Large Commercial Drug Supply Charges Withdrawn After Negotiation

Result at a glance

• Original charges: 2 large commercial supply, 1 commercial supply, 2 lower-tier supply, 2 knowingly deal with proceeds of crime (s25 / s193B(2)).
• Top exposure: Life imprisonment on the large commercial supply charges.
• Resolved to: Possess prohibited drug (s10(1) DMTA 1985).
• Outcome: All serious charges withdrawn. Conditional release order without conviction.

The original charge position

Our client came to us after being unhappy with the way his matter had been handled by his previous solicitor. The case was serious. Police alleged he was connected to a broader drug supply operation being investigated by a task force in south-west Sydney. The original charge list included two offences of large commercial supply, one offence of commercial supply, one offence of supply above the indictable and below the commercial quantity, one offence of supply above small and up to the indictable quantity, and two offences of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime. The maximum penalties were high. Large commercial supply carries life imprisonment, commercial supply carries 20 years, supply under s25(1) on indictment can carry 15 years, and knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime carries 15 years. This was not a possession matter at the start. It was put as an organised supply case.

What police alleged

Police alleged the matter came from an investigation into mid-level organised crime. The allegation was that a premises in south-west Sydney was being used as a safe house for the manufacture and supply of prohibited drugs, that vehicles were leaving the premises with drugs, and that the people attending were part of a joint criminal enterprise. Police later searched the premises and alleged they found large quantities of prohibited drugs, cash, and equipment linked to manufacture or supply. Our client was stopped after leaving the premises. Police alleged he had access to the premises, had drugs and cash on him, was connected to the larger quantities found inside, was able to secure the premises, and received an alert connected to the premises when police entered. That was the prosecution theory. But a theory still has to be proved.

Why the original case was difficult

The original case carried real risk. Two large commercial supply charges alone exposed our client to life imprisonment, and the additional commercial supply, lower-tier supply and proceeds of crime charges added further pressure. The police facts framed the matter as organised crime, which can affect bail, charge negotiations, sentence exposure and the way the prosecution approaches the case. The problem for our client was obvious: if the prosecution could prove he was part of a joint criminal enterprise connected to the larger operation, the matter would have remained in a very serious category. That was the issue we had to test.

The legal argument

The negotiations were hard and protracted. They were not about asking the prosecution to take a lenient view. They were about whether the serious charges could properly be maintained against our client on the evidence. The key issue was connection. Police had alleged access, association, movement to and from the premises, drugs and cash on our client, and broader supply activity at the premises. But the prosecution still had to prove the specific charges against him. Being present at or near a premises is not the same as proving large commercial supply. Having access to a premises is not the same as proving participation in a joint criminal enterprise. Possessing a small amount of drugs is not the same as being responsible for commercial or large commercial supply. The negotiations focused on that gap.

Why association was not enough

Drug investigations often involve groups of people, houses, cars, phones, cash and surveillance. That does not mean every person connected to the investigation is liable for every item found. The prosecution still has to prove the legal basis for each charge. In a large commercial supply case, that means proving supply, or knowingly taking part in supply, at the relevant level. In a proceeds of crime case, it means proving the property was proceeds of crime and that the person knew that fact. A joint criminal enterprise allegation has to be carefully examined too: the prosecution cannot simply say people attended the same premises and then treat them all as responsible for the same conduct. The evidence has to prove the agreement, participation and scope of the alleged enterprise. That was the point of the negotiations.

The final position

All serious charges were withdrawn, including the large commercial supply charges, the commercial supply charge, the lower-tier supply charges, and the proceeds of crime charges. The matter resolved to one charge of possess prohibited drug under s10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Possession is still a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or 20 penalty units, but it was a completely different case from the one our client first brought to us. The final result was a conditional release order without conviction (s10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999). No conviction was recorded.

Why the result mattered

The gap between the original case and the final result was substantial. Our client started with allegations of large commercial supply, commercial supply, proceeds of crime and involvement in an organised drug operation. He ended with a possession charge only, and no conviction recorded. That is significant because of what was removed from the case: the life imprisonment exposure attached to the large commercial supply charges, the 20-year commercial supply exposure, and the 15-year proceeds of crime exposure were all gone. The case became a possession matter. That did not happen quickly. It followed sustained negotiations based on legal arguments about what the prosecution could actually prove.

What this case shows

A police fact sheet can make a case look much stronger than the final admissible and provable case, especially in drug investigations involving surveillance, search warrants, alleged safe houses, cash, phones and multiple people. The first task is to separate allegation from proof. The prosecution may allege organised supply, joint criminal enterprise, access to a premises, and connection to drugs found inside, but each charge still has to be supported by evidence against the person charged. Here, that distinction changed the outcome. The serious charges were withdrawn and the matter resolved to possession only, with no conviction recorded. The outcome depends on the evidence, the charge list, the alleged role, phone material, surveillance, forensic evidence, admissions, criminal history, and the way negotiations are conducted.

Facing serious drug supply charges?

What police allege and what the prosecution can prove are not the same thing, and the gap is where charge negotiation happens. If you're facing drug supply or proceeds of crime charges anywhere in Sydney, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and 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.