Author: Phillip Gibson
Sydney District Court
Represented by Solicitor: Phillip Gibson
Facts – Our client came to the attention of Police as part of an investigation into the organized supply of drugs in South-Western Sydney. As a result, a Police under-cover officer developed a close relationship over a period of several weeks with our client, and made numerous purchases of cocaine and speed (amphetamine). The value of these purchases came to over $12,000. All of these purchases were documented in phone taps (telephone intercepts) and surveillance. Once a considerable volume of evidence had been gathered, our client was arrested and charged with 4 offences of Supplying Prohibited Drugs, contrary to section 25(1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
Result – The evidence against our client was overwhelming, and he entered pleas of guilty to all of these offences in the Local Court. His matter came before the District Court for sentence. It was inevitable that a sentence of full time gaol would be imposed on our client, and that the only question was for how long. Our client’s case was complicated, as he had a previous conviction for supplying prohibited drugs on his record. The maximum penalty which could have been imposed on our client for each offence was 15 years in gaol. However, when the matter came to court for sentence, it was submitted that our client was not a person highly involved in drugs supply, rather he was simply prone to trying to help people out whenever he could. He was involved with the undercover operative only because he viewed him as a person who wanted drugs, and our client knew people who could supply that. Hence, our client was a middle man, who did not make any personal profit, and was rather, motivated by a misguided will to help. The Judge who presided ultimately, after significant consideration, accepted this submission, and determined that our client was not substantially involved in supply, and that the offences were thus much lower in terms of seriousness than the Crown had alleged. Our client was accordingly sentenced to a term of 18 months in gaol, which was backdated to allow our client to be released with only 5 months further to serve. He would then be on parole in the community for 2 years. Our client was relieved that he would not lose the majority of his young adulthood to gaol, and that he would be given the chance to redeem himself and be rehabilitated in the community when released.