R v Watson-Wood, Daniel [2017] NSWDC 410

R v Watson-Wood, Daniel [2017] NSWDC 410

The offender was to be sentenced as a supplier for possessing a deemable quantity of MDMA. Although the 12.32 grams of MDMA was towards the lower end of the indictable-to-commercial range, it was more than 16 times the trafficable quantity, almost 10 times the indictable quantity, and capable of producing about 100 doses. Given the objective seriousness, the offender's prior drug supply matter, continuing lack of insight, and the importance of general and specific deterrence, no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate and a sentence of less than two years would not reflect the seriousness of the offence. Special circumstances justified a reduced non-parole period to provide a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Jury Verdict of Guilty, With Two Related Possession Offences Dealt With on a Certificate
Outcome
Convicted of supplying MDMA and two offences of possessing cocaine; sentenced to imprisonment, with special circumstances found.
Legal Topics
['supply Prohibited Drug' 'possess Prohibited Drug' 'mdma' 'cocaine' 'deemed Supply' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'forfeiture' 'drug Destruction Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply Prohibited Drug' 'possess Prohibited Drug' 'mdma' 'cocaine' 'deemed Supply' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'forfeiture' 'drug Destruction Order']

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 Jury Verdict of Guilty, With Two Related Possession Offences Dealt With on a Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for supplying 12.32 grams of MDMA contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'What sentence should be imposed for two offences of possessing cocaine contrary to s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'Whether any penalty other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether special circumstances justified a reduction of the non-parole period to allow a longer period of parole supervision.' 'Whether the BlackBerry mobile telephone handsets should be forfeited and the drugs destroyed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was to be sentenced as a supplier for possessing a deemable quantity of MDMA. Although the 12.32 grams of MDMA was towards the lower end of the indictable-to-commercial range, it was more than 16 times the trafficable quantity, almost 10 times the indictable quantity, and capable of producing about 100 doses. Given the objective seriousness, the offender's prior drug supply matter, continuing lack of insight, and the importance of general and specific deterrence, no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate and a sentence of less than two years would not reflect the seriousness of the offence. Special circumstances justified a reduced non-parole period to provide a...

Court Disposition

Convicted of supplying MDMA and two offences of possessing cocaine; sentenced to imprisonment, with special circumstances found.

Orders

  • ['For supplying prohibited drug MDMA contrary to s 25(1), the offender was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 30 months commencing 22 May 2017, with a non-parole period of 15 months and a balance of term of 15 months.' 'The offender is to be released on parole on 21 August 2018.' 'For each of the two...