R v Polley [2014] NSWDC 323

R v Polley [2014] NSWDC 323

The offender was trafficking to a substantial degree because he possessed 174 pills with resealable bags, only a relatively small number were for his own use, his phone showed about 12 to 14 customer-supplier relationships, one message referred to the sale of 100 eccy wangs, and his offending was for financial profit beyond funding his own drug use. His depression and rehabilitation did not amount to exceptional circumstances, so fulltime custody was required. Concurrent sentences were appropriate because the matter could have been dealt with as a single charge and the offender was unlikely to have appreciated that he possessed two different drugs for supply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Concurrent sentences of fulltime imprisonment were imposed on both counts, with a non-parole period of one year and three months and a head sentence of two years and six months. The matter on the s 166 certificate was dismissed and the drugs were ordered to be destroyed.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply' 'mdma' 'methylamphetamine' 'sentencing' 'trafficking to a Substantial Degree' 'fulltime Imprisonment' 'mental Health' 'rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law'] ['drug Supply' 'mdma' 'methylamphetamine' 'sentencing' 'trafficking to a Substantial Degree' 'fulltime Imprisonment' 'mental Health' 'rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for two charges of drug supply relating to MDMA tablets and methylamphetamine tablets.' 'Whether the offender was trafficking to a substantial degree.' 'Whether exceptional circumstances justified a sentence other than fulltime custody.' 'Whether the sentences should be imposed concurrently.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was trafficking to a substantial degree because he possessed 174 pills with resealable bags, only a relatively small number were for his own use, his phone showed about 12 to 14 customer-supplier relationships, one message referred to the sale of 100 eccy wangs, and his offending was for financial profit beyond funding his own drug use. His depression and rehabilitation did not amount to exceptional circumstances, so fulltime custody was required. Concurrent sentences were appropriate because the matter could have been dealt with as a single charge and the offender was unlikely to have appreciated that he possessed two different drugs for supply.

Court Disposition

Concurrent sentences of fulltime imprisonment were imposed on both counts, with a non-parole period of one year and three months and a head sentence of two years and six months. The matter on the s 166 certificate was dismissed and the drugs were ordered to be destroyed.

Orders

  • ['On both counts on the indictment, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.' 'A non-parole period of one year and three months is set to commence on 31 October 2014.' 'There is to be a head sentence of two years and six months on each count.' 'The offender is to be released to parole on 30 January 2016.' 'The...