Legal Research
Cases
R v Hallam

R v Hallam

Case [2025] NSWDC 375 8 September 2025

Sentencing

Drug Offences

Dealing with Proceeds of Crime

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
Hearing dates: 18 August 2025
Date of orders: 8 September 2025, 11 September 2025
Decision date: 08 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months, at [106].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Drug offences – Supplying less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Participating in a criminal group involved in supplying a prohibited drug – Dealing with proceeds of crime – Attempting to possess a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Cocaine – Related offences – Possessing an anabolic or androgenic steroidal agent – Possessing ammunition without holding a licence, permit, or authority
SENTENCING – No criminal history – Comparatively lesser role and length of time involved in criminal group than co-offenders – Acting under the direction of another – Parity – 10% discount for utilitarian value of plea – Rehabilitation during extended period on bail
SENTENCING – Pre-sentence custody of 1 year and 7 months followed by 1 year and almost 5 months on bail – Head sentence of over 3 years – Consequent requirement for the State Parole Authority to make a parole determination, rather than automatic release to statutory parole on expiry of non-parole period (as with sentences under 3 years) – Offender required to enter into custody despite non-parole period expiring and intention that he be immediately released to parole

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) s 135
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 10A, 53A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 93T, 193B
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 65
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) s 16

Cases Cited:
Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81
McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344
R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477
R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913
R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
R v Hawi [2015] NSWSC 206
R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877
R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889
Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47
Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Andrew Hallam (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T George (Crown)
J Davidson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
North Herring Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/00273742
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

Andrew Hallam appears for sentence in respect of six charges.
Count 1 is an offence of supplying less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 168g of cocaine contrary to the provisions of s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Count 2 is an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 28g of cocaine contrary to the same section. These offences carry a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hallam

Details

AGLC: R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
Case: [2025] NSWDC 375
Decision Date: 08 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hallam, the respondent was sentenced following a conviction for various drug-related offences. These included supplying less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, participating in a criminal group involved in the supply of a prohibited drug, dealing with proceeds of crime, attempting to possess a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, and possessing an anabolic or androgenic steroidal agent and ammunition without a licence. The court had to consider the totality of the respondent's offending, his role within the criminal group, his criminal history, and the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing. The respondent's plea of guilty was also taken into account, with a 10% discount applied for the utilitarian value of the plea.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing framework for the offences committed, the role and conduct of the respondent within the criminal group, and the impact of the respondent's early guilty plea. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offences against the respondent's comparatively lesser role and the relatively short duration of his involvement in the criminal activities. Additionally, the court had to consider the respondent's lack of a criminal history and his rehabilitation efforts while on bail.

The court found that the appropriate sentence should reflect the totality of the respondent's offending, while also taking into account his lesser role in the criminal group and his rehabilitation efforts. The court applied a discount for the respondent's early guilty plea, and considered the pre-sentence custody time already served. The court determined that the aggregate sentence should be 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months. This sentence was designed to ensure that the respondent would be required to enter into custody despite the non-parole period expiring, thereby ensuring that the State Parole Authority would make a parole determination rather than the respondent being automatically released to statutory parole.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a total of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months. This sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the respondent's offences, while also considering his lesser role in the criminal group and his rehabilitation efforts. The sentence also ensured that the respondent would be subject to parole determination by the State Parole Authority.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months, at [106].

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375

Most Recent Citation

R v Bueti; R v Morrissey No. Sccrm-97-228, Sccrm-97-229, Sccrm-97-238 Judgment No. S6479 [1997] SASC 6479

Cases Citing This Decision

Police v Broederlow [2019] QMC 2
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…t 297) and Uittenbosch v Chief Executive of Dept of Corrective Services [2006] 1Qd R 565 (McPherson JA at [7] & Atkinson, J at [12] to [18]. [15] See R v Hallam (1998) 102 A Crim R 546 at “The rule formerly accepted, that statutes creating offences are to be strictly construed has lost much of its importance in mode…
R v Bueti; R v Morrissey No. Sccrm-97-228, Sccrm-97-229, Sccrm-97-238 Judgment No. S6479 [1997] SASC 6479
Citation 2

…The onus lay upon the prosecutor to show that the statement made at the police station was made voluntarily. That means, in the exercise of a free choice. That requires a consideration of the circumstances in which Mr Bueti was placed: The Queen v Hallam(1985) 42 SASR 126 at 135. It is not simply a …

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889
Citation 1 (Para 108)

…n and the legal representatives for Mr Hallam. The Crown provided to the Court a copy of the judgment of Hamill J in R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889. Hamill J had a situation in the sentences which he passed whereby two of the offenders had been on bail for extensive periods of time and the non-pa…
R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477
Citation 2 (Para 63)

…In R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477, Scotting DCJ dealt with an offender for two substantive offences of supplying prohibited drugs. The first offence related to supplying more than a commercial quantity of cocaine (561.4 g) and the second offence related to supplying more than a large commercial quantity of MDMA (3.6 k…
R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
Citation 3 (Para 69)

…In R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493 a charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, being a rolled-up charge involving 12 discrete supplies, together with an offence of participating in a criminal group resulted in an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 11 months, similarly to be served by way of…
R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
Citation 4 (Para 54)

…In R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577 the offender was sentenced by Haesler SC DCJ in relation to four substantive offences. Two offences were of supplying less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 470g of methylamphetamine and 46g of heroin, an offence of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime,…
Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81
Citation 5 (Para 51)

…The next case provided by the defence was Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81. The factual circumstances in that matter involved a commercial business enterprise whereby the offender proposed to invest between half a million dollars and $1 million upfront with respect to the proposed importation of 300 kg of cocaine. Doyle…
McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344
Citation 6 (Para 33)

…missions for the Crown, Mr George reminded the Court of the factors affecting the assessment of objective seriousness which are set out in McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344, which include the role of the offender; the quantity and purity of the prohibited drug; and factors such as the number of occasions on which the dru…
R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877
Citation 7 (Para 60)

…In R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877 the offender was sentenced by Haesler SC DCJ with respect to two substantive offences of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 91g of methylamphetamine, and participating in a criminal group. A third offence of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 2.6g of bupre…
R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913
Citation 8 (Para 57)

…In R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913 the offender was sentenced by Bright DCJ in respect of three substantive offences of supplying a prohibited drug, namely 40g methylamphetamine, knowingly directing the activities of a criminal group from February to May 2018, and dealing with the proceeds of crime, namely $38,400.…
Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47
Citation 9 (Para 46)

…The next case provided by the defence was Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47. Rodgers had been involved in extensive negotiations with a civilian participant who was acting together with the police as an informant, and also with an undercover police officer with respect to an actual supply of 1 kg of cocaine and a second…
R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
Citation 10 (Para 45)

…me measure of the range of sentences passed in similar matters and can act as a touchstone for comparison with a contemplated sentence (see R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 at [73]).…
Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141
Citation 11 (Para 47)

…Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141 was concerned with an offender who was a principal instigator in the manufacture of a quantity of methylamphetamine. There was an extensive criminal enterprise involved a total of eight members of a criminal group. Salafia was described by the sentencing judge, Huggett DCJ (as the Chief…
R v Hawi [2015] NSWSC 206
Citation 12 (Para 109)

…His Honour made reference to a similar situation in R v Hawi [2015] NSWSC 206 where Hoeben CJ at CL said at [65]:…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) 10A, 5, 53A
4 mentions (from Para 40)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 193B, 93T
3 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) 135
2 mentions (from Para 107)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) 25
2 mentions (from Para 2)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS) 65
2 mentions (from Para 7)
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) 16
2 mentions (from Para 6)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) 166
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
Hearing dates:	18 August 2025
Date of orders:	8 September 2025, 11 September 2025
Decision date:	08 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months, at [106].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Drug offences – Supplying less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Participating in a criminal group involved in supplying a prohibited drug – Dealing with proceeds of crime – Attempting to possess a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Cocaine – Related offences – Possessing an anabolic or androgenic steroidal agent – Possessing ammunition without holding a licence, permit, or authority SENTENCING – No criminal history – Comparatively lesser role and length of time involved in criminal group than co-offenders – Acting under the direction of another – Parity – 10% discount for utilitarian value of plea – Rehabilitation during extended period on bail SENTENCING – Pre-sentence custody of 1 year and 7 months followed by 1 year and almost 5 months on bail – Head sentence of over 3 years – Consequent requirement for the State Parole Authority to make a parole determination, rather than automatic release to statutory parole on expiry of non-parole period (as with sentences under 3 years) – Offender required to enter into custody despite non-parole period expiring and intention that he be immediately released to parole
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) s 135 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 10A, 53A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 93T, 193B Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25 Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 65 Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) s 16
Cases Cited:	Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81 McLean v R [2020] NSWCCA 344 R v Cobeta [2024] NSWDC 477 R v Cotterill [2019] NSWDC 913 R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493 R v Hawi [2015] NSWSC 206 R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577 R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877 R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson [2025] NSWSC 889 Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47 Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Andrew Hallam (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: T George (Crown) J Davidson (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) North Herring Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/00273742
Publication restriction:	N/A