R v SHAE-LOCKE; R v SMITH [2009] NSWDC 438

R v SHAE-LOCKE; R v SMITH [2009] NSWDC 438

Although the total quantity of prohibited drugs supplied was small, the repeated supply conduct was serious ongoing drug supply and required imprisonment. The offenders were equally culpable in the offending and both received a 25 per cent discount for early guilty pleas, but Mr Shae-Locke received a shorter sentence than Mr Smith because his criminal history was much less serious. Special circumstances justified altered non-parole periods to assist both offenders to overcome drug addictions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Ongoing Supply of Drugs / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Sentenced to imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'ongoing Supply of Drugs' 'drug Supply' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'ongoing Supply of Drugs' 'drug Supply' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing for Ongoing Supply of Drugs / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentences should be imposed for the offenders' ongoing supply of prohibited drugs." "Whether the offenders' equal culpability, small quantities, drug addiction, guilty pleas, criminal histories and prospects affected sentence." 'Whether special circumstances should be found to assist both offenders to overcome drug addictions.' "Whether Mr Shae-Locke's malicious damage to property offence should be taken into account on sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the total quantity of prohibited drugs supplied was small, the repeated supply conduct was serious ongoing drug supply and required imprisonment. The offenders were equally culpable in the offending and both received a 25 per cent discount for early guilty pleas, but Mr Shae-Locke received a shorter sentence than Mr Smith because his criminal history was much less serious. Special circumstances justified altered non-parole periods to assist both offenders to overcome drug addictions.

Court Disposition

Sentenced to imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['Mr Smith is sentenced to imprisonment dating from 17 December 2008, with a non-parole period of eighteen months and a head sentence of three years; the non-parole period expires on 16 June 2010, on which day he is to be released to parole.' 'Mr Shae-Locke is sentenced to imprisonment dating from 2 July 2009, with...