R v Stone - [2025] NSWDC 334

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stone [2025] NSWDC 334
Hearing dates: 20 June 2025
Decision date: 20 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months to be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - supply prohibited drug not less than the large commercial quantity - supply prohibited drug more than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity.

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW): ss25(1), 25(2); Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s66

Cases Cited:
Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Rex (Crown)
Jackson Stone (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Meade (ODPP Parramatta)
Mr Hammond (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2023/148867
Publication restriction: Nil

revised ex tempore judgment

Jackson Stone, you appear for sentence today in relation to two offences.
The first of those offences is supplying a prohibited drug not less than the large commercial quantity for that particular drug (which is methylamphetamine). That offence is sequence 1 and involves a contravention of s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment. I pause to observe that the quantity of prohibited drug involved in sequence 1 is 635.6 grams. The threshold amount for that offence is 500 grams.
The second of those offences is supplying a prohibited drug more than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity for that particular drug. Again, the drug is methylamphetamine. That is sequence 4 and involves a contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment and there is no standard non‑parole period. Again I pause to observe that the threshold amount for that offence is 5 grams and the amount of drug involved is 189.3 grams.
When you first appeared before the Court for sentence on 17 April 2025 there was also a backup matter being sequence 3. But on that occasion that backup matter was withdrawn and dismissed.
The facts surrounding the two offences for which you are to be sentenced are mainly contained in the document entitled “Further Amended Agreed Statement of Facts”, which is exhibit C.
Those agreed facts have, to an extent, been supplemented by: admissions that you have made to the author of the sentencing assessment report and to the author of the psychologist report which was tendered on your behalf; by your affidavit made on 12 April 2025; and by your oral evidence today.
For my purposes the facts can be stated in the following way.
It would seem that before May 2023 you had come to know Dylan Shaw, most likely because you had shared time together in custody for drug offences. Precisely how you came to know Mr Shaw is not of great moment in these proceedings.
On 7 May…

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 Stone

Details

AGLC: R v Stone [2025] NSWDC 334
Case: [2025] NSWDC 334
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, Stone, who was convicted for supplying a prohibited drug in an amount more than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the lower court, which was deemed excessive. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence, and whether it should be reduced.

The court considered various factors, including the personal circumstances of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the sentencing principles applicable to drug supply offences. It was noted that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the appropriate sentence by not sufficiently considering the lesser quantity supplied and the respondent's personal circumstances. The court found that the original sentence was harsh and disproportionate and ordered a reduction. The court determined that an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, to be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order, was appropriate. This order was intended to balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to the specified term to be served through an Intensive Corrections Order. This decision reflects the court's emphasis on proportionality in sentencing and the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months to be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Stone [2025] NSWDC 334
Hearing dates:	20 June 2025
Decision date:	20 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months to be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - supply prohibited drug not less than the large commercial quantity - supply prohibited drug more than the indictable quantity but less than the commercial quantity.
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW): ss25(1), 25(2); Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s66
Cases Cited:	Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Jackson Stone (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Meade (ODPP Parramatta) Mr Hammond (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2023/148867
Publication restriction:	Nil