R v Lovelock [2021] NSWDC 692

R v Lovelock [2021] NSWDC 692

Because the offender supplied methylamphetamine on five occasions, had a greater role than the co-offender as an upline supplier who gave credit and supplied on demand, committed a further stand-alone offence in 2020, and the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, accountability and recognition of community harm predominated, no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate. Totality and parity required an aggregate sentence greater than the co-offender's outcome, and the aggregate term of 4 years made an intensive correction order unavailable under s68. Special circumstances justified a non-parole period of 21 months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Drug Supply Offences / Sentence
Outcome
The offender was convicted of the five offences and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['supply Prohibited Drug' 'methylamphetamine' 'indictable Quantity' 'commercial Quantity' 'aggregate Sentence' 'intensive Correction Order' 'parity' 'totality' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply Prohibited Drug' 'methylamphetamine' 'indictable Quantity' 'commercial Quantity' 'aggregate Sentence' 'intensive Correction Order' 'parity' 'totality' 'special Circumstances']

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 for Drug Supply Offences / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for five offences of supplying methylamphetamine of more than the indictable and less than the commercial quantity under s25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'Whether an intensive correction order with home detention was appropriate.' "How the principles of totality and parity with the co-offender's sentence should affect the aggregate sentence." 'Whether special circumstances justified a shorter non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the offender supplied methylamphetamine on five occasions, had a greater role than the co-offender as an upline supplier who gave credit and supplied on demand, committed a further stand-alone offence in 2020, and the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, accountability and recognition of community harm predominated, no sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate. Totality and parity required an aggregate sentence greater than the co-offender's outcome, and the aggregate term of 4 years made an intensive correction order unavailable under s68. Special circumstances justified a non-parole period of 21 months.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted of the five offences and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['Of the 5 offences under s25(1) of the DMTA the offender is convicted.' 'The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment with a non parole period to date from 17 December 2021 and expiring on 16 September 2023, and with a balance of term of 27 months expiring on 16 December 2025.']