R v Dawson [2020] NSWDC 957

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dawson [2020] NSWDC 957 Hearing dates: 26 June 2020 Decision date: 26 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Colefax SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months - disqualified from driving for 6 months. Legislation Cited: Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act, s25(1); Road Transport Act, s54(1)(a) Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)

Karl John Dawson (Offender) Representation: Ms C. Diggins (ODPP Campbelltown)

Mr Park (Counsel for the offender) File Number(s): 2019/00056784 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. Karl John Dawson, you appear for sentence today in relation to four principal offences. Each of those offences involves a contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW). The maximum penalty for each offence is 15 years imprisonment and there is no standard non‑parole period. 2. In addition to the four principal offences, you have asked me to take into account in relation to count 1 (sequence 10) one matter on a Form 1 which I have certified - i.e. possessing a prohibited drug. 3. In addition to all that I have said, you have consented to this Court dealing with three matters on a s 166 certificate. Each of those matters involves driving whilst disqualified. Those offences involve contraventions of s 54(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW). The maximum penalty for each of those offences is 12 months imprisonment. 4. The facts surrounding your offending are contained an agreed statement of facts. Slightly recast by me, as to style but not substance, the facts can be summarised as follows. 5. In November 2018, you came under the attention of New South Wales Police and they commenced a controlled operation involving you and a registered source. 6. Between 7 November and 28 November 2018, you engaged with that registered source on four occasions and, on each occasion, in exchange for money, you provided the source with a quantity of methylamphetamine. 7. The particulars of the four transactions can be summarised as follows. 8. The first transaction occurred on 7 November 2018. The registered source contacted you and asked you for a quantity of methylamphetamine. The registered source drove to your house, spoke to you, and then you drove off with the money that the registered source had given you to obtain the methylamphetamine. At the time you drove off, you were in fact disqualified from driving and that driving by you on that occasion is one of the matters on the s 166 certificate. After a short time, you returned to your home, where you provided the registered source with 1.73 grams of methylamphetamine and it had a purity of 80%. 9. The second transaction occurred on the next day, the 8 November 2018. A similar process occurred. You drove off to acquire the methylamphetamine for the registered source. She had provided you with the buy money of $350 and, in due course, you returned and provided her with 1.68 grams with a purity of 79.5%. Your driving on that occasion is another of the drive whilst disqualified matters on the certificate. 10. The third transaction occurred on 21 November 2018. Whilst the details of the transaction are slightly different, in essence it involved you obtaining 1.73 grams of methylamphetamine for the registered source who provided you with $350 for that drug. It had a purity of 74%. 11. The fourth and final transaction occurred one week later on 28 November 2018 and followed a similar process. The drug provided on that occasion was 1.68 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 65.5%. Unlike the first three transactions, it did not involve you driving whilst you were disqualified. 12. You have supplemented the agreed statement of facts in the course of your oral evidence today. 13. You have told me, and I accept, that, in relation to the four transactions, you gained nothing from them: no money, no drugs. 14. The agreed statement of facts noted that the last transaction occurred on 28 November 2018 whilst you were under police surveillance. However, you weren't arrested until 20 February 2019. Why the police waited three months to arrest you was not made clear in the document I was given. You have told me, and I accept, that during those three months the police were in fact watching you and the registered source was continuing to harass you to supply that person with more methylamphetamine. But it was about this time that you decided that you had to get control of your life again, and you refused to participate in the further acquisition of methylamphetamine. 15. In any event, on 20 February 2019, you were arrested. Presumably the police, by this stage, had realised that you were no longer going to be involved in criminal activity and decided to bring things to a head. 16. When they arrested you at the caravan park in which you were living, the police found 0.08 grams of methylamphetamine. This is the matter on the Form 1. Because of the nature of that matter, it will not result in any meaningful increase for the relevant principal offence. 17. In terms of the objective seriousness of the supply drugs for the four principal offences for offences of their kind, they are towards, but not at, the bottom of the range. In relation to the three drive whilst disqualified offences, they are mid‑range offences for offences of their kind. 18. Your subjective circumstances (that is, things about your background) have come to me mainly through two documents: a sentencing assessment report; and a report of a psychologist. The contents of those documents have been helpfully supplemented by your oral evidence today. 19. You are now 47 years old. 20. You had a somewhat difficult start to life because your mother was only 16 when you were born. She probably was not ready to be a mother and, therefore, she was not really a very good mother for you. 21. Your relationship with your mother in the early days was not good and you left home when you were 15, which was around about the time you finished school. 22. You worked for a very short period of time as an apprentice and as a truck driver's offsider but, largely, you have been unemployed for most of your life to date. 23. You have spent a lot of your life, however, pursuing activities connected with alcohol and illegal drugs. 24. You started drinking alcohol at 15, the same time you started marijuana. You started speed, also, at 15. In more recent times, however, you have been using methylamphetamine, otherwise known as "ice". 25. You have been fairly constant in your drug abuse over the years. However, you seemed to have got your life together after you left gaol in 2017. You then formed a relationship which was very important to you. 26. But in 2018, three very traumatic events occurred, as a result of which you relapsed into your drug abuse issues, which in turn caused you to be involved in the supply matters with which I am concerned today. 27. Each of those three matters, Mr Dawson, independently would have been extremely confronting to anybody, let alone the three occurring in the one year. 28. First of course was the suicide of your partner, whom you found. I will not repeat how she died. 29. OFFENDER: Thank you. 30. HIS HONOUR: But it must have been a terrible thing. 31. OFFENDER: Worst day of my life. 32. HIS HOUR: Yes. 33. Also in that year, you were the victim of a home invasion. 34. Furthermore, in that year your godson was killed. 35. Those three things together, as I have said, caused you to relapse to your previous drug abuse. 36. I mentioned that you had come out of gaol in 2017. You have a long criminal history and, of course, that history disentitles you to the leniency which can be extended to a first offender. But it is not an additional aggravating factor. However, there was one additional aggravating factor to all of the offences and that is you were on bail on charges of goods being suspected of being stolen. 37. Curiously, Mr Dawson, in the psychologist's report, she has expressed the opinion that your intelligence appears to be below average. That is not the impression I formed of you today. 38. You struck me as a person who has his act together - and it is because you have been in custody. You have completed a number of courses and you have got yourself equipped to be able to work. In fact, you have been working at a very responsible position within the gaol. You have not touched drugs whilst you have been there, even though it is notorious that the correctional setting is awash with drugs, although that may not be quite so true under the current COVID restrictions. 39. I have taken into account the other aspects of the psychologist's report which I do accept, viz that you are suffering from a variety of mental health conditions, which means that general deterrence (that is, fixing a sentence that will discourage others) is not fully engaged. However, by having regard to your long criminal history, I have to fix a sentence that will discourage you from offending, and which will also protect the community, and which will also encourage your rehabilitation. 40. I must say that not only do I accept your expressions of remorse but, by having regard to what you have said in your evidence today, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as being cautiously optimistic. 41. I think you have reached a stage in your life where you have the drugs under control and where you have the support of your family, which now includes your parents, your grandchildren, and your children. You have skills that will enable you to work. 42. Your prospects of rehabilitation would be enhanced by a longer period on parole and I intend to make a finding of special circumstances to vary the ratio of the non‑parole of the head sentence. 43. It follows from what I have just said that I have concluded, in relation to each of the principal offences and the matters on the s 166 certificate, that no sentence other than one of full‑time imprisonment is appropriate. 44. You indicated an intention to plead guilty at an early opportunity and an effective discount of 25% will be given to you for that. 45. I intend imposing an aggregate sentence and therefore it is necessary for me to state the indicative sentences which underpin the aggregate sentence. 46. In connection with each of the supply prohibited drug offences, except for your plea of guilty, the indicative sentence would in each case have been two years imprisonment. Because of the discount of 25%, the indicative sentence in each case is 18 months imprisonment. 47. Insofar as the drive whilst disqualified offences are concerned, except for your plea of guilty, the indicative sentence for each offence would have been 8 months imprisonment. Because of the discount of 25%, the indicative sentence in each case is 6 months imprisonment. 48. For the four principal offences (and taking into account for sequence 10 the matter on the Form 1) and the three s 166 certificate matters, Mr Dawson, and taking into account totality, I sentence you to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years. 49. As I indicated, I make a finding of special circumstances to vary the ratio of the head sentence, which ordinarily should be 75%, to 50%. 50. Therefore, I fix a non‑parole period of 1 year and 6 months to date from 20 February 2019, and which will expire on 19 August 2020. I fix a balance of 18 months to commence 20 August 2020. 51. You will very shortly be released from custody, therefore, Mr Dawson, provided the parole authority is as impressed with you as I am. 52. OFFENDER: Thank you, your Honour. 53. HIS HONOUR: Insofar as the disqualification period is concerned, in relation to each matter, I fix a period of 6 months disqualification which is to date from 20 August 2020. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 November 2024