R v Neal, R v Small & R v Williams [2018] NSWDC 30

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Neal, R v Small & R v Williams [2018] NSWDC 30 Hearing dates: 9th February 2018 Date of orders: 27 February 2018 Decision date: 27 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Mr Neal is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 3 years with a head sentence of 5 years. Ms Small is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of 2 years with a head sentnece of 4 years. Mr WIlliams is bailed under s11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Supply prohibited drugs - Three offenders had sad and challenging upbringings. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown Robert John Neal Rebecca Jane Small Neil John Williams Representation: Counsel: Ms S Climo – Offender Small Ms Z Alderton – Offender Neal

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Legal Aid Commission – Offender Williams Cunninghams The Law Practice – Offender Neal Kenny Springs Lawyers -Offender Small File Number(s): 2015/322054; 2015/319431; 2015/319398

Judgment Introduction 1. In the latter half of 2015 the three offenders, Robert Neal, Rebecca Small and Neil Williams were involved in a significant heroin supply operation in Bathurst. They are each to be sentenced for offences involving serious drug trafficking. 2. This particular operation worked this way. Robert Neal and Rebecca Small were in a relationship and lived together. Neal Williams was their neighbour. Robert Neal and Rebecca Small would travel from Bathurst to Sydney for the purposes of purchasing heroin. They would then arrange for Mr Williams to distribute that heroin for them by selling it from his house. Mr Williams' reward for doing this was that he was allowed to keep a proportion of the heroin for his own use, selling the rest and accounting to Robert Neal and Rebecca Small for the proceeds. He may have also received some relatively small amounts of money from time to time. 3. Each of them now faces sentence for offences relating to their drug supply activities. Mr Williams faces 2 charges, supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis, an offence for which the maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment and supplying a prohibited drug which relates to a number of individual supplies which when totalled amount to about 160 grams of heroin, the period covered by this offence being about 4 months from 2 July 2015 to 30 October 2015. That is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. 4. Ms Small is to be sentenced for supplying heroin, that charge relating to the 160 grams of heroin I mentioned earlier which she jointly supplied to Mr Williams so that he could on sell it for her and her partner. 5. Mr Neal is also facing sentence for an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, that relating to both to the 160 grams of heroin which Mr Williams supplied over time in relatively small amounts, and also approximately 56 grams Mr Neal supplied (one ounce) and offered to supply (a further ounce) directly to a person named Irene. 6. Fortunately the activities of these 3 offenders were the subject of significant surveillance by the police. Such surveillance revealed the extent of the operation. Mr Neal and Ms Small would supply Mr Williams with what they described as an egg which contained 16 big ones (each being 0.25 grams) and 16 small ones (each being 0.1 grams). Mr Williams would sell those drugs after keeping one big one and one small one for his own use. 7. Surveillance revealed that Mr Williams would have about 30 visitors per day attend his house during the period of the investigation. The supply charge relating to Mr Williams covers 292 separate supplies over the course of the 4 month period. 8. When Mr Neal and Ms Small travelled to Sydney for the purposes of purchasing more heroin they would arrange for Mr Williams to attend their home to look after their 3 children as well as his own. Police arrested Mr Neal and Ms Small when surveillance evidence suggested they were travelling back from Sydney to Bathurst having purchased heroin. The arrest was made more difficult because Mr Neal, the driver of the car despite him being disqualified from driving, engaged police in a pursuit. A couple of days after that he attended Bathurst Police Station in order to be arrested. He refused an interview. 9. Ms Small was arrested before then. She participated in an interview with police and denied any involvement. She was later re-interviewed and made substantial admissions. 10. Mr Williams was arrested shortly after Ms Small was arrested at his house in West Bathurst. He also participated in an interview but denied any involvement in the offences. 11. Whilst in custody, Mr Neal told a female acquaintance who visited him there of the location of a firearm and some cash. Police therefore went to this female acquaintance a short time later and found her to be in possession of $143,000 dollars. She told police that she'd found it under the house of Mr Neal's next door neighbour after he told her where it was. 12. Police later went to the house previously occupied by Mr Neal where they found the firearm. It turned out to be a .22 calibre shortened firearm together with 15 rounds of ammunition and slightly more than $5000 in cash. Mr Neal has already been dealt with in the Local Court for a number of offences relating to the firearm, the police pursuit, offences of driving whilst disqualified and possessing cannabis. He was sentenced in the Local Court to a total term of 2 years 11 months and one day with an effective non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. It expired a few days ago on the 2nd of February 2018. 13. At the time of committing these offences Mr Neal was on an Intensive Corrections Order for an offence of driving whilst disqualified. As a result of committing the offence which I have to sentence him the ICO was revoked. 14. All of the offences for which these people are to be sentenced were serious. Somewhat ironically given the maximum penalty, the objective criminality of Mr Williams' ongoing supply offence is less than his supply simpliciter offence, the latter, as I have mentioned relates to 292 separate supplies involving about 160 grams of heroin but the former relates to only 3 acts of supply to an undercover police officer each of which involved about .4 of gram of heroin. He will receive no extra punishment for his ongoing supply offence, the criminality of that being encompassed by the other offence for which he is to be sentenced. 15. Each of the offenders pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to the charges brought against him or her. The sentences I impose upon them will therefore be 25% less than they would otherwise have been. 16. The principles of parity of course apply. No offender should have a justifiable sense of grievance when he or she compares his or her sentence with sentences I have imposed upon the co-offenders. In this case it is important to differentiate between both the offences and the offenders. Despite facing two charges, Mr Williams' role was clearly subservient to that of Mr Neal and Ms Small. He was one rung down the ladder of drug supply. Financial gain was less of a motive in his case than his co-offenders. It must also be remembered that he has spent longer in actual custody than Ms Small before being released on bail and longer in quasi custody than her as well. 17. As between Ms Small and Mr Neal, whilst it is clear that Mr Neal was the main driver of the drug supply operation, something he freely admitted, I do not find that Ms Small's role was as subservient as she would like to suggest. Perhaps the best evidence of the roles played by Ms Small and Mr Neal comes from Mr Williams who saw them on a daily basis and was something of an independent observer of the roles they each played. I am satisfied that Ms Small's role was less significant than that of Mr Neal but that their objective criminality was not greatly different. 18. One remarkable feature of this operation is that the drug supply activities took place from residential premises which were also occupied by children 19. All offenders have criminal histories. Mr Neal's is extensive. He has offended regularly and often in the past, indeed his criminal history is 36 pages long. Most of the offences were dealt with in the Local Court. This appears to have been his first involvement in drug supply. Mr Williams is younger than Mr Neal with a less extensive criminal history beginning in the Children's Court. This appears also to be his first involvement in criminal matters involving drug supply. Ms Small also has a criminal history consisting of Local Court matters. Her history does involve offences relating to possession of prohibited drugs and on one occasion an offence of bringing or introducing a syringe into a place of detention.