Stacks Law Firm is a leading Australian legal service provider with more than 250 people operating locally in many Australian communities.
We are committed to supporting the legal needs of everyday Australians and businesses across every stage of life.
In June 2015, a young man was apprehended by police and found to
be in possession of a substantial quantity of illegal recreational
drugs. This included 17 MDMA tablets, 100 MDA tablets, 338.8 grams
of 1,4-butanediol (or "bute", an alternative to GHB), and
1.3728 kilograms of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as $3,000 in
cash.
The man was charged with two counts of supply of a prohibited
drug and one count of supply of a commercial quantity of a
prohibited drug, along with other offences.
Penalties in NSW for drug supply and commercial drug
supply
The maximum penalty for the supply of a prohibited drug is 15
years of imprisonment, and/or a fine of $220,000, while the maximum
penalty for commercial drug supply is 20 years of imprisonment,
and/or a $385,000 fine.
The offences also carry a standard non-parole period (SNPP) of
10 years. (An SNPP is a reference point for the sentencing judge
when determining the minimum time a person must spend behind bars
before being eligible to apply for release on parole.)
Defendant's "tragic descent" attracts
considerable media attention
The case attracted considerable media attention as a tale of
tragic and spectacular fall from grace. The man had been school
captain and dux of his school. He had received many awards,
including for his involvement in activities promoting drug
awareness.
After graduating with degrees in law and communications, he
obtained employment as a lawyer, specialising in criminal law. A
character reference by a senior partner in the firm where he worked
described him as "a diligent and competent lawyer who
dedicated his time and his efforts to ensuring his clients were
provided with clear legal advice and well represented in
Court."
Guilty plea and prison sentence followed by appeal to Court of
Criminal Appeal
The man had confessed to police that he had developed an
addiction to drugs. At the time of his arrest, he was supplying
drugs to a small circle of friends and was regularly using MDMA and
ice.
He pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court of NSW
and was sentenced to four years in prison, with a minimum
non-parole period of two years. He appealed this sentence in the
hope of avoiding imprisonment.
It was up to Court of Criminal Appeal to determine whether or
not the sentence was appropriate.
case a - The case for the defendant
case b - The case for the prosecution
I was usually a person of good character. This was a one-off
incident and totally out of character for me.
I pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, I am
genuinely remorseful, I have excellent prospects of rehabilitation
and the likelihood of my re-offending is extremely low.
As the judge in the District Court acknowledged, my drug supply
activities were at the lower end of the scale.
The only reason I had such a large quantity of GBL in my
possession was that it was much cheaper to buy it in this form than
in the normal 2ml quantities.
I studied for years to get my qualifications and went into law
to do good for others. It is unlikely I will ever be able to
practice law again and this is already a crushing punishment for
me. The District Court judge did not have sufficient regard to this
in the sentencing.
The media scrutiny I have endured is also a significant aspect
of the punishment I have already received.
A sentence of full-time custody would likely nullify the
rehabilitation I have achieved to date.
The worthwhile and productive life I was living was destroyed
when I became addicted to drugs. I am a victim of my own addiction
and the court should show leniency in the circumstances.
My sentence is manifestly excessive and should be reduced to a
non-custodial sentence.
The defendant knew what he was doing.
He was a criminal lawyer and should have known better.
The evidence is clear and unambiguous.
The penalty should be heavy in order to act as a general
deterrent to the trade in illicit drugs.
The defendant was propelled by the all-consuming selfishness
that addiction generates to go about supplying drugs to others,
thus contributing to the devastation of other lives.
The judge did consider the damage to the defendant's
career, as he referred to it during the trial when he spoke about
the defendant's "tragic descent". In fact, references
to the defendant's career permeated the entire
proceedings.
The media attention which the case attracted was similarly
taken into account by the judge.
The defendant's circumstances are not "exceptional
circumstances" that would call for a decision not to imprison
someone with drug charges such as his.
The alternatives to imprisonment would be manifestly inadequate
for the quantity of drugs involved. The court should confirm the
District Court's decision by sentencing the defendant to
imprisonment as per the legislation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.