R v Wilson Lam; R v Smith

File Number(s): 2024/281323
2024/281340

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Natasha Wilson-Lam and Jake Smith appeared for sentence on 11 December 2025, and without at this point intending to indicate any kind of order of seriousness of offending will for convenience hereafter respectively be referred to as “the offender” and “the co offender”, and when referred to collectively will be referred to as “the offenders”. At the conclusion of the hearing judgment was reserved until 16 December 2025 and this is that judgment.

2. Both offenders are to be sentenced in respect of one count under section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (DMTA) which is the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, in each case methylamphetamine, in an amount that was not less than the large commercial quantity. That offence has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a standard non parole period of 15 years. In each case there were one or more matters on a Form 1 and there were also different matter/s to be dealt with which came to this court on a section 166 certificate.

3. In each case, in relation to the maximum sentences and, in respect of the section 25(2) offences, the standard non-parole periods, are matters taken into account as legislative guideposts. They indicate the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offences to assist at arriving at the appropriate sentences. In relation to the standard non-parole period I note that in Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [29] the High Court made clear that it has application even when the offending is not considered to be in the middle of the range of seriousness as that term is used in section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (“CSPA”). The standard non-parole period is an indication of the legislative view of the seriousness of the offence.

4. In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offence for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrence and the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.

5. I note that neither offender was on conditional liberty at the time of their respective offending.

6. There was a further co offender, namely Sarah Morrow. She played a far lesser role than either of the offenders, for example on occasion she drove the offender to the Chinderah Service station where some of the offending occurred. Ms Morrow received 4 Community Corrections Orders in respect of 4 counts under s25(1) DMTA. Neither party in the present hearing made submissions concerning parity, and it is accepted that there will be terms of imprisonment imposed upon the offenders.

7. The agreed facts differ as between the two cases but there is necessarily a degree of overlap. There are differing discrete issues that arise both objectively and subjectively between the cases, and also again some degree of commonality. The cases however do not really lend themselves to being treated wholly together. This judgment will firstly deal with the matter of the offender and secondly of the co offender and with reference to any points of commonality being made as appropriate.

Natasha Wilson Lam

Facts

8. The offender lives at Evan’s Head with her partner and their 5 children one of whom is Blaze Ward who is the child relevant to the section 351A Form 1 matter.

9. Police conducted an operation concerning supply of methylamphetamine in the Evans head area which included physical and electronic surveillance and controlled purchases of prohibited drugs.

10. This captured multiple phone conversations and SMS messages in which the defendant facilitated the supply of methylamphetamine and cannabis.

11. A code was adopted in these communications seeking to disguise the drug being supplied and its amount.

12. The facts are lengthy as they detail in respect of the sole count on the indictment a significant number of separate supplies on separate dates which when rolled up result in the supply of 789.92 g of methylamphetamine founding the charge of supplying a prohibited drug of an amount that is a large commercial quantity. A large commercial quantity is 500 g or more.

13. It suffices to summarise these various supplies. The first supply was on 3 April 2024 and the last supply was on 31 July 2024. The total number of supplies was 39. So in approximately 4 months or about 119 days there is a supply on average every third day approximately.

14. Some of the supplies are simply noted in the facts as having occurred whereas others detail the various communications leading up to the supply. Notably the larger supplies are to the undercover operative. It is notable that there are some repeat customers. There is use of the encrypted Threema platform. I note the offender suggested to the undercover operative that this platform be used.

15. The amounts involved varied significantly from as little as 0.2 g to as much as 139.7 g. There were 15 supplies of up to 1 g; there were eight supplies of between 1 g and 5 g and there were 16 supplies of more than 5 g.

16. For what it is worth if the total supplied is divided by the number of supplies the average supply is 20.25 g.

17. The dealings with the undercover operative involved the operative contacting the offender on her mobile phone, including on the Threema platform, with the transaction being discussed in terms of amounts and price.

18. Notably on 10 April 2024 the offender uses her own car to meet the undercover operative.

19. The modus operandi of the offender is to make the agreement by electronic means and to then deliver the product herself to the purchaser. There is no go-between between herself and the purchaser. For larger supplies however, whilst no go between, there is a need for her to deal with her upline supplier as described below.

20. There were occasions where rental cars were used for example on 1 May 2024. That occasion, which occurred at Chinderah, shows the offender dealing firstly with the purchaser who was the undercover operative and then dealing with others from whom she obtained the drugs. This included her upline supplier, who is not named in respect of this supply, whereas in respect of supplies 22, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 39, the upline supplier is identified as the co offender.

21. In broad terms the price being paid was about $4500 per ounce; for example the sale on 13 May was of two ounces for $9000. This was another instance of the undercover operative. In that transaction the money of $9000 was handed over whereupon the offender said her upline supplier was waiting in the service centre. Having got the money she then met somebody else in another part of the centre and then returned to supply 2 ounces of methylamphetamine. When later weighed it was in fact 55.5 g, so one half of a gram less.

22. A larger supply of 111.6 g was made on 24 May 2024 through to 30 May 2024. This again was to the undercover operative. The offender told the operative that she could get 4 ounces for $17,000 so an average price there of $4250 per ounce. She told the operative that she was negotiating the price with her upline supplier as well as the quality. The deal was done in a similar fashion to that described above with the initial meeting of the offender and the operative, the handing over of the money, the offender then goes elsewhere nearby to collect the drugs and then returns and delivers them. On this occasion the amount was 4 ounces.

23. The facts show examples of small supplies of .35g, or 2g. The money involved is as little as $150 for .35g, and on one occasion the price was 2 ounces of cannabis for 2g of meth, and on another occasion the supply of .2g was for 2 high fashion branded bags.

24. The largest supply was on 12 June, being the 139.7g, and a price of $20,000.

25. There are numerous references to Jake Smith in the facts, as already noted. The first mention is in relation to the supply of 111.6 g of methylamphetamine on 30 May. He is in that instance at least the offender's upline supplier and provided the 112 g on this occasion, later found to be just below that amount. The amounts the co offender supplied in respect of the supplies identified above included 28 g of methylamphetamine on 20 June for the purpose of on supply to people in the Evans Head area; 14 g for on supply to people in the Evans head area on 1 July and the largest amounts of 139.3g and 139.7g. In respect of this last mentioned supply, the clear inference is that the offender collected 5 ounces or 140 g of methylamphetamine from the co offender and delivered that to the undercover operative who then gave $20,000 to the offender who gave that money to the co offender.

26. The co offender was also integral with the supply of 139.3 g on 31 July. Again he provided 140 g of methylamphetamine to the offender who then supplied it to the undercover operative in exchange for $20,000. It was on this occasion they were arrested.

27. In respect of the Form 1 matter when the offender was arrested she had on her person the $20,000 in cash that she had received from the undercover operative. With respect this adds little to the weight to be given to the sentence if anything.

28. The section 166 matters are all drive disqualified matters on 13 May, 30 May, 11 June and 31 July 2024. Those are occasions of driving to Chinderah in order to carry out supplies which are included in the rolled up charge. The offender was disqualified from driving at that time, was observed to be driving, and charged with the offences later after her arrest.

29. The remaining two Form 1 matters are connected, being the supply of cannabis leaf and recruiting a child to do so. As noted above the child was her son then aged 16.

30. In respect of the supply cannabis matter there were eight occasions of supply in the amounts of 3 g, 14 g, 14 g, 7 g, 14 g, 1 g, a non particularised small quantity and 1g.

31. The carrying out of these supplies is fairly routine and involves the offender being contacted by a would-be recipient of the cannabis, the offender then seeing if she could fill the order or by recourse to an upline supplier, and the supply follows.

32. The facts of recruiting a child were on one occasion the child asking if the mother could provide 3 g for his friend which was agreed for $50. On a second occasion it was again the child asking for cannabis for a friend which resulted in 14 g being supplied firstly to the child and then by the child to his male associate.

33. The third occasion was when she engaged the child to complete a supply of cannabis that she had prearranged for a recipient. This was 7 g for $90.

34. The fourth occasion was when at the child’s request the mother provided him with a gram of cannabis.

35. This is low level supply of cannabis. It does demonstrate again the depth of involvement of the offender in the supply of prohibited drugs. The involvement of her son is a damning reflection on the offender and perhaps demonstrates her loss of perspective, and concomitant anti social focus on drug supply.

Objective seriousness

36. The submissions of all parties were helpful in identifying relevant matters to enable an assessment of the seriousness of the offending. Considerations relevant to both offenders are the offender’s role and level of participation, the degree of reward received and the quantity of the drug involved. It is well recognised that the quantity of the drugs is not the sole nor necessarily even the determinative measure but in my view it is plainly relevant on the facts of this case. The degree of planning and/or sophistication of the offending is relevant to consider. It is also relevant to consider the degree to which the drugs have reached the community. The written submissions on behalf of the co offender make reference to the relevant authorities in this regard and in my view accurately states the position by saying the matter of the drugs purchased by the undercover operative not reaching the community is not a mitigatory factor but rather means there is an absence of a factor which may have added to the seriousness of the offending.

37. In the case of the offender (Wilson-Lam) I note that she on at least one occasion used a motor vehicle registered to her to travel to the meeting point where the drug transaction occurred. The communications other than when involving the undercover operative are described in the facts in a way that can only be inferred to mean that they were by telephone with her by text but at the offender’s suggestion by way of the encrypted Threema platform. It is not clear that all communications were encrypted. The method adopted at the service centre of the offender first meeting with the purchaser to obtain the money and to then leave that vehicle, walk-through the public area of the service centre to enter into the car with the upline supplier to then collect the drugs and then return to the purchaser was basic to say the least.

38. There was a code adopted for communications to describe quantities and type of drug but that is neither uncommon nor necessarily a sign of great sophistication. The fact that the offender on four occasions travelled from Evans Head to Chinderah, I would infer upon the motorway being perhaps the busiest road on the east coast of Australia whilst disqualified from driving in order to give effect to this serious offending is another demonstration or indicator of either or both her amateurish conduct of this offending or her desperation.

39. The offender was directly involved in that she was the front person for the operation; it was she who was dealing with the ultimate consumer though in respect of the occasions where the amounts were of approximately 20 g or more it can be inferred that there was one more level below her in the supply chain for those matters. That point actually goes to show the varying levels of involvement or role of the offender. Plainly on the occasions where there are amounts of between .2 of a gram to 2 g supplied the likelihood is she is supplying the actual user; as the amounts increase for example to 5 g or 14 g or 20 g or more the likelihood of the offender not being at the bottom level of the supply chain increases.

40. It may be a consequence of how the facts are drafted however it is notable that on the occasions when larger quantities such as the occasions of almost 140 g being supplied that the facts detail the process just outlined which show that the offender was not trusted with the larger amounts of the drug. Rather the upline supplier would release to her the drug to be supplied only when she had confirmed the purchaser was present and had the money. This shows her position to not be a terribly trusted one.

41. The argument for the offender focused upon the involvement of the undercover operative and sought to argue that but for the conduct of the undercover operative the offender would not have committed the offence charged and would more likely have been charged with supplying only an amount described as a commercial amount or possibly less than that, so a charge under s25(1). The submission of the offender was that the facts showed that on 22 occasions the offender supplied less than a gram and sought to attribute 47 g to personal use and that the total supplied to the undercover operative was 602.2 g.

42. My reading of the facts does not match up entirely with that summary, for example including amounts of 1 g there are only 15 occasions of 1 g or less being supplied but that does not weaken the submission. Also, the total supplied to the undercover operation is 553.8 g and on seven occasions so an average of 79.11 g. Again the difference does not on its own weaken the argument. It is notable however that, without involvement of the undercover operative, there were six occasions where more than 20 g was supplied and two occasions where 14 g were supplied which shows the offender, free of the undercover operative, to still be dealing in amounts that would not be associated with the type of low-level offender the submission seeks to categorise her as.

43. The offender’s submissions referred to authorities dealing with this question in particular Parris v R [2013] NSWCCA 5, Jomaa v R [2022] NSWCCA 112 and Kada v The Queen [2017] VSCA 339. The position is summarised by the passages set out at [9] of the written submissions of the offender, referring to five factors applicable to the impact of police involvement upon the culpability of an offender. In considering those factors it needs to be borne in mind just what the agreed facts are involving the undercover operative. To take two examples at page 11 of the facts dealing with supply number 22 of 111.6 g the agreed fact is the undercover operative contacted the offender and asked if she could “get me a good price for four big ones next Thursday at same place and time”. In respect of the largest supply to the undercover operative of 139.7 g which was supply 34 the offender messaged the undercover operative and asked “is 5 for 20 good”. It is the offender who seeks to contact the undercover operative again on 23 and 28 June with the undercover operative not responding until 3 July and asking if they could catch up.

44. The offender read an affidavit of herself which was not objected to and not the subject of any cross-examination. At paragraph 27of that affidavit the offender states that the undercover operative began “pressing me to source larger quantities of methylamphetamine”. This statement was relied on heavily by the offender seeking to press for lesser culpability due to the involvement of the undercover operative. There was no reference made to any of the agreed facts to support what is a conclusion being asserted by the offender nor was any other part of her affidavit actually outlining some conversation or conduct on behalf of the undercover operative to support the idea of “pressing”, which suggests there was something in the nature of pressure or coercion.

45. The two brief examples taken from the agreed facts show that this is not a case of coercion or indeed pressure. The first example shows the undercover operative simply asking for a good price and the second example showing if anything the offender being the one pressing the undercover operative for further business.

46. With those facts in mind the five factors taken from the authorities that the offender relies on should be considered. The first is the manner in which the involvement of the police contributed to the offending. They contributed to the offending because they provided a willing purchaser for the drugs. The second factor is the extent of the police involvement that contributed to the offending and the extent of it again is that they provided a purchaser for the drugs in the larger amounts. Thirdly the more remote the police involvement the less weight it will have. Here the involvement was direct but in the nature of what I have just described. Fourthly is the readiness of the offender to respond to the requests for drugs by the police. The submission gains weight for an offender if there has been something of the nature of overbearing conduct by the police. That is not the case here based on the evidence. The passage set out goes on to state a comparable situation to the present, of where the offender regards a request for drugs from police as a welcome expansion to the trafficking operation; that is a far more apt description of what occurred here, as opposed to any suggestion of pressure or overbearing conduct. The fifth factor is whether the police became involved at a time the offender was already trafficking, and if so, the scale of the operation at that time and the scale of the operation resulting from police involvement. It is said that the involvement of police will carry less weight if the requests by them for a drug can be accommodated within the offender’s existing supply lines as compared to where they can only be accommodated by material changes to the offender’s scale of operation. That factor requires some thought. The offender was plainly already trafficking as it was the police investigation that discovered it. The scale of the offender’s operation at that time extended to supplying amounts of less than 1 g. The first supply to the undercover operative was 1.72 g and the next supply to the undercover operative was 23.08, with the previous greatest supply being 3.5 g. It is after the supply of 23.08 g that there are then the six occasions of supply of 28 g to people other than the undercover operative. All of the supplies were able to be met for the undercover operative through the existing supply lines of the offender. She needed to speak to her upline supplier but it was that upline supplier, who would appear in most if not all occasions to have been the co offender, from whom she was able to meet whatever request was made by the police operative.

47. The conclusion I reach is that the conduct of the undercover operative certainly increased the level of criminality of the offender. However this was not as a result of any coercion. The facts more readily fit the description of the situation being, and I find, a welcome expansion to her trafficking operation which she was able to meet from her existing supply lines.

48. The conclusion I reach is that the involvement of the undercover operative on the facts of this case does not lead to a lessening of the moral culpability of the offender. Rather and somewhat to her disadvantage it demonstrates her willingness to be involved in this serious criminal activity to the extent that she was involved in it.

49. In terms of quantity the rolled up charge is well in excess of the amount necessary for large commercial supply though of course there is no upper limit and one can think of more serious cases where weight is used as the guide. As already noted the amount of the drug is not the sole or even the determinant factor but it is in many cases including this a relevant matter.

50. The offender is plainly at the lower levels of the operation and in the nature of that position is the most exposed. She uses a telephone number that does not seem to have any protection from detection, and on occasion uses her own vehicle, and drives whilst disqualified. In respect of the phone use, the telephone intercepts uncovered much of the offending, so the use of the encrypted Threema app was either not wholly secure, or not always used. The offender was fairly exposed in her dealings with the undercover operative, walking in public from car to car, again a reflection of an unsophisticated operation.

51. The offender describes herself as a facilitator. Her place in any hierarchy varies from the retail level with the lower supplies, to seemingly midlevel for the larger supplies.

52. The Crown argues the objective seriousness is in the mid range. Overall, I consider it less than that, but not as minor as the offender would have it. In an effort to give some precision, I would assess it as being towards the bottom of the middle 40%.

53. The Crown did not argue there were any aggravating factors.

Form 1 Matters

54. The facts of the Form 1 matter of dealing with proceeds of crime are that when the offender was arrested she had on her person the $20,000 in cash that she had received from the undercover operative. With respect this adds little to the weight to be given to the sentence if anything.

55. The remaining two form 1 matters are connected being the supply of cannabis leaf and recruiting a child to do so. As noted above the child was her son then aged 16.

56. In respect of the s25(1) offence there were eight occasions of supply in the amounts of 3 g, 14 g, 14 g, 7 g, 14 g, 1 g, small quantity and 1g.

57. The carrying out of these supplies is fairly routine and involves the offender being contacted by a would-be recipient of the cannabis, the offender then seeing if she could fill the order, that then occurring and the supply follows.

58. The facts of recruiting a child are that on one occasion the child asked if his mother, the offender, could provide 3 g for his friend which was agreed for $50. On a second occasion it was again the child asking for cannabis for a friend which resulted in 14 g being supplied firstly to the child and then by the child to his male associate.

59. The third occasion was when the offender engaged the child to complete a supply of cannabis that she had prearranged for a recipient. This was 7 g for $90.

60. The fourth occasion was when at the child’s request the mother provided him with a gram of cannabis.

61. This is low level supply of cannabis. The amount is not much more than the amount needed for a small quantity. On its own it would not pass the section 5 threshold. It does demonstrate, though to a small extent, that the offender’s involvement in drug supply is not limited to methylamphetamine. That the offender involves her son demonstrates her inability to act appropriately in her quest to satisfy her need for methylamphetamine. Overall the Form 1 matters do not add meaningfully to the sentence for the principal offence.

Section 166 matters

62. The section 166 matters are all drive disqualified matters on 13 May, 30 May, 11 June and 31 July 2024. Those of the occasions of driving to Chinderah in relation to some of the supplies constituting the s25(2) offence, and she was disqualified at that time.

63. In respect of the four drivers disqualified matters the facts disclose nothing about them other than the fact of the offences occurring and were done to facilitate the supply offending, that is she drove herself to the meeting point. These are offences for which there is a maximum term of 6 months for a first offence and a maximum term of one year for a second offence. The offender’s record shows driving offences in 2023 so that the first of these offences would be a second offence, so all of these offences have a maximum term of 12 months. There is nothing about the offender’s manner of driving that might be said to add to the seriousness of the offence, though there is some merit in the Crown submission that to drive when disqualified in order to carry out serious offending is no reason at all to justify the conduct. I consider these drive disqualified matters to be lower level offending albeit they have been carried out in association with far more serious offending. The offender’s record demonstrates an ongoing disregard for the traffic laws.

Subjective case

64. It is agreed the offender is entitled to a 25% discount due to the timing of her plea.

65. The offender was born on 5 June 1987 and so is now 38 years old. She was arrested on 31 July 2024 when she was 37.

66. The offender’s criminal history is almost entirely of driving matters be it driving disqualified or driving with illicit drug present together with drug offences of possessing prohibited drugs. More concerning is the possession of a prohibited weapon. The time in custody following her arrest was her first time in custody.

67. This offence is a marked escalation in her offending.

68. A sentencing assessment report was dated 5 December 2025. At that time the offender had public housing on the outskirts of Grafton and is the full-time carer for three of her children.

69. In explaining or trying to explain the offences she said she thought she was helping herself and friends and did not think about what she was doing. It is said she minimises the offending.

70. She said she gave her son cannabis to manage his bad behaviour. Putting aside that is contrary to the facts it is also fairly doubtful. This is shown by her saying it was silly of her. It is said she appeared to justify her actions and was rationalising her offending.

71. She had been drug free for seven years but relapsed into drug use as a means of dealing with life stressors.

72. On her own account she suffers ADHD, PTSD and anxiety and depression which was later verified. She did not claim this as a factor in her offending.

73. She is willing to undertake intervention.

74. She was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending and suitable for community service work.

75. The offender relied on an affidavit made by her. The history given is of her father leaving the home at the time she was 2 and she has had no contact since. Her step father and mother were alcoholics. She witnessed significant domestic violence by her stepfather to her mother.

76. In primary school she was physically assaulted by a teacher. She resided variously in the Yamba, Grafton and Glen Innes areas. It was in Grafton that her mother started a third relationship with a man named David. He too was a chronic alcoholic. He was also violent to the offender's mother. They had two children so that there were now four children including the offender who was the oldest.

77. The offender says that at age 15 she was in effect kidnapped by a teenager for a period of nine months and was kept in a drugged and terrified state, often locked in a dark room and repeatedly assaulted and raped.

78. In the course of this she became pregnant and had an abortion. She had no further schooling.

79. The father of her eldest two children was extremely domestically violent and also sexually assaulted the offender. She fled to Western Australia to avoid him but was persuaded to return. He made threats to kill their children.

80. That relationship ended in 2011 and another violent relationship began. There was a third child. At about 2013 the offender was a single mother drinking daily but not then using drugs.

81. She met her partner at the time of these offences in 2016 and they had two children and this was a relatively stable period. That ended in about 2021 when the first father Mr Ward began a relationship with the offender’s half sister and there were issues concerning the eldest two children with a recovery order ultimately obtained by the offender.

82. It was the aftermath of that period that saw the offender use methylamphetamine which continued throughout 2023. This in turn led to her in her words facilitating some minor cannabis and methylamphetamine deals to meet the costs of her own use.

83. She maintains that the level of her involvement in drug supply was never more than a couple of grams prior to her involvement with the undercover operative. She says when asked to get the larger amounts she had said she needed to ask to see if it was possible, she was scared about the increased amount but was greedy thinking of the free drugs and money she could obtain through the transaction.

84. She found her time in custody difficult due to her claustrophobia and her kidnapped experience and suffered extreme anxiety.

85. Whilst in custody her children caused concern with one withdrawing and developing a speech impediment, another performing poorly at school and the oldest, now 18, gravitating towards his father. In addition she lost her house with Mr Martin relocating.

86. Her conduct since being on bail is to her credit. She has engaged in counselling with Mr Jenkins as well as drug and alcohol counselling at the Buttery.

87. Her daughter’s behaviour and schooling has improved; another child is now living with the offender’s mother undertaking a TAFE course and the eldest is employed and living independently, and she and Mr Martin have moved to their new address which is stable accommodation. There have been no breaches of her bail conditions. Drug testing whilst on bail has been negative.

88. She expresses shame and I infer regret for the offending and does not want to be part of that cycle anymore. She is proud of maintaining his sobriety on bail and is confident of continuing that.

89. There is a psychologist report of Peter Jenkins dated 29 November 2025. It notes the history of the kidnapping at age 15. It says the offender self medicated from that time without allowing for the seven years of abstinence. It notes her engaging with psychological treatment since a referral on 25 March 2025

90. A series of psychometric tests were carried out with varying results. The DASS test was interpreted to show severe depression, anxiety and stress.

91. A personality assessment inventory was interpreted to suggest the offender was not completely forthright in her responses which could lead an evaluator to form an inaccurate impression. The results raise the possibility of denial of problems with drinking or drug use so that interpretive hypotheses of the report regarding abuse of substances should be reviewed with caution.

92. The results suggest the offender endorsed items that present an unfavourable impression raising the prospect of exaggeration of problems again impacting on the interpretive hypotheses which may over represent the extent and degree of significant test findings.

93. As to clinical findings the above results mean it is possible that clinical scales may over represent or exaggerate the actual degree of psychopathology.

94. Suffice to say this is a very qualified report. It then goes on to say at [36] that the offender is likely to display a variety of maladaptive behaviour patterns to control anxiety and at [39] that she is quite impulsive and prone to behaviours likely to be self harmful or self-destructive such as those involving spending sex and/or substance abuse and may be at increased risk of self-harm.

95. The diagnosis given is of PTSD with mixed anxiety and depression, ADHD, somatisation disorder, psychoactive substance methylamphetamine dependency. These disorders cause significant impairment in a range of areas of life, including cognitive and emotional.

96. The treatment suggested is surprisingly simply a reference to the Medicare funded mental health care plan and with a rather generic description of how there will be progression to a consultant psychiatrist when that becomes evident. Cognitive behaviour therapy is recommended.

97. At paragraph 70 there is the bare statement that “it is my opinion that Natasha suffers from mental illnesses which would have causally contributed to her offending behaviours”. There is no development of that opinion and its basis would seem largely to be what was said at [39].

Consideration

98. The purposes of sentencing are as follows:

99. To ensure the offender is adequately punished

100. To prevent crime by deterring the offender and others from committing similar offences.

101. To protect the community from the offender.

102. To promote the rehabilitation of the offender.

103. To make the offender accountable for his actions.

104. To denounce the conduct of the offender.

105. To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime in the community.

106. The ultimate submission for the defendant was that there should be a term of imprisonment with a non parole period suggested to be as short as the time served. The offender was in custody from 31 July 2024 to 15 February 2025 expressed as 6 months and 15 days by the Crown and 198 days by the offender. Adopting the period of 198 days and given that this sentence is being delivered on 16 December 2025 the sentence should commence on 1 June 2025.

107. Quite properly on the facts of this case in my view there was no submission that an intensive correction order ought to be considered which amounts to a concession that, subject to the court's determination of course, that the sentence imposed will not be less than three years.

108. The understandable but ambitious nature of the offender’s submission can be seen; it would be an unusual, though not unheard of, case for there to be a head sentence of greater than three years and a non parole period of less than 7 months.

109. There was no challenge to the affidavit of the offender. She was not making any significant money by way of her offending conduct other than the saving of what would be a significant expense of the cost of the methylamphetamine that she consumed, the amount of which is not able to be determined with any precision.

110. The offender’s criminal history, contrary to the submission on her behalf, is a concern as it shows her antisocial tendencies, although previously relatively minor, revolve around drug use. The record is not one that would deprive her of all leniency however it certainly does minimise any benefit that may otherwise have been available. That said I do not consider that it hinders the acceptance of the submissions made on her behalf as to her prospects.

111. The offender argues that Bugmy principles apply and that she should be found to have had a life of deprivation and social economic hardship. The uncontested evidence to support that submission is of having a mother and stepfather who were both alcoholics, domestic violence being witnessed between her mother and various partners, suffering physical assault by a teacher at school and then at age 15 being kept for almost 9 months in a situation described as kidnap where she was kept in a drugged and terrified state and repeatedly raped. The submission is clearly made out.

112. The consequence of that is that the likelihood of a resort to drugs as a coping mechanism is made more likely and indeed eventuated. It also has the consequence that the offender should be and is viewed as having a lesser moral culpability for her criminal conduct.

113. There was a submission seeking to draw some causal connection between her psychological state and the offending. I do not accept that submission which seems to be founded on the conclusion asserted by Mr. Jenkins, and the support for which seems to come from [39] of his report. That report is a qualified report given the matters noted above and his concern as to the frankness of the offender in undergoing the psychometric testing. Whilst I am not satisfied of any causal connection between the mental health conditions of the offender, in a broad sense one can see how she has ended up behaving as she has in the context of her overall background, which the sentence recognises by lessening her moral culpability, a finding that may be made without the need to establish some causal connection.

114. The conduct of the offender in the time that she has been on bail is commendable. The tragedy of this case really is that in order to achieve the recognised purposes of sentencing in accordance with sentencing principle, and even allowing for the various favorable factors that her case makes out, a sentence which saw her spend in custody only the time served would be disproportionate to the objective criminality of her conduct. In matters of drug supply the purpose of sentencing of general deterrence is given emphasis, and that remains the case here, even after a finding of lesser moral culpability, though the emphasis is tempered somewhat. There should be some emphasis on specific deterrence; whilst I accept the history given by the offender in her affidavit, there is about it a lack of wholly accepting her responsibility by underplaying her role and seeking to suggest she was led astray by the undercover operative, though to balance that she does admit to her motivation of greed. There is also the strong need to protect the community from the damage caused by drug abuse.

115. That this is tragic is because not only has the offender taken commendable steps towards her own rehabilitation whilst on bail but the evidence shows that it has had a marked advantageous impact on the three children that she has the full-time care of. I would also note that her eldest son seems to be progressing well undergoing education and having work and doing the sorts of things one would hope a healthy 18-year-old would be doing. The time in custody of the non-parole period will reflect these concerns whilst at the same time being proportionate.

116. I accept the offender in remorseful, based on her unchallenged shame she expresses at [45] of her affidavit. The finding is also supported by her early plea of guilty, and her conduct on bail.

117. I make a finding of special circumstances. This finding is based on it being her first time in custody, and the assessment of her prospects, which will be enhanced by a lengthy period of supervision. The rehabilitative steps evidence in her period on bail add support to this finding, which in my view should be a marked finding. Additionally, whilst no Edwards submission was made, I also take into account the undoubted benefit to the offender’s children of the offender being with them in the community, and conversely, the difficulty they will face when their mother is in custody. I note that they will be in the care of Mr Martin in her absence, and he, thankfully, appears from the limited information available to be a pro social partner as compared to the earlier partners of the offender.

118. In the introduction to these reasons reference was made to no issue being raised concerning parity as between the offender and co offender on the one hand, and Ms Morrow on the other. Similarly, little if anything was said as between the offender and co offender. For completeness however, in my view the sentence will be heavier in respect of the co offender Smith, than it will be for the offender. The co offender is further up the “chain” or “heirarchy”, or put simply, is more enmeshed in the trade of the supply of prohibited drugs. It is the co offender who is able to supply whatever amount the offender sought. I would note however the CCO outcome for Ms Morrow in respect of supplies larger than those of the co offender in respect of the s25(1) matters, though there is a large difference in their respective roles.

119. There was some reference at the hearing to comparable cases, more in the submissions of the co offender than the offender, and the court referred both offenders to two authorities that may have been of interest (Nguyen v R [2024] NSWCCA 178 and Chung v R [2025] NSWCCA 87). The need for caution in making reference to “comparables” was noted. By reference to the cases of Nguyen and R v Khalil [2019] NSWDC 271, counsel for the co offender submitted the range of the non parole period in the matter was 2 years 11 months to 3 years 7 months. In Nguyen the offender was aged 48 and the charge was under s25(2) and was for an amount of 973g of methylamphetamine, and with a Form 1 matter of possessing ammunition. There was a second charge of supplying 1,330g of cannabis. The subjective case showed a background of being involved in gang activity, a history of drug use, and gambling issues. In Khalil the offender was aged 29 and the charge was again s25(2) and the amount was 561g. On a Form 1 was a money laundering charge re $10,700 and minor possession of prohibited drugs matters. Subjectively he had the support of his wife and children, and had a history of drug and gambling addiction.

120. The Crown did not argue against the submission of what was submitted by the co offender’s counsel to be an appropriate range. Whilst this is helpful, it of course remains for the court to determine the ultimate orders.

Determination

114. It goes without saying just how serious any offence is where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The offence in question is considered by the legislature to be of the most serious kind. The role of the offender in this offence has been analysed above. A feature of this case is the significant life events of the offender, and her retreat to drugs in times of turmoil. Another feature of the case is just how successful the offender has been in taking steps towards rehabilitation in her time on bail. That conduct greatly assists her case as it gives solid evidence of her ability to rehabilitate, and to not further offend. Whilst obviously the absence of offending whilst on bail is to some extent be expected, it comes with other positive steps forward in her life, and her meaningful contribution to the lives of her children. In my view an extended period on parole will have the same deterrent effect as the bail period, and there is the self evident personal benefit to remain off drugs, for both herself and her family. The extended period of supervision will help guard against relapse, particularly should the offender experience any further “life stressors”.

115. An aggregate sentence will be imposed. The indicative sentences concerning the drive whilst disqualified matters will add to the sentence in only a modest way. The indicative sentence for the s25(2) matter, taking into account the 3 Form 1 matters, and prior to the discount of 25% will be 5 years, and so 3 years and 9 months after the discount for the early plea. The indicative non parole period will be 2 years. This differs from the statutory non parole period due to the assessment of objective seriousness, the 25% discount for the early plea, and the matters supporting the finding of special circumstances.

116. In respect of the s166 matters of 4 counts of drive whilst disqualified, there will in each case be a 4 month term before the discount, and so 3 months after the discount.

117. The aggregate sentence will be 4 years, with a non parole period of 2 years. This is a ratio of 100%, so significantly greater than the statutory ratio set by s44(2). In terms of actual time it is an additional 12 months under supervision. This is a period which I consider is the minimum period of custody required to reflect the objective criminality of the matter, and at the same time properly promotes the rehabilitation of the offender.

Orders

118. The offender Natasha Wilson Lam is convicted of the offence under section 25(2) DMTA, and of the 4 matters on the s166 certificate.

119. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment to date from 1 June 2025 with a non parole period of 2 years, expiring on 31 May 2027, with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 31 May 2029.

Jake Smith

120. I note the matters in the above introduction concerning the offender (Wilson Lam) which are repeated here in the case of Smith, the co offender.

Facts

121. The offending occurred in the period 30 May 2024 to 31 July 2024. The co offender was arrested on 31 July 2024 and has been in custody since that date, and that date will be the date of commencement of the sentence to be imposed.

122. These offences were uncovered by the same police investigation relevant to the offender.

123. The agreed facts describe the co offender as a mid level supplier of methylamphetamine with a customer base spanning throughout the Northern Rivers and southern Gold Coast.

124. He regularly supplied the offender who would then on supply to her own customer base.

125. The section 25(2) charge is a rolled up charge involving supply on 12 occasions. The amounts supplied were 168 g, 140 g, 8 occasions of 28 g, 139.7 g and on another occasion 140 g.

126. The modus operandi was to meet in a public place such as a service station service centre, often at Chinderah. Doubtless this had been prearranged and the supply of the drugs by the co offender to the recipient occurred. Some of these occasions were when the offender had met with the undercover operative and then went to the co offender to obtain what was to be supplied to the undercover operative. On another occasion the supply between the co offender and the offender occurred at an Air B&B where the co offender was staying. There has been reference above to these occasions and so far as those facts concern the co offender they are repeated here.

127. On 3 occasions a different person was involved with the co offender supplying Grahame Smith 28 g having arranged the transaction by way of a conversation I infer by telephone.

128. The eighth supply of 139.7 g is the same transaction as was set out in the facts concerning the co offender. Similarly the 12th occasion of supply of 139.3 g.

Objective seriousness

129. The facts describe the offender as a mid-level supplier. He is certainly not at street level. He from sources unknown whether it be himself or others is able to provide the significant quantities of methylamphetamine. The conduct is a fairly simple operation. The height of sophistication is the use of the Threema app, which I infer as it is not expressly stated in these facts, is capable of encryption, though clearly was not always used, or if it was, not in a way that thwarted the police telephone intercepts. It may be that phone conversations as opposed to texts are not encrypted. The co offender took fairly rudimentary steps to ensure that his exposure to the recipient is minimised if not eradicated by having the offender walk from car to car as described above.

130. The quantities being supplied individually are significant. So too is the money with the price being approximately $4500 per ounce and with the lifestyle being of living in Air B&B accommodation. In itself that does not necessarily reflect a lifestyle of great extravagance, though it would not be cheap. I note also there was reference to gambling by the co offender, but the facts do not permit that activity to be properly assessed as to whether it amounts to an extravagant lifestyle.

131. The amount involved is significantly more than the threshold amount for large commercial quantity but at the same time as is often stated there is no ceiling and so amounts many multiples of what the offender provided for may constitute the same offence. As to the point of the drugs supplied to the undercover operative not reaching the community, I repeat the comments made above in this regard, concerning the offender’s case.

132. The nature of the charge being rolled up means there is necessarily repetitive criminal activity, nevertheless I think that is a relevant factor to take into account for it shows that this activity is not some unusual event but rather indicates the degree to which he is imbued in the drug supply business.

133. I do not consider that this reaches the midpoint of seriousness as that term is referred to in section 54A CSPA but it is far from a minor example of the style of offending. I would assess it as being towards the bottom of the range of the middle 30%.

Form 1 matters

134. As already noted these matters are 6 occasions of supplying methylamphetamine in breach of section 25(1) DMTA. The amounts supplied on the six occasions were 28 g, 20 g, 22 g, 28 g, 28 g and 23.1 g so in short approximately between three quarters of an ounce to an ounce on each occasion, so not insignificant amounts. These amounts exceed the indictable quantity of 5 g but are well below the commercial quantity of 250 g. As an indication of the seriousness of this offending, I note the maximum penalty for each of these offences is 15 years.

135. Each of these matters is by a mid level supplier of a significant amount of methylamphetamine and in my view would be approaching the mid range. The number of these additional offences must necessarily add to the weight of the sentence, always remembering that the sentence needs to be proportionate to the objective criminality of the principal offence.

136. The section 166 matter arises from a search of certain premises which located two shotgun shells and 12.22 rounds of ammunition which is accepted to be property of the offender. That is an offence under the Firearms Act section 65(3) of the unauthorised possession of ammunition. The maximum sentence for that offence is 50 pu. It is self-evidently a minor matter.

Subjective case

137. It is agreed that there should be a 25% discount due to the early plea.

138. The offender has a criminal history in both New South Wales and Queensland. There are various matters relating to driving and violence and goods in custody amongst others up until about 2016 in New South Wales and then nothing until a possess drug matter in 2024.

139. In Queensland there were some minor matters in 2014 and 2015, a possession charge in 2019 and robbery with violence in 2020 for which he received a four-year term of imprisonment with a non parole period of 16 months. In 2023 there was a conviction for supplying drugs and possession but with modest terms of imprisonment imposed of six months and two months which were suspended.

140. Noting the robbery in 2020, this is not the first occasion of significant offending by the co offender. The co offender’s record disentitles him to any leniency based on his history, and it is adverse to his case that following the robbery sentence, he was involved in drug offending in 2023, and now this serious matter.

141. The offender read in his case an affidavit affirmed by him on 9 December 2025. There was no objection to the affidavit nor any cross examination upon it and so the contents are not challenged. The history given is of being an only child to parents who separated when he was 8. There was violence between the co-offender’s parents and the co-offender’s father struggled with drug use and alcoholism. On one occasion the father tore a screen door off its hinges, entered the home and struck the mother, who was on the phone, with the telephone. There was police intervention on occasions. The co-offender’s mother worked hard but despite this there were times when they could not afford basic necessities.

142. When the offender was 14 he describes being kicked out of home due to his intervention in what he describes as a violent incident occurring next door between his aunt and her then partner. The co-offender’s mother said that he would need to leave and live with his father, which he did. Whilst there when 15 he was accused by his father of raping the father’s wife. There was a police investigation which demonstrated no rape was committed by the co-offender. The co-offender was subject to physical abuse by his father. Also at about this time the co-offender’s younger brother was removed from the parents’ care as they were deemed unfit to care for children. The co-offender has not seen his brother since.

143. Also in this house there was regular drug use including methylamphetamine and cocaine to which the offender was exposed. Whilst not forced to use drugs the environment was one where he could do so without consequences and did. The submission is that it normalised drug use and as a teenager he was regularly smoking ice.

144. The co-offender was the subject of sexual abuse in about year 1 or 2 by a teacher. At a later time when living with his mother so before age 14 a 16-year-old male babysitter forced him to perform fellatio. He told his mother who confronted the babysitter's mother but nothing else was done by the police on the basis of the babysitter being a minor.

145. By age 15 or 16 he was living on the streets and/or couchsurfing and was associating with negative peer groups and engaging in criminal activity. He did this to fund his drug addiction.

146. He was in and out of juvenile detention. One positive was a relationship his father had with a woman named Sandra Gray when he was about 17 and she was a mother figure to him; the main support he has at present remains from Ms Gray.

147. He was diagnosed with ADHD in primary school and depression when in juvenile detention. He takes no current medication.

148. Prior to being incarcerated this time he was struggling with a drug debt and gambling.

149. The offender states that he has reflected on his actions whilst in custody and appreciates the devastation caused by drugs and his conduct in supplying drugs to the community. I infer that to be an expression of remorse which I accept.

150. By way of explanation for his conduct he says the reality is the drug life is all he has ever known. He recognises there is a lot of work to do to turn his life around and is dedicated to doing so.

151. He talks of events in custody which have been beneficial such as being employed and participating in several programs to assist personal development. He also performs the role as mentor in custody and is also on the buprenorphine program.

152. His ambition upon release is to gain employment in either concreting or lawn mowing and to continue with the buprenorphine program.

153. As already noted there is no challenge to this affidavit. I accept the factual matters it outlines and also that it is a genuine reflection of the intentions of the offender. That said, as acknowledged in submissions, the severe past history of drug involvement and the traumas experienced by the offender mean that any assessment of prospects and the likelihood of reoffending must be guarded for firstly, with this history there is the real vulnerability to relapsing into drug use, and secondly, should there be a relapse into drug use it would seem inevitable that there would be a return to crime.

154. The offender relied upon a psychological report of Dr Grigota Monasterio, dated 5 December 2025. The offender had confirmed in his affidavit that what he had told the psychologist was true. The history so far as it appears in the affidavit will not be repeated. The history supports the submission of the offender which I accept that his childhood was one of profound disadvantage. I do not accept the submission to the extent that it was put if it was intended to convey that the whole of the childhood was able to be so described. For example in the period between ages 8 to 14 he had a safe and stable home albeit one that was financially disadvantaged with his mother but was in that period the subject of the second occasion of sexual assault. Prior to age 8 there was significant domestic violence and exposure to drug use; there was a period of what might be termed relative stability with financial difficulty between ages 8 and 14; and there was then a return to the environment of his father of normalised drug use and drug use by the offender followed by his being without a home at a very young age in circumstances that were not of his making. Just why he did not seek some assistance at that time from his mother is left unanswered on the evidence.

155. Returning to the psychologist’s report he described his father and his partner to be drug addicts and that he took drugs mainly “to be with dad”.

156. The offender found school difficult and did not consider himself very smart and left at age 15. He has never really worked and felt compelled to sell drugs because it was the only way he could get money.

157. He has been a heavy drug user since the age of 15 including methylamphetamine, alcohol, heroin, cocaine and GHB. He was also a heavy gambler on pokies.

158. In addition to the buprenorphine he has also taken part in substance abuse group therapy programs which he found useful in prison. He told the psychologist the long period in custody has overcome his issues with substance use and he says he will never use drugs again because he feels better and clearer sober. He is willing to continue with intervention and wishes to use buprenorphine for as long as necessary.

159. Reference is made to the childhood diagnosis of ADHD but that there has been no other diagnosis. The psychologist states that his background makes him a high risk for complex trauma, anxiety and depression and the offender did say that he thinks he has been depressed nearly his whole life. He had been prescribed Zyprexa but he did not know why and ceased taking it due to side-effects.

160. In custody he first became unwell, felt depressed and put on weight but remembers thinking he needed to do something which led to him getting a job mowing lawns and undertaking several courses. He is also now in a mentoring role and he stated “I know it might sound weird but I feel the best now in jail than I’ve ever felt in my life”.

161. He feels his mental health has improved. The psychologist considers him insightful.

162. The psychologist offers the view that the choices he has made were compounded by his circumstances such as homelessness and financial hardship, the trauma that he experienced and his addiction.

163. The psychologist’s opinion is that the offender does not meet the criteria for any psychiatric disturbance but is at risk of relapse should there be an adverse change in circumstances

164. The psychologist recommends in short that what is happening now continues together with further counselling and drug and alcohol follow-up to work on relapse prevention and depression.

165. Ms Sandra Gray, the former partner of the offender’s father also provided an affidavit sworn on 10 December 2025. She corroborates the evidence of the co-offender. She has communicated with him approximately every two days whilst he has been in custody, has provided him some financial support and also visits him in person regularly. She says he has said he recognises the wrongfulness of his actions. Ms Gray would appear to be a pro social person who is presently employed and plainly thinks highly of the co-offender not only by what she says in her affidavit but by her actions in trying to support him and I take her comments into account.

Consideration

166. I have already noted the primary submission of the offender in relation to the subjective case. I am satisfied that it is appropriate in this case to consider the matter one which attracts Bugmy principles. Equally and as was mentioned in submissions the case could be categorised as one which is a case where the offender has had what Justice Simpson described in Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 as not what could be described as a normal or advantaged upbringing with the consequence that he does not bear equal moral responsibility as would be borne by a person who had such an upbringing. As her Honour went on to note at [69] such a background is a relevant consideration which affords some “although limited” mitigation with of course the extent of mitigation provided dependent on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

167. I have noted the purposes of sentencing earlier in these reasons. As with the case of the offender, there does remain a need for the sentence to reflect general and specific deterrence albeit that it is tempered by the lesser moral culpability brought about by the background of the co-offender. Indeed in this case I consider the offender a particularly poor vehicle for general deterrence though the same cannot be said as to specific deterrence. That said I am satisfied that he is well aware not only of the wrongfulness of his actions which in my view he would have been aware of at the time but also he is now better aware through reflection and some intervention of how it has come to be that he has spent his life as he has which must give him a better prospect of taking appropriate steps to rectify that and which he has in fact already started to take. It is a difficult assessment to make based only on unchallenged statements found in his affidavit and on the views of the psychologist and without actually having an opportunity to assess the offender directly however the impression gained is of a person who has had significant disadvantage and who is determined to chart a different path. He has the benefit of the buprenorphine program and has now been I would infer abstinent in custody since his arrest more than 16 months ago. That of course is a controlled environment and he should not underestimate the challenge he will face when he returns to the community but based on the present evidence his prospects appear promising albeit necessarily guarded as already discussed. As his counsel described him he is a work in progress starting from a long way back.

168. Whilst the focus on rehabilitation is appropriate, the need to protect the community and to denounce behaviour such as this needs to also be reflected in the sentence. I note my comments in the judgment concerning the offender as to the significance of much of what was supplied not reaching the community. Those comments were made in relation to the objective seriousness of the offence, and the same approach was adopted in assessing objective seriousness in the case of the co offender. The point presently is that the conduct in question, whether the drugs reached the community or not, is a risk to the community by reason of that very risk of the drugs reaching the community.

169. I do take into account that he is not only engaging in courses for his own benefit but voluntarily mentoring others which shows a positive side to his character consistent with the concluding paragraph of Ms Gray’s affidavit.

Determination

170. Taking all of the above factors into account in my view there needs to be some added weight to the sentence so as to reflect, within the bounds of proportionality, the six significant matters on the Form 1. Unlike in the case of Ms Wilson those charges do result in the sentence being longer than it would otherwise be though always remembering it cannot be more severe than is justified by the objective criminality of the principal offence, that is it needs to remain proportionate. That said, I note that the total of the supplies of the Form 1 matters is 149.1 g so when added to the 12 occasions making out the section 25(2) charge the total supply would be some 961 g. As noted there is no upper limit and on one view had these amounts been added to the section 25(2) charge it may be that the difference in sentence would be modest at best.

171. I note I discussed two of the comparable cases relied on by the parties above. In my view prior to any discount but taking into account the Form 1 matters there should be a 7 year head sentence so that after the discount the sentence will be 5 years and 3 months.

172. In respect of the fine only offence of possessing ammunition in all the circumstances it is appropriate to proceed by way of section 10A of the CSPA and to record a conviction but impose no further penalty.

173. I do make a finding of special circumstances. This is based on my favourable albeit guarded views as to the offender's prospects for the reasons given above so that it is plain he would benefit from an extended period of supervision when returned to the community. The non-parole period should be a period of 3 years and 3 months which will see a period of supervision in the community of 2 years as opposed to a period of some 16 months.

174. As with the indicative non parole period of the offender in respect of the s25(2) offence, this differs from the statutory non parole period due to the assessment of objective seriousness, the 25% discount for the early plea, and the matters supporting the finding of special circumstances.

Orders

1. The offender Jake Smith is convicted of the offence under section 25(2) DMTA.
2. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment to date from 31 July 2024 with a non parole period of 3 years and 3 months, expiring on 30 October 2027, with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 30 October 2029.
3. In respect of the possess ammunition matter I proceed under s10A CSPA and record a conviction with no further penalty.

**********