District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Figg [2023] NSWDC 194 Hearing dates: 2 June 2023 Date of orders: 9 June 2023 Decision date: 09 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 137
Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – supply of large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – offence of supply of an indictable quantity on a Form 1
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 21A
Cases Cited: Blakeney v R [2022] NSWCCA 277
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Parentev R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
Mr L Figg (offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Todd for the ODPP
Mr Fraser for the offender
ODPP
Morrisons Law for the offender
File Number(s): 2021/00350949 Publication restriction: Nil
SENTENCING REMARKS
-
The offender is before the Court following a plea of guilty on 16 November 2022 at the Wollongong Local Court, which plea he adhered to in the sentencing hearing, to one offence (sequence 35) of supplying prohibited drug greater than the commercial quantity, being 557.62g of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), over the period 11 August 2021 to 16 September 2021. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. The standard non-parole period is 15 years imprisonment.
-
The offender also acknowledged his guilt and asked the Court to take into account, when sentencing for this primary offence, an additional offence (sequence 6) on a Form 1, being the offence of supplying prohibited drug less than the indictable quantity, being 21.24g of methylamphetamine, over the period 2 August 2021 to 10 August 2021, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (sequence 6). The maximum penalty for this additional offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or 2000 penalty units.
Agreed Facts
-
The sentencing hearing was conducted on the basis of a statement of agreed facts signed by the offender and his solicitor. That statement amounted to 26 pages and 224 paragraphs.
-
The offender was identified by the Strike force ‘Tower’ as a person responsible for obtaining large quantities of methylamphetamine for the purpose of on supplying the drugs to a large customer base. This strike force was commenced by police in the Wollongong Criminal Investigations Drug Unit in June 2021.
-
The offender was identified to be using 3 separate mobile telephone numbers during the investigation period and warrants were obtained to intercept these telephone services. These services were registered under false names. The offender himself and others identified the offender by name on all of these services.
-
Through telephone intercepts, it was established that the offender sourced large amounts of methylamphetamine for on-supply, from the co-offender Burns, who was his upline supplier, and the co-offender Consigli (who was also the partner of the…
Continue reading R v Figg
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Figg [2023] NSWDC 194
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the circumstances of the offence warranted a particular sentence, and the appropriate interpretation of the term "commercial quantity" within the context of drug supply. The court was required to consider the statutory framework governing drug supply offences, the sentencing principles applicable to such cases, and the specific facts and circumstances of the offence.
The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the quantity of the drug supplied, the role of the defendant, and the potential harm caused by the drug supply. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation against the personal circumstances of the defendant. The court concluded that the offence warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The final orders of the court mandated a custodial sentence reflecting these considerations.
The final orders of the court, as outlined in paragraph 137, mandated a custodial sentence of 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community from the harmful effects of drug supply.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 137
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.