R v Klingelholler - [2025] NSWDC 452

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Klingelholler
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 452
Hearing Date(s):	11 August 2025
Date of Orders:	15 August 2025
Decision Date:	15 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years, at [90].
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Supply commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Supply more than indictable, less than commercial quantity of a prohibited drug – Methylamphetamine, heroin, cocaine – Offender travelled from Sydney to Perth – Offender purchased various items to repackage and disguise drugs – Offender posted drugs to Perth from Sydney SENTENCE – Subjective circumstances – History of drug use and drug related offending – Assault in custody – Non-exculpatory duress – Rehabilitation prior to arrest
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 5 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25
Cases Cited:	Chiarlini v R [2023] NSWCCA 227 Ebrahami v R [2019] NSWCCA 273 Kandemir v R [2018] NSWCCA 154 Leffley v R [2016] NSWCCA 243 Lowe v R [2023] NSWCCA 169 Neale v R [2024] NSWCCA 159 Nguyen, Kathy v R [2015] NSWCCA 209 R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215 Tran, Brendon v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 85 Wilson v R [2025] NSWCCA 86
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) James Klingelholler (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: H Purcell (Crown) K Averre MBE (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s):	2024/000756614
Publication Restriction:	N/A

JUDGMENT

James Klingelholler appears for sentence in respect of three offences.
Sequence 1 is an offence of supplying more than an indictable but less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 140.6g of cocaine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). This carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,000 penalty units. The threshold for an indictable quantity of cocaine is 5g, and the threshold for a commercial quantity is 250g.
Sequence 2 is an offence of supplying more than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 351.7g of heroin, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). I note that the threshold for a commercial quantity of heroin is 250g and the threshold for a large commercial quantity is 1kg.
Sequence 4 is an offence of supplying more than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 543.3g of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). I note that the threshold for a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is 250g and the threshold for a large commercial quantity is 500g. Although the amount in the offender’s possession exceeds the large commercial quantity threshold, the Crown accepted a plea on the basis that the quantity exceeded the commercial quantity and hence carried a lesser maximum penalty.
Both Sequence 2 and 4 carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment…

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 Klingelholler

Details

AGLC: R v Klingelholler [2025] NSWDC 452
Case: [2025] NSWDC 452
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Klingelholler, the appellant was convicted for trafficking a significant quantity of prohibited substances, including methylamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine, from Sydney to Perth. The Western Australia Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences. The court needed to decide whether the supply of the drugs was indictable or commercial, which would determine the severity of the sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was the classification of the supply of drugs. The appellant argued that the quantity of drugs supplied was not commercial, but rather indictable. The court had to weigh various factors, including the total quantity of drugs, the appellant's history of drug use and related offences, and his actions in purchasing items to repackage and disguise the drugs. Additionally, the court considered the appellant's history of drug use, his rehabilitation efforts prior to arrest, and an assault he committed in custody.

The court found that the quantity of drugs supplied was indeed commercial. It held that the appellant had planned and organised the supply, and that the quantity of drugs was substantial. The court also noted the appellant's history of drug use and offending, but found that this did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The court determined that an aggregate sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of four years, was appropriate. This reflected the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's history, and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years, at [90].

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.