R v Matthew John SMITH [2007] NSWDC 391

R v Matthew John SMITH [2007] NSWDC 391

The four deemed supply offences were objectively serious because they involved four different prohibited drugs, were not isolated, and formed part of planned and organised drug trafficking motivated by greed. However, the offences were deemed supplies rather than actual supplies, Mr Smith pleaded guilty, showed contrition and remorse, had an unremarkable criminal record, good family and community support, had remained off illegal drugs in custody, and had good prospects of rehabilitation. Those factors justified concurrent sentences of two and a half years for each offence with an 18 month non-parole period and parole supervision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Four Counts of Supplying a Prohibited Drug / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
For each of the four offences, Mr Smith was sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 months and an additional term of 12 months, to be served concurrently and backdated to 26 September 2006; backup charges were dismissed and the drugs were ordered destroyed.
Legal Topics
['supply Prohibited Drug' 'deemed Supply' 'plea of Guilty' 'objective Seriousness' 'rehabilitation' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Supervision']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply Prohibited Drug' 'deemed Supply' 'plea of Guilty' 'objective Seriousness' 'rehabilitation' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Supervision']

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 Sentencing for Four Counts of Supplying a Prohibited Drug / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for four counts of deemed supply of prohibited drugs contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'How long Mr Smith should remain in custody as part of the non-parole period.' 'Whether the offences were planned and organised, not isolated, and objectively serious.' "Whether the offender's guilty plea, remorse, first time in prison, family support and rehabilitation prospects justified a reduced sentence and special circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The four deemed supply offences were objectively serious because they involved four different prohibited drugs, were not isolated, and formed part of planned and organised drug trafficking motivated by greed. However, the offences were deemed supplies rather than actual supplies, Mr Smith pleaded guilty, showed contrition and remorse, had an unremarkable criminal record, good family and community support, had remained off illegal drugs in custody, and had good prospects of rehabilitation. Those factors justified concurrent sentences of two and a half years for each offence with an 18 month non-parole period and parole supervision.

Court Disposition

For each of the four offences, Mr Smith was sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 months and an additional term of 12 months, to be served concurrently and backdated to 26 September 2006; backup charges were dismissed and the drugs were ordered destroyed.

Orders

  • ['For supplying methylamphetamine, non-parole period of 18 months commencing 26 September 2006 and expiring 25 March 2008, with an additional term of 12 months commencing 26 March 2008 and expiring 25 March 2009.' 'For supplying cannabis, non-parole period of 18 months commencing 26 September 2006 and expiring 25...