised the possession of a Prohibited Firearm under Schedule 1 of the Firearms Act 1996.
This supply was an offer for supply of 3 firearms for $7,000 on 14 March 2024 at Maroubra.
Between 14 March 2024 and 19 March 2024, SA exchanged messages with a witness. SA sent the witness an image of 3 firearms and said, “All 3 7000” and “U interested” and “Let me know asap.” The witness asked if they worked and SA replied, “The work pwrfctlt [sic] all of them.”
On 18 March 2024 the witness asked SA what happened to the “things” and SA replied, “They’re gone bro.”
SA offered to supply the witness 3 firearms for a total of $7,000.
The image of the 3 firearms was examined by a ballistics expert who confirmed that each item appeared to be a revolver and thus, pistols as defined by s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. The ballistics expert further stated that if they were not firearms, they would be imitation firearms as described in s 4D(3) of the Firearms Act 1996.
It is agreed that there was no actual supply of firearms.
This supply was a .22-250 Remington Calibre HOWA Model 1500 bolt action rifle (“the Remington”) for $2,200 on 20 March 2024 at Rosebery.
During the supply of 280.1g of methylamphetamine on 20 March 2024, the witness said to SA, “You know those other things you offered me” and SA replied “Yeah, yeah they’re already gone. They went straight away.” The witness said to SA, “… I’ve asked around, if you get more let me know ‘cause people are asking me now.”
“Those other things” is a reference to the three revolvers SA offered for supply to the witness on 14 March 2024.
After T entered the witness’ car, SA asked “… What about that, what about that, uh, the rifle? You still got that one…” and T replied, “Yeah, I still got that.” After the supply of the methylamphetamine, SA asked T, “Do you want to get rid of that one?” and T replied, “Yeah.” The witness asked for a photo and price. SA told the witness, “He wants it for two and a half” and T showed the witness a photo of the Remington.
About 8:30 PM. SA messaged the witness a photo of the Remington with a message that said, “2500 pick up tonight 2200.” The witness said, “Yep ill grab it tonight.” They agreed to meet at 10 PM at Lakes Hotel for the supply to take place.
Shortly after 10 PM, the witness arrived at Macquarie Street, Eastlakes. SA got into the witness’ car and directed him to the carpark on 16 Maloney Street, Eastlakes. SA asked, “Cash, all ready, 2-3 yeah.” The witness confirmed the price and asked if it worked. SA replied, “Oh it works, 100, yeah, 100 percent.” SA then called T and went upstairs, telling the witness he was going to get the Remington and bring it back.
SA returned with the Remington, contained within a blue rifle case. SA told the witness the Remington was not loaded and was in two pieces. SA was monitored and recorded as he supplied the witness with the Remington for $2,200.
The Remington was later seized by Police and examined by a ballistics expert who confirmed the following:
It was a .22-250 Remington calibre HOWA Model 1500 repeating (bolt action) rifle, serial number BB30834.
It was a firearm as defined in s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 by virtue of s 4(2)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996.
It was missing the internal magazine, trigger guard and trigger guard screws and fitted with Nikko Stirling 4-12x50 telescopic sight and sling.
This supply was a Jennings J-22 pistol (“Jennings **J-**22”) for $33,000 on 29 March 2024 at Bonnyrigg.
On 27 March 2024, while negotiating the supply of 223.6g of methylamphetamine with a witness, SA messaged a photo of the Jennings J-22 to the witness and asked, “U interested.” The witness asked SA to hold onto it. The following day, SA and the witness continued to exchange messages about how the supply of the methylamphetamine, and the Jennings J-22 would take place.
After the supply of the 223.6g of methylamphetamine on 28 March 2024, SA and T, as they got out of the witness’ car, agreed to meet up later in the evening for the supply of the Jennings J-22.
After the supply on 28 March 2024, SA and the witness continued to exchange messages. SA said*, “It has to happen tonight,” “I don’t want to ruin this connect that’s why I asked u a few times today are u sure u want it”* and “So u tell me how u wanna do and when and we can make it happen.” The witness replied, “Yep sorted” and told SA at 10:30 PM.
About 10:40 PM, the witness arrived at 10 Bennett Place, Maroubra. SA got into the witness’ car and told the witness that Taylor McDeed wanted to take a photo of the cash. SA got out of the witness’ car and walked back to 10 Bennett Place, returning to the witness’ car with T and Taylor McDeed. SA then directed the witness to White Avenue, Maroubra.
After arriving at White Avenue, another witness entered the witness’ car. McDeed handed the other witness her phone and the witness took a number of photos of the cash before giving Taylor McDeed her phone back. SA got out of the witness’ car and didn’t return.
About 11:20 PM, SA sent messages to the witness, directing him to Bonnyrigg McDonalds on Elizabeth Drive and Smithfield Road (“Bonnyrigg McDonalds”) for the supply to take place.
About 12:15 AM on 29 March 2024, the witness arrived at Bonnyrigg McDonalds. SA and T got into the witness’ car. For an hour, SA, T and the witness moved between the car and various points around the carpark of the complex, discussing how the supply would occur. During this time, T was sending messages to Taylor McDeed from his phone.
At 1:15 AM, a white Hyundai i30 entered the carpark. The witness got into the Hyundai; Taylor McDeed was in the driver’s seat and P was in the front passenger seat. P was wearing black latex gloves and had a blue towel on his lap. P unwrapped the blue towel and showed the witness the Jennings J-22. P pulled the slide back a couple of times and removed the magazine from the handle of the pistol to show the witness that it was functional.
This supply was an offer for supply of two self-loading pistols on 3 April 2024 at Eastlakes.
On 3 April 2024 and 4 April 2024, T exchanged messages with a witness. T sent the witness an image of two firearms with typed captions reading “60k – brand new” and “mini beretta – 52k.” He told the witness to “disregard the prices I’m trying to get him down.” The witness asked, *“*Whats beretta a 32?” and the Offender replied, “25 I’m pretty sure.”
The witness asked T to confirm the price when he could and told T that the “little one” kept jamming. T told the witness to “hold full clip don’t keep one in chamber.”
The reference to “little one” refers to the Jennings J-22 pistol supplied to the witness on 29 March 2024.
The image of the two firearms was examined by a ballistics expert who confirmed that the first firearm was a self-loading pistol, and the second firearm was a Beretta Model 950 or a similar type of self-loading pistol. The ballistics expert was unable to determine their functionality but provided the following:
If the pistols were capable of propelling a projectile by means of an explosive, then they were firearms as defined in s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.
If the pistols were less than 65cm in length, they were pistols as defined in s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.
If they propelled projectiles by either air, gas or spring then they were air guns per s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.
If they were not firearms, then they were imitation firearms as defined in s 4D of the Firearms Act 1996.
On 16 April 2024, Police applied for and were granted a search warrant (324/2024) for 710/16 Maloney Street, Eastlakes. On 17 April 2024, Police executed the search warrant and arrested SA within the unit complex.
SA was cautioned and place under arrest. Police told SA he would be searched. SA told police he had a flick knife in his back pocket. The flick knife was seized by police.
SA was taken to Mascot Police Station where he was entered into custody. He participated in a forensic procedure by way of buccal swab and photographs.
The flick knife was examined by a ballistics expert who confirmed it was a prohibited weapon as described in Clause 1(1) of Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. SA was not the holder of a permit and was not authorised to have a prohibited weapon in his possession.
On 22 May 2024, police attended the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre. Police cautioned T and placed him under arrest. He was introduced to the custody manager and read his Part 9 rights.
T initially participated in an electronically recorded interview (“ERISP”), but shortly after told Police he did not want to participate in an interview. However, he agreed he had a half-leg sleeve tattoo and identified himself in a CCTV still image. Police showed T further CCTV still images and he either answered “no comment,” denied recognising anyone in the CCTV still images or said he couldn’t remember.
T participated in a forensic procedure by way of buccal swab and photographs.
The Offender was not at conditional liberty at the time of the offending, unlike Toman.
The quantity of methylamphetamine supplied, 989.2g, was almost twice the large commercial quantity minimum threshold, but still toward the lower end of quantity for offending of this type. The quantity was marginally higher than it was for Toman. The purity of the drug was high, at between 79% and 80.5%. This was approximately the same purity as Toman’s supply. The six transactions were conducted in the relatively short period of about 2 months, for a total value of $131,150.
The quantity of the drugs is not the sole or even the principal determinant for sentencing. The role of the offender, and the level of their participation in the offence, is more important, while bearing in mind that the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 prescribes a gradation of seriousness reflected by where the quantity of drug involved falls into those described categories of quantity. In this case, the category is for methylamphetamine in a large commercial quantity: Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156 per Price J (as his Honour then was; Spiegelman CJ and Hidden J agreeing) at [42]-[43].
The Offender used the encrypted messaging service Threema when communicating with the witness, and met face-to-face with the witness toward negotiating the deals. In that role, he was more than a “front man” and “courier” because of his involvement in arranging and organising the deals between the witness and his superior in the drug supply business activity. He was physically present during the supplies; Santa Ana MFI 1 at [11]; defence submission – Santa Ana MFI 2 at [22]; T 21.5-15. In my assessment, the Offender acted as a relatively low-level intermediary between superiors and the witness customer, taking instructions on price from above and attending at supply when drugs in substantial quantities were delivered to the deal by superiors (the first supply was delivered by Toman), in a planned business of drug supply.
The Crown written submission was that Santa Ana’s drug supply offending falls “just below the mid-range”: Santa Ana MFI 1 at [12]. The Offender’s written submission was that the offending falls between the mid and low ranges: Santa Ana MFI 2. During oral submissions, although I inaccurately stated that the Crown submitted that Santa Ana’s role was slightly more serious than that of Toman (T 20.5), counsel for Santa Ana and Toman agreed with that assessment, i.e., that his role was slightly more serious than that of Toman. Counsel for Santa Ana acknowledged that the total quantity of his supply was greater (it calculates to 275 g more) and that he arranged and organised the deals while Toman assisted him. More precisely, at the supplies they both participated in, Mr Toman assisted at Supply SA 4; T2 by showing pictures of the drugs, and at Supply SA 6; T3 Toman brought the drugs to the witness from a car behind.
The Offender has a history of significant offending associated with driving on the public roads, which commences from the obtaining of his Learners Permit. That offending shows a disregard for obeying the law. Of greater relevance to the present sentencing exercise, his antecedent criminal record does not contain any drug or firearm offences. In April 2018, when he was aged 32 years, his offending turned to destroy and damage property, aggravated entering a dwelling knowing people were present and common assault. He was imprisoned for 2 years, commencing 23 July 2019, with a non-parole period of 1 year. The next year he offended by possession of a weapon, for which he was fined. Two years later, in August 2021, he was sentenced to an ICO of 14 months for custody of a knife and police pursuit – drive dangerously. When 36 years of age, in April 2022, he was sentenced to a CCO of 15 months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.
I agree with the Crown’s submission (Santa Ana MFI 1 at [23]-[24]) that the Offender’s antecedent history is neither an aggravating factor for the purposes of s 21A, nor does it entitle him to leniency.
The Corrective Services records show that the Offender was breached for possess drug in 2022, during his earlier incarceration, and once in 2025. In each of 2023 and 2024, he was breached for violence offences.
Records of breaches during incarceration are not direct or complete evidence of the event beyond reasonable doubt.
The Offender relies on the expert opinion report of Mr Watson-Munro, to which I have already made reference, with regard to his becoming out-of-touch with reality, and of reduced cognitive capacity referable to impulse control and lacking consequential thinking when heavily intoxicated.
He has a brother and two sisters, but presently enjoys a positive relationship only with his sisters. He completed schooling at year 10, after having [redacted] by a teacher, including two events of [redacted]. He told Mr Watson-Munro that from the time of [redacted], his mood changed, and he has since experienced anxiety, demotivation and cognitive intrusion.
I bear in mind the affidavit evidence of the Offender’s sister, Karla. I would assume the reason she does not mention his history of suffering [redacted] is because he kept it private. I do take on board her describing physical, verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of their parents, and the Offender’s father’s pressure on him to “man up.” I note her reference to him having lost a toe in a workplace injury, and her attribution of his turning to “hardcore drugs” to deal with the things which she understands were the stressors in his life. After referring to the not-unexpected difficulties of prison life experienced by him, Karla endorses, as did Mr Watson-Munro, the view that the Offender is legitimately remorseful. The letters of reference dated 26 August and 2 September 2025, from Peta Cox, have been considered.
In his letter of apology to the Court, dated 12 September 2025, the Offender says his present incarceration has genuinely been a “wake up call” for him. I note that he did earlier experience incarceration. The Crown submits that the Offender’s remorse is primarily expressed as directed towards the impact on his family, despite his statement including reference to the community. I do accept that the Offender is remorseful, including as to how his offending affects his opportunity in life, which is very closely related to safety of the community. This is consistent with the opinions of the SAR and Mr Watson-Munro, and with the context of their similar assessments that the Offender is keen for the opportunity for rehabilitation.
The Offender tried cannabis while at school, was using MDMA, cocaine and amphetamines by age 17, and at age 22, commenced using methylamphetamines (ice), with heroin to reduce the side-effects of his stimulant abuse since 27 years of age. At its peak, he used 2-3 g of cocaine per day, causing him to remain awake for up to 2 days at a time, and was then also a heavy drinker.
The Offender’s last employment was about 3-4 years ago. The interruption to workplaces caused by the pandemic falls in that period. He has worked a range of jobs, but principally as an unqualified heavy metal worker and boilermaker.
The Offender did not suffer deprivation during childhood of poverty or violence at home. His parents survive, and he continues to enjoy the support of his two adult sisters. He remains in contact with members of his family, and friends, while incarcerated. However, [redacted] while a youth at school was an experience depriving him of continuing in life without the added burdens of hyper-vigilance, loss of self-esteem, anxiety and depression. He felt unable to disclose the offending because he was concerned that his father, and others, might think [redacted].
The evidence shows that his trajectory following the [redacted] has been disadvantaged and untreated, which state of disadvantage has, to a degree, affected his opportunity to live in the community, and it continues to do so. He requires a level of treatment and supervision to reintegrate into the community, and although he has enjoyed the benefit of Odyssey House rehabilitation in the past, albeit he relapsed, the loss of opportunities continues to compromise his ability to live in the community. It remains a feature of his makeup relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding his offending. He is entitled to a degree of mitigation of sentence on account of his reduced moral culpability on that background: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 at [43].
While Mr Watson-Munro does not specifically refer to it, I accept that the Offender experiences a degree of hardship in prison on account of his heightened anxiety, hypervigilance and depression according to his diagnosed PTSD caused by [redacted] which occurred in an institutional, controlled environment of relatable nature to his present prison life. For this he is entitled to a degree of mitigation of sentence.
In my opinion, the Offender’s opportunity for rehabilitation deserves an assessment, which is positive. It is only in recent years that he turned to offending other than serious motor traffic offending. It is a positive factor towards his prospects of rehabilitation that he has a working life and family to return to, the benefits of which he has experienced in the past, and, with the treatment recommended by Mr Watson-Munro, and the supervision recommended by the author of the SAR, he should enjoy the best opportunity to return to that earlier life. While his history is of long-term substance abuse, only the instant offending involves serious drug offending. The supply firearm offending is of a type not revealed as previously engaged in by him. I bear in mind his explanation that his illicit substance abuse incurred a debt, the need to repay which being the motive for the instant offending. Logically, should the Offender achieve his rehabilitation, including abstinence, that is a motivation which would not arise in the future.
I accept the Offender’s submission (Santa Ana MFI 2 at [38]) which concedes that his prospects of rehabilitation are somewhat guarded, which submission I would understand to recognise the context of the risk of relapsing into substance abuse, as he did do following rehabilitation at Odyssey House.
The Sequence 10 offending of itself would carry a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. That the Offender participated in supply of ammunition with supply of the J-22 pistol gives this offence some gravity, but I acknowledge Pagano was the real supplier and the Offender acted only as a go-between. Supply of ammunition was not part of the pre-arrangement known to Santa Ana or Toman.
The Sequence 14 offence of possession of the flick-knife is a serious offence. The statutory yardstick of maximum penalty is 14 years with a standard non-parole period in this Court of 5 years, and in the Local Court of 2 years, or 100 penalty units, indicates that. The vast range of seriousness of prohibited weapon for offending of this type indicates that the flick-knife is not a weapon placing the offending in the higher range. In my opinion, it is a matter that would normally be dealt with in the Local Court.
I agree with the Offender’s concession that the Form 1 matters require some “upswing” in the sentence to be imposed. This does not mean that I am to impose a separate penalty but, rather, as part of this instinctive synthesis, I will impose a degree of increase of penalty: s 33 of the CSP; Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 per Bathurst CJ (Hoeben CJ at CL, Garling and Campbell JJ agreeing) at [22]-[23].
It is appropriate to proceed by aggregate sentence, particularly because the drug supply and firearm supply offences occurred over approximately the same course of conduct and between common persons, allowing an aggregate sentence to address the overall criminality involved.
Mindful of the guiding principles of sentencing pursuant to s 3A of the CSP, and promotion of rehabilitation of the Offender, while bearing in mind the degree of mitigation of sentence he is entitled to on account of the special circumstances of deprivation, including suffering [redacted] as a youth, and his reasonable-but-guarded prospects of rehabilitation, the protection of the community and ensuring adequate punishment and recognising the harm done to the community, in the context of the statutory yardsticks of maximum penalty, and after allowing 25% discount for his early plea, it is my opinion that the appropriate indicative sentences are:
Sequence 12 – unlawful supply of firearms (taking into account Sequence 10 and Sequence 14 on the Form 1) – a sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months.
Sequence 13 – large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – a sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years, 9 months and 10 days.
I agree with the Crown submission that the drug supply and firearm supply offending involved different criminal activity but, because there was a single course of criminal activity involving common persons, it is just and appropriate that the sentence represent the total criminality by substantial concurrence and minimal accumulation of separate sentences.
In my opinion, a sentence of 6 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months is appropriate.
The Offender committed the Sequence 12 drug supply offences in breach of his conditional liberty. On 25 October 2023, he was sentenced to a Community Correction Order of 18 months commencing 25 October 2023 and concluding 24 April 2025 for the offences of stalk/intimidate intend physical fear and harm (domestic) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (domestic).
Offending in breach of his conditional liberty is an aggravating factor: s 21A(2)(j) of the CSP. It is a matter of concern that he offended only 3 months into that order. I do note, however, that the CCO was a sentence in response to domestic violence, being an unrelated type of offending. Further, the Offender’s antecedent criminal history does not include drug supply or firearms supply offences, being the type of the instant offending.
The quantity of methylamphetamine he supplied, 713.54 g, was almost 1.5 times the large commercial quantity minimum threshold, but still toward the lower end of quantity for offending of this type. The purity of the drug was high, at 80.5%. It was about the same for Santa Ana. The 4 transactions were conducted in the relatively short period of about 2 months and for a total value of $93,150.
The quantity of the drugs is not the sole or even the principal determinant for sentencing. The role of the offender, and the level of their participation in the offence, is more important, while bearing in mind that the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 prescribes a gradation of seriousness reflected by where the quantity of drug involved falls into those described categories of quantity. In this case, the category for methylamphetamine is in a large commercial quantity: Melikian v R [2008] NSWCCA 156 per Price J (as his Honour then was; Spiegelman CJ and Hidden J agreeing) at [42]-[43].
In his first supply, the Offender was present at the physical supply arranged by Santa Ana, and told the witness of availability of more methylamphetamine by the next day if required. In each of Toman’s supplies, Santa Ana was the marketer and organiser. Toman delivered the first supply. In Toman’s second and third supplies, he directed the witness to a location where co-offender Buttigieg delivered the methylamphetamine. Toman and Santa Ana were present at the physical supply. In his fourth supply, Toman directed the witness to a location where Toman retrieved, from a car behind, the methylamphetamine, and was present with Santa Ana when it was supplied to the witness. In my assessment, Toman acted his part in a planned business drug supply. He assisted Santa Ana in a relatively low-level intermediary role between the supervisors in the drug business chain and the witness customer, including when drugs in substantial quantities were brought to the deal by superiors.
The Crown submits that Toman’s drug supply offending falls into the “mid-range” for offending of this type: Toman MFI 1 at [12]. Counsel for Toman conceded that the Crown submissions accurately portrayed all relevant matters and the breadth of offending, including “objective gravity”: T 6.23. Although I inaccurately stated that the Crown submitted that Santa Ana’s role overall was slightly more serious than that of Toman across the drug supplies (T 20.5); Santa Ana MFI 1 at [12], Counsel for Santa Ana and Toman agreed with that assessment, i.e., that Santa Ana’s role was slightly more serious than that of Toman. The total quantity supplied by Toman calculates to roughly 275 g less than that supplied by Santa Ana. Generally, when they supplied together, Toman assisted in the deal arranged and organised by Santa Ana, and Toman was closer to the physical supply of the drugs. In his second supply, Toman showed pictures of the drugs and, with Santa Ana, referred to the quality of the drugs. In his fourth supply, Toman brought the drugs to the witness from the car behind.
“I was just a puppet, really. I was just doing what I was told.… It was not all my money. I would obviously get a cut out of it. I’ll get a cut for doing the transaction.”
Ms Hawil observed (7.1) that Toman acknowledged that he agreed to offend so that he could impress others and to support his substance use and gambling problems. I do not think that the objective seriousness of Toman’s offending was reduced on account of moral culpability because of any contributing mental element.
As to Sequence 11 and Toman’s first firearm supply, it is not contested by Toman that whereas Santa Anna marketed the Remington rifle, it was Toman who actually provided it to the sale. That rifle was missing an internal magazine, trigger guard and trigger guard screws, but it was a functional single-shot firearm with a telescopic sight and sling. Toman’s role in his second firearms supply involved actual delivery of the J-22 pistol for a price of $33,000. Again, Santa Ana marketed, negotiated and arranged the supply. After inspection of the pistol by the witness, Toman was present as Santa Ana agreed the price which closed the deal. Pagano physically delivered the pistol and 6 rounds of ammunition (Sequence 7 – Form 1). The supply of ammunition was not part of the pre-arrangement and neither Toman nor Santa Ana would have had prior knowledge of it.
Both Santa Ana and Toman were in the role of go-betweens. During oral submissions, the parties agreed that their roles in regard to the supply of the J-22 pistol and ammunition were of equal objective seriousness: T 22.17. The extended definition of “supply” (s 4) applies to Toman’s third firearms supply offence, involving an offer for supply of two self-loading pistols. In this supply, Toman marketed the supply to the witness, including him sending an image of the two firearms. He negotiated the price. There was no physical supply of firearms. For the purposes of sentencing, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the firearms were other than imitations as defined in s 4D of the Firearms Act 1996.
The supplied pistol price was $33,000 and the supplied rifle price was $2,200. The facts show that Toman was involved in a substantial business of trading weapons without regard for inevitable consequences, including that the weapons would end up in the hands of criminals.
The Crown does not rely on the use of encrypted Threema, or the degree of planning or financial gain, as aggravating factors: Toman MFI 1 at [21]. I agree that the circumstances were normal for this type of offending.
In my assessment, Toman’s firearm supply offending falls below mid-range for this type of offending and to a minor degree is of more gravity than Santa Ana’s firearm supply offending because of Toman’s supply of the rifle.
The Offender’s criminal history commences with juvenile offending, including an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others when he was 14 years of age, robbery armed with offensive weapon at 15 years of age, being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and resisting officer in execution of duty at 16 years, destruction of property/goods, in custody of property suspected of being stolen at 17 years of age and domestic-violence-associated common assault when 22 years of age. The Offender was sentenced to a Community Correction Order of 18 months for the domestic-violence-associated common assault offence which occurred on 29 January 2023, and it was that CCO conditional liberty which he breached by the instant offending.
The Offender’s antecedent history does not include drug supply or firearms offences.
I agree with the Crown submission that Toman’s antecedent criminal history is not an aggravating factor but does disentitle him to leniency: Toman MFI 1 at [24].
I have considered the Offender’s letter of apology and his mother’s letter to the Court. In his letter, the Offender wrote that, at the time of his offending, he was “naïve and still trying to find my place in the world.” He expressed his deep regret and remorse for how he affected his own life and the lives of others in the community. He claimed that the experience of incarceration has given him the opportunity to reflect on his life and to understanding the importance “of making better decisions.” He wrote that he has taken significant steps toward his recovery by entering the buprenorphine injection program, which has helped him. He expressed his want to be a better father for his 4 children.
Even with the buprenorphine injections, the Corrective Services record shows (it is not disputed) that he continues to use drugs.
The Offender principally relies on the report of Ms Hawil. No Sentencing Assessment Report was tendered. I agree with the parties’ decision to proceed with the sentencing hearing, given the expert forensic psychologist report of Ms Hawil.
Ms Hawil reported:
The Offender was born in New Zealand and is of Māori descent.
The deprivation of his extremely unstable upbringing includes that he had no significant contact with his father from age 4 and that he was raised in the immediate family of senior criminal gang members - his paternal uncle being then Vice President of the Mongrels Mob criminal gang in New Zealand of which his father and other paternal family are members.
When in the sole care of his mother, a sex worker, he was exposed to her crystal methylamphetamine and heroin use, and was subject to physical and emotional abuse.
When frequently left with various paternal relatives, he was exposed to gang culture, which he thought was fun. He told Ms Hawil, “I used to love that. I don’t know, like because I see all my family doing it so like that was what I wanted to do you know… Our normal life was crime.”
In his early life, his mother took her dog, informing him that she was going shopping, but she did not return, which led to him living between paternal relatives, sleeping on couches and shared spaces such that he did not have a bed of his own.
When he was 7 years old, in about 2008, seeing the Offender was in dirty clothing and not bathed while living in those conditions in New Zealand, his aunt brought him back to Australia where he lived alternating between staying with her and with his cousin, whose partner was Mark Buddles, the former head of the Comancheros Motorcycle Club.
At age 11 years, in 2012, life with his aunt “fell apart” when her grandson died while spray-painting graffiti at a train station. Her substance abuse escalated, and she began experiencing episodes of psychosis and he was then kicked out from the home.
The Crown appropriately concedes that, on the evidence, the Offender has shown remorse and contrition for his offending: T 8.47; Toman MFI 1 at [22].
The Crown appropriately concedes that the Offender’s antecedent criminal history, particularly given the absence of prior drug or firearms supply offences, is not an aggravating factor (Toman MFI 1 at [23]) but disentitles him to leniency (Toman MFI 1 at [24]).
Due to the Offender’s deprivation in his young life, application of Bugmy principles entitle him to a degree of mitigation of sentence. His youth is a relevant consideration in design of sentence favouring his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, though the escalation in the seriousness of his offending and his use of illicit substances necessarily warrants caution when assessing his prospects of rehabilitation.
I accept that the expert opinion evidence supports that appropriate treatment and support could mitigate his future risk of reoffending and is in the best interests of safety for the community following his release.
I accept that his criminal history is not illuminating nor an evidentiary basis for finding a measure of his moral culpability in the instant offending, and also accept that it should not be found that the offending was a manifestation of a continuing disobedience of the law warranting imposition of condign punishment to shift him and other offenders from committing like offences: Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477-478; R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242.
I am of the opinion that his deprivation and mental health have not been treated or mitigated, and this, combined with the criminal lifestyle modelled to him in which he grew up, means that the remaining features of his makeup invite the opportunity for rehabilitation, while also acknowledging that they identify him as presenting a significant risk to the community.
The appropriate sentence should provide general deterrence, mitigated to a degree by the special factors of his reduced moral culpability, and specific deterrence against his future offending
As Ms Hawil observed, revisiting his pre-incarceration lifestyle could result in relapse into drug abuse, and his prospects of rehabilitation are dependent on him avoiding those things and complying with his treatment plan.
As was the case for Santa Ana, the instant offending was not impulsive behaviour. It required a level of thought and planning. The Offender offended when under CCO conditions, included supervision and the requirement that he undertake anger management and drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment and random breath testing to show abstention.
The instant offences do represent high risk to the community both because of the devastating effects of methylamphetamine in the community but, more patently, the illicit distribution of firearms. The subject offending involved selling to the witness who was pretending to be an actor in a large commercial quantity drug trade. Assessment of safety of the community involves both assessment of the chance that he will reoffend and the gravity of the consequence of his offending if he does.
It is appropriate to proceed by aggregate sentence, particularly because the drug supply and firearms supply offences occurred over approximately the same course of conduct and between common persons, allowing an aggregate sentence to address the overall criminality involved.
Mindful of the guiding principles of sentencing pursuant to s 3A of the CSP, and promotion of rehabilitation of the Offender, while bearing in mind the degree of mitigation of sentence he is entitled to on account of the special circumstances of deprivation, it being his first time in adult custody, his youth, his reasonable-but-guarded prospects of rehabilitation, protection of the community, special hardship suffered during incarceration, and while bearing in mind the importance of protection of the community and ensuring adequate punishment and recognising the harm done to the community, in the context of the statutory yardsticks of maximum penalty, and after allowing 25% discount for his early plea, it is my opinion that the appropriate indicative sentences are:
Sequence 11 – firearm supply (taking into account Sequence 7 on the Form 1) – sentence of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 5 months and 17 days.
Sequence 12 – drug supply – sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, 10 months and 24 days.
I agree with the Crown submission that the drug supply and firearm supply offending involved different criminal activity, but because there was a single course of criminal activity involving common persons, it is just and appropriate that the sentence represent the total criminality by substantial concurrence and minimal accumulation of separate sentences.
In my opinion, a sentence of 5 years and 11 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 5 months and 5 days is appropriate.
You are convicted of the Sequence 12 offending.
You are convicted of the Sequence 13 offending.
You are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months, commencing 17 April 2024 and expiring 16 January 2031. You will become eligible for parole on 16 July 2028.
I make the following recommendations:
(a) The report of Mr Watson-Munro, consultant psychologist, dated 3 September 2025, be provided to Corrective Services NSW. (b) You attend such programs and interventions as become available while you are in custody. (c) You comply with medical, including psychological, treatment and programs addressing your abuse of illicit substances, as become available while you are in custody. (d) You be referred to Odyssey House for an AOD assessment and suitable treatment for your substance abuse issues. (e) You comply with supervision and all reasonable directions of Community Corrections, including toward treatment and rehabilitation of his substance abuse issues and education regarding tools for managing cravings, impulsivity and environment. (f) You be referred to a medical practitioner for the obtaining of a Mental Health Care Plan and reviews for treatment of your PTSD and depression, hyperarousal and anxiety, including, if prescribed, medication, cognitive behavioural therapy and supportive and motivational psychotherapy. (g) You remain abstinent of illicit substances.
You are convicted of the Sequence 11 offending.
You are convicted of the Sequence 12 offending.
You are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 11 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 5 months and 5 days, commencing 22 May 2024 and expiring 21 April 2030. You will become eligible for parole on 26 October 2027.
I make the following recommendations:
(a) The report of Ms Hawil, psychologist, dated 12 September 2025, be provided to Corrective Services NSW. (b) You attend such programs and interventions as become available while you is in custody. (c) You comply with medical, including psychological, treatment and programs addressing your abuse of illicit substances, as become available while you is in custody. (d) You comply with supervision and all reasonable directions of Community Corrections, including toward treatment and rehabilitation of your substance abuse issues and education regarding tools for managing cravings, impulsivity and environment. (e) You be referred to a medical practitioner for the obtaining of a Mental Health Care Plan and reviews for treatment of your Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder, PTSD, Opioid Use Disorder and Stimulant Use Disorder and Gambling Disorder, including, if prescribed, medication, cognitive behavioural therapy, supportive counselling and psychotherapy to address your issues with impulsivity and conformation to social norms, and drug and alcohol counselling. (f) You remain abstinent of illicit substances.
(1988) 164 CLR 465
About 7:30 PM, they arrived. Shortly after, a car stopped behind the witness’ car. B got out of the driver’s seat and got into the witness’ car. SA, T and B were monitored and recorded as they supplied 195.8g of methylamphetamine for $25,900 to the witness.
The methylamphetamine was seized by Police and later analysed. The analysis determined the exhibit to be 195.8g of methylamphetamine with a purity of 80.5%.
It was test fired and found to be functional.
The Remington was reported stolen on 27 May 2023.
On 20 March 2024, the Remington was not registered under the Firearms Act 1996 because it was subject to a cancellation of registration.
SA’s fingerprints were located on the main body of the Remington.
A mixed DNA profile trace swab from the rifle did not exclude T as a contributor.
McDeed told the witness that they didn’t bring the case, but that the witness could have it tomorrow. P said to the witness he had a couple of “rounds” which the witness could have too. The witness got out of the Hyundai and spoke to SA and T. SA asked, “What do you reckon*,* did you like it?” and the witness replied, “Yeah.” They agreed on a price of $33,000 for the Jennings J-22.
The witness got back into the Hyundai with SA. SA, T and P were monitored and recorded as they supplied the witness with the Jennings J-22 pistol and 6 rounds of .22 ammunition.
The Jennings J-22 was later seized by Police and examined by a ballistics expert who confirmed the following:
It was a .22 long rifle calibre BRYCO ARMS Jennings J-22 self-loading pistol, serial number 1066599.
It was a firearm as defined in s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 and was reasonably capable of being raised and fired by one hand and did not exceed the prescribed dimension of 65cm in length and was thus a pistol as defined in s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.
It had a barrel length of less than 120cm and was thus a prohibited pistol as described in s 4C Firearms Act 1996.
It was test fired and was in working order.
The ballistics expert also confirmed that the 6x.22 long rifle calibre cartridges supplied to the witness were ammunition, as defined by s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 and were suitable for use in the Jennings J-22.
I understand Santa Ana’s counsel to have been describing Toman’s role as slightly less serious in that it was limited to assisting and being closer to the physical delivery, including when third parties brought the drugs to the scene of the delivery. That is a description with which I agree. Neither party disagreed with my observation that it was Santa Ana who conveyed messages with a superior or superiors up the drug supply business chain. Santa Ana also handled the cash, whereas Toman did not. The Crown did not contest the description of Santa Ana’s role in the drug supply being assessed as “slightly more serious” than that of Toman: T 20.35-22.11.
The Offender relies on the report of Mr Watson-Munro, consultant psychologist, dated 3 September 2025. At page 7, Mr Watson-Munro, after referring to the Offender’s depression, anxiety, hyper-vigilance and paranoia, and his diagnosis of PTSD, commented, “His drug use further reduced his cognitive capacity referrable to impulse control and an absence of consequential thinking. I suggested, however, that Mr Santa Ana was out-of-touch with reality at the time of his alleged offending.” I do not understand that opinion to mean—and, on the evidence, I do not find—that, absent his intoxication, which Mr Watston-Munroe observed would lead to “experiences of psychotic breaks involving visual and auditory hallucinations”, the Offender’s underlying mental illness was relevantly contributory to his offending. The Agreed Facts show that he functioned in a relatively normal way over the 2 months of the offending.
I conclude that Santa Ana offended by willingly and consciously playing his part in the drug supply business in the sale of the methylamphetamine. I agree with the Crown position that the level of planning and financial gain neither lower nor heighten the gravity of the offending. I assess Mr Santa Ana’s drug supply offending to fall below mid-range for this type of offending.
As to the Sequence 12 firearm supply offence, the Offender stands to be sentenced for supply of 5 firearms on 3 occasions. The first supply, which involved 3 revolvers for a price of $7,000, falls within the extended definition of “supply” (s 4). It was an offer for supply. There was no actual supply. An image of the firearms, in the opinion of a ballistics expert, determined that if the offered firearms were not working firearms, they were imitation firearms. On a beyond reasonable doubt basis, the Offender is to be sentenced on the basis that the first supply concerned imitation firearms not actually delivered.
The Remington rifle with telescopic sight, sling and missing an internal magazine and trigger guard was an actual supply of a working firearm, for a price of $2,200. Santa Ana marketed the weapon to the witness, he being the go-between, and Toman actually supplied it: T 21.15-42. The Offender submits (Santa Ana MFI 2 at [11]) that the missing internal magazine was a critical component in its functionality. While a magazine would have permitted automatic fire, and this would have increased the gravity of the offence, I proceed on the basis that it was a single shot rifle in working order. During oral submissions, it was agreed that the objective seriousness of Toman’s offending in regard to the sale of the rifle was higher than that of Santa Ana: T 21.30.
The third supply involved actual delivery of the J-22 pistol for the price of $33,000. Again, Santa Ana marketed, negotiated and arranged the supply. Santa Ana directed the witness where to go, and, after the witness’ inspection of the pistol, Santa Ana agreed the price with the witness in the presence of Toman. Pagano physically delivered the pistol and the 6 rounds of ammunition (Sequence 10 – Form 1).
The Crown does not rely on planning or financial gain as aggravating factors: Santa Ana MFI 1 at [21]. I agree that those circumstances were normal for this type of offending. The supply of ammunition was not part of the pre-arranged deal and neither Santa Ana nor Toman would have had prior knowledge of it. Both Santa Ana and Toman were present at the supply. Both Santa Ana and Toman were in the role of go-betweens. During oral submissions, the parties agreed that their roles were of equal objective seriousness in this third Santa Anna firearm supply offence: T 22.17.
The facts show that Santa Ana was involved in a substantial business of trading weapons without regard for the inevitable consequences, including that the weapons would end up in the hands of criminals.
In written submissions, the Crown submitted that the overall objective seriousness of Santa Ana’s firearms supply falls “just above the mid-range” for offending of this type: Santa Ana MFI 1 at [19]. The Offender submitted that it falls towards the low range: Santa Ana MFI 2. In my opinion, while Santa Ana marketed and arranged the supplies of the firearms, Toman was, in fact, the supplier of the rifle. In the firearm supplies in which they were both engaged, it is my assessment that Santa Ana’s role was slightly less serious than that of Toman’s. In my opinion, Santa Ana’s firearm supply offending falls below mid-range for this type of offending.
While he told Mr Watson-Munro that he had not been much-treated while incarcerated for his addiction and mental health, and Mr Watson-Munro confirmed a paucity of treatment over the years, I nevertheless note that the Offender received 3 months rehabilitation at Odyssey House, after which he remained abstinent from illicit substances for only 6 months before relapsing due to relationship difficulties.
Mr Watson-Munro diagnosed the Offender to suffer Depressive Disorder (severe and recurring), and observed that the Offender’s symptoms arising from the [redacted] are of a PTSD character.
The Offender told the author of the SAR, dated 25 September 2025, that the change in the nature of his antecedent offending, to which I referred above, was due to contact with peers he met in custody, and a drug debt he accumulated while in custody. He told the author of the SAR that his current offences were committed to meet his need to pay a $3,000 drug debt. The author acknowledged the Offender’s acceptance of full responsibility for his offending, and observed that he did not try to minimise, justify or pass blame on to others for his actions, but acknowledged that he should have made better decisions than involving himself in such crimes as the instant offending. He told the author of the SAR that he knows that, in the future, he must disassociate himself from contact with antisocial peer groups. The SAR records that the Offender intends to be referred to a residential rehabilitation facility, and programs and interventions as available in custody and in the community, to address his substance abuse and reduce his risk of reoffending.
The author of the SAR reports that when most recently supervised in the community, pursuant to a CCO which expired in November 2023, the Offender’s response to supervision was unsatisfactory.
The SAR assessed the Offender as presenting a medium-high risk of reoffending, and that, if in the community, he would be supervised by Community Corrections at the T2/medium-high supervision level. He is suitable to undertake community service work.
Mr Watson-Munro commented that the Offender’s history, including work, and his expression of being highly motivated for professional assistance, impressed as genuine. Mr Watson-Munro assessed the Offender as currently motivated in those directions, and stated, “I believe that with continuing support for supervision and treatment, further gains will be made referrable to his overall prognosis.”
That the Offender was experiencing self-induced intoxication at the time of the offending is not a factor in mitigation of sentence: s 21A(5AA) of the CSP.
It is not contested that the s 5 threshold has been crossed, and no sentence other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate. I agree with the position taken by the parties.
The principle of proportionality requires that the sentence should not exceed what is appropriate to the gravity or blameworthiness of the crimes, having regard to the objective circumstances. Proportionality is to be applied so that a sentence should not be less than the gravity or blameworthiness that the offending requires: R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73.
I understand the submission made by Santa Ana’s counsel, which was agreed to by Toman’s counsel, and not challenged by the Crown, to have described Toman’s role as slightly less serious in that it was limited to assisting and being closer to the physical delivery, including when third parties brought the drugs to the scene of the delivery. That is a description with which I agree. Toman did not handle cash, but Santa Ana received the cash from the witness. Ultimately, Counsel for each Offender, and the Crown, did not contest the description of Toman’s role in the drug supply offences being assessed as slightly less serious than that of Santa Ana: T 20.35-22.11.
In my view, Toman’s role in his drug supply offending, and bearing in mind that the total quantity of his supply is in the low range for offending in the statutory category of large commercial quantity, means that his offending falls below mid-range for offending of its type.
Ms Hawil, forensic psychologist, in her report dated 12 September 2025, diagnosed Toman to suffer PTSD, common symptoms of which include heightened reactivity and avoidance. While it is not contested that the Offender had tragically lost his five month old child to SIDS, and his long-term relationship with his partner had recently broken down, there is no evidence of a contributory nexus between his PTSD and the offending. The stressors in his life led to self-induced intoxication, for which there is no mitigation of sentence: section 21A(5AA) of the CSP. In any event, Toman’s description of how he went about the offending, recorded in Ms Hawil’s report, is contrary to any concern that his PTSD was influential. He told her:
The Offender commenced living with his cousin and Mark Buddles where he saw the lifestyle of nice cars as appealing and he looked up to the criminal role model Buddles.
At age 13, the Offender was couch surfing, consuming alcohol and illicit substances and engaged in criminal activities.
At age 15 or 16, the Offender was [redacted], when in juvenile detention, on 2 occasions, including [redacted].
In 2017, the Offender’s mother, reunited with him in Australia. He remains close to his sister.
The Offender was in a domestic relationship for more than 8 years, from which union there are 4 children aged between 2 and 16 years. Sadly, on 25 February 2023, a child of 5 months was lost to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and a few months later the Offender’s relationship with his partner ended. He says that this brought separation from his children, and he began alternating between staying at hotels and his sister’s home, and his substance use escalated.
The Offender was disruptive at school and was involved in truanting and fights, but he was never expelled. His aunt arranged for him to consult a General Practitioner because of his behavioural issues in 2013. He was diagnosed to suffer depression and anxiety and was prescribed Avanza.
The Offender completed Year 10 while in juvenile detention, where he also obtained a Certificate III in Bricklaying and a Certificate III in Horticulture.
Between 2017 and 2023, the Offender worked on and off as a labourer and concreter.
Between 11 and 15 years of age, the Offender used cannabis. From age 13, he used alcohol. He first used cocaine when 14 or 15, and from age 20 (present age 24) he has used methylamphetamine and heroin.
Ms Hawil (7.2) expressed her opinion that, “When understanding Mr Toman’s offending behaviour, it is important to provide context of the developmental factors that are likely to have impacted him. Mr Toman reported an unstable and dysfunctional upbringing, marred by parental abandonment, neglect, frequent changes in caregivers, and the absence of a stable home environment.… exposure to gang culture, criminal activities and substance use, all of which were normalised and modelled within the family environment.… The social learning theory posits that individuals learn from their social environment through observation, imitation and modelling.”
Ms Hawil opined that until 25 years, youths continue to develop the increasing ability to control impulses, suppress aggression, consider the impact of their behaviours on others and the consequences of their behaviour, and to resist the negative influence of peers when supported by positive influences.
She diagnosed the Offender to be suffering:
Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Opioid Use Disorder, severe, on maintenance treatment, in a controlled environment.
Stimulant Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment.
Gambling Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission.
Ms Hawil (10.3) assessed the Offender to fall in the medium/high/risk/needs for reoffending and commented that the most likely risk scenario would be that he was returned to the community and relapsed into using substances, be without employment and stable accommodation, associate with antisocial peer groups and not engage treatment.
Ms Hawil reported that the Offender accepted responsibility for his actions and said that he had not received appropriate treatment and support in the past. Ms Hawil made recommendations for treatment which are in the recommendations at the conclusion of this judgement.
During oral submission, when I drew these concerns to the attention of his Counsel. He responded by pointing to the importance of the opportunity of rehabilitation given the Offender’s youth and the mitigation of sentence to which the Offender is entitled on Bugmy principles, while also acknowledging frankly that “he has a history where he has learnt, if I can be blunt, nothing except how to survive in gang warfare” (T 8.25). Counsel for the Offender also submitted that a sentence should avoid crushing the opportunity for rehabilitation by offering “a light at the end of the tunnel.”
I assess the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation as being important because of his youth and his statement that he feels he is at a turning point. This claim is made during remand for the instant offending, being his first adult incarceration. That is a special circumstance, but I acknowledge the Control Orders in his juvenile history. His Counsel, after pointing to the uncontested facts that until now the Offender has not received appropriate treatment to address the deprivation of his upbringing to equip him with life skills outside of the criminal environment, and to treat his mental health issues and drug addiction (although I am mindful that he was to comply with supervision in those regards during the few months of his CCO), assisted the court with his frank and valued observation, “I can’t say good prospects of rehabilitation and I can’t say that his risk of recidivism is low…”(T 4. 25).
In my assessment, his prospects of rehabilitation deserve to be assessed as reasonable, particularly on account of the importance of taking the opportunity present due to his age, which is in the interests of the community. However, because of my significant concern of his risk of recidivism, my assessment of the Offender’s prospects are to be considered as guarded.
Both parties properly submit that the section 5 CSP threshold is crossed and that there is no appropriate sentence other than full-time imprisonment.
I am satisfied that a special circumstance is that the Offender suffers the hardship of the prison environment being more onerous on him than for another Offender because it echoes the trauma he suffered in juvenile detention, and he lives within the prison environment with a consequent degree of hyperarousal according to his PTSD.
I accept the Offender’s submission that it is appropriate to extend the parole/non-parole period of his sentence to permit him a practical opportunity to achieve reintegration into the community. I do not understand the Crown submission to contest that course: s 44 of the CSP; Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87 per Yehia J (Stern JA and Rothman J agreeing) at [95].
The principal of proportionality requires that the sentence should not exceed what is appropriate for the blameworthiness of the crime, having regard to the objective circumstances. Proportionality is to be applied so that a sentence should not be less than the objective blameworthiness the offence requires: R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73.