R v Wiltshire - [2025] NSWDC 449

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Wiltshire
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 449
Hearing Date(s):	4/7/25, 10/7/25
Date of Orders:	10/7/25
Decision Date:	10 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a NPP of 2 years 6 months (17/11/24-16/5/27). The indicative sentences (after a 25 percent discount) are: Seq 2 – 12 months Seq 4 – 2 years (Form 1 taken into account). Seq 6 – 15 months Seq 9 – 9 months Seq 24 – 16 months Seq 10 – 7 months. I make the forfeiture order sought in the Short Minutes of Consent order signed by me today.
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentence – Supply prohibited drug
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	NSW DPP – Crown Kane Wiltshire - Offender
Representation:	Ms K Thomson for Crown Mr H McDuff for Offender
File Number(s):	24/117451

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Mr Kane Wiltshire is for sentence in relation to a number of offences, as follows:
Firstly, a sequence 2 matter, of supply prohibited drug; namely, 5.88 grams of MDMA. That is an offence under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
Sequence 4, which is another offence of supply prohibited drug, that being 69.31 grams of methylamphetamine.
Sequence 6, which is a further offence of supply which relates to 144.1 grams of gamma hydroxybutyrate.
Sequence 9, which is another offence of supply, which relates to 66.3 grams of cannabis leaf.
Sequence 24, which is an offence of supply 500 millilitres of gamma butyrolactone.
I note that each of the supply offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, other than the sequence 9 offence relating to cannabis leaf, which carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment.
There is a further offence, which is sequence 10, and which is an offence of dealing with property that is reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime relating to an amount of cash of $1,995. That it is an offence under s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, and carries a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment.
Furthermore, I note that in sentencing for the sequence 4 supply methylamphetamine offence, the offender asks me to take into account, which I will, the sequence 7 offence, which is on a Form 1, and relates to 175 milligrams of diazepam.
The maximum penalties are, of course, important guides in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard.
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and will be given a 25% discount by reason of the utilitarian value of those pleas of guilty.

FACTS

The facts are agreed, and I have had regard to all of them. In summary, they are as follows. At the time of the offending, the offender was living in a room at…

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 Wiltshire

Details

AGLC: R v Wiltshire [2025] NSWDC 449
Case: [2025] NSWDC 449
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wiltshire, was convicted of various drug-related offences and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months. The case involved the supply of prohibited drugs, leading to an appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal focused on the length of the sentence and the appropriate application of sentencing principles.

The primary legal issue in the appeal was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was tasked with reviewing the principles of sentencing in the context of drug supply offences, considering factors such as the offender's culpability, the nature of the offence, and the impact on the community. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with similar cases and whether the discount applied to the indicative sentences was appropriate.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the need to balance the punishment with deterrence and rehabilitation. It noted the appellant's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the drug supply offences. The court concluded that the original sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the discount applied to the indicative sentences was justified. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed and the need to protect the community from drug-related harm.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court also made the forfeiture order as sought in the Short Minutes of Consent order signed by the court on the same day. The appellant's sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months was affirmed, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for an appropriate deterrent effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a NPP of 2 years 6 months (17/11/24-16/5/27).

The indicative sentences (after a 25 percent discount) are:

Seq 2 – 12 months

Seq 4 – 2 years (Form 1 taken into account).

Seq 6 – 15 months

Seq 9 – 9 months

Seq 24 – 16 months

Seq 10 – 7 months.

I make the forfeiture order sought in the Short Minutes of Consent order signed by me today.

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.