Our client was sentenced on 216kg of cocaine against a 15-year standard non-parole period and received a minimum term of 4 years and 3 months in the Parramatta District Court.
Result at a glance
- Charges: Large commercial supply of cocaine (s25 DMTA 1985), proceeds of crime (s193B Crimes Act 1900), and related offences.
- Quantity: 216kg of cocaine, estimated street value approaching $65 million.
- Cash: About $173,000 deemed proceeds of crime.
- Standard non-parole period: 15 years (s54D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999).
- Court: Parramatta District Court.
- Outcome: Minimum term of 4 years and 3 months.
The charge
The charge arose from Strike Force Erwin, a twelve-month investigation by the NSW State Crime Command and Organised Crime Squad into cocaine supply across Australia's east coast. The operation ended with more than five arrests across Sydney's inner west and western suburbs, and the seizure of over 200kg of cocaine, cash, MDMA, a loaded pistol, ammunition and money counters.
Our client was charged on the basis of 216kg of cocaine, about $173,000 in cash deemed proceeds of crime, and related offences. These were not possession charges: large commercial supply of a prohibited drug under s25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 is one of the most serious drug offences in NSW.
The exposure
The large commercial quantity threshold for cocaine is 1kg. This matter involved more than 200 times that amount. The standard non-parole period for the offence is 15 years, the reference point a sentencing judge works from under s54D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is not mandatory, but a court must give reasons for departing from it. A 15-year standard non-parole period would mean at least 15 years in custody before any eligibility for release, which is why the length of the minimum term was the central issue.
The issue: individual role, not the whole operation
This was not a street-level matter. Strike Force Erwin targeted what police described as key members of a syndicate, the arrests were coordinated, and all five people arrested were initially refused bail. The volume of physical evidence, 216kg of cocaine, $173,000 in cash and firearms, gave the prosecution a strong position pointing to the upper end of sentencing. But sentencing requires the Court to assess each person's individual culpability, not the scale of the operation as a whole. The quantity attributed to the operation and the quantity relevant to our client's conduct are separate questions at sentence.
What we argued
The standard non-parole period is a reference point, not a fixed floor. Under s54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a court can depart from the standard where the facts of the individual case justify it. The submissions established where our client sat within the structure of the operation and what the evidence actually showed about his specific involvement. The prosecution's framing of the whole enterprise was not the measure of his culpability.
On that foundation, the sentencing case addressed the subjective factors that carry weight: our client's background, personal circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation. In a multi-charge matter, where sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively, the structure of the overall sentence also required careful argument. A judge imposing a sentence well below the standard must give clear reasons on the record.
The result
The Court imposed a minimum prison term of 4 years and 3 months against a standard non-parole period of 15 years. In matters of this scale, where police seize 216kg of cocaine, sentences at or above the standard are common, so a minimum term of 4 years and 3 months sits well below what an operation of this size would ordinarily attract.
Why the result mattered
The distance between the prosecution's starting point and the sentence imposed was more than a decade of minimum time. That distance reflected the Court's assessment of our client's individual role against the standard non-parole period, rather than the scale of the operation. In a large commercial matter, the minimum term is the whole contest.
What this case shows
In large drug operations, the charge and the total quantity seized are only the starting point. Sentencing turns on individual culpability, the standard non-parole period, the basis for departing from it, and the subjective material before the Court. Where the prosecution frames the whole operation as the measure of one person's conduct, that framing is what has to be tested. The defence work on serious matters of this kind is set out on our drug charges and proceeds of crime pages.
Facing serious drug charges in NSW?
The distance between what the prosecution asks for and what the Court imposes is set before sentence: by identifying the individual role, preparing the right material, and addressing every factor that bears on the sentence. If you or someone close to you has been charged with commercial supply, large commercial supply, or proceeds of crime offences, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and defend serious drug matters across NSW.
This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.
Charged? Find out where you stand
Confidential. No obligation. Same day response.
