R v Dendulk

[2023] NSWDC 392

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Dendulk [2023] NSWDC 392

Hearing dates:

5 July 2023

Date of orders:

5 July 2023

Decision date:

05 July 2023

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 2 years and 1 month

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug—detected on ANON platform — drug user — Not for financial gain

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Evidence

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Aggregate sentence

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental health — Special circumstances — Childhood trauma

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341

Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Joshua Leigh Dudley Dendulk (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)

Representation:

Counsel:
R Mitchell (for the offender)

Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
L Stueckradt for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s):

2021/352749

JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore REvised

Introduction

1. Joshua Dendulk is no stranger to the criminal justice system. He is now 40 years old, but since 2006 he has been in almost continual custody with only short periods in the community.

2. Dendulk has a longstanding addiction to drugs, particularly methylamphetamine. I am prepared to accept that his take up and use of that drug in particular, was related to a traumatic incident that occurred when he was sexually assaulted as a schoolboy. With the support of family and friends he has made a number of attempts, to come to grips with his drug problem and the subsequent commission of criminal offences. Sadly, he is for sentence again.

3. While in the Local Court he accepted his guilt to two serious offences:

1. Supplying a Prohibited Drug ,cannabis leaf, involving a rolled-up quantity of 9.4 kilograms of cannabis leaf. That offence, pursuant to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW), has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment;

2. Supplying the Prohibited Drug, methylamphetamine, involving 226 grams of that drug. That offence, also pursuant to s 25(1), carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

4. The maximum penalties provide one indication of how serious Parliament, on behalf of the community, views such offences. So serious was the offending, it is accepted that a custodial sentence of some length has to be imposed.

5. I will impose an aggregate sentence. I will indicate sentences for the respective offences, each indicated sentence will be reduced by 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea that was entered in the Local Court. The plea has other values. It goes to his prospects of rehabilitation because of his acceptance of responsibility. The evidence before me indicates that Dendulk has…