CRIME — Multiple drug supply offences — Supply prohibited drug — Three counts supply large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine — One count supply amount of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA) — One count supply commercial quantity of cannabis — Supply amount of cocaine taken into account on Form 1
CRIME — Multiple firearms supply offences — Supply of and attempts to supply illegal firearms to undercover police officer — Sourcing of illegal firearms from Co-offender — Role of “middleman”
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Balancing competing factors of high level of criminality as shown in maximum penalties against strong subjective case of Offender — Role of undercover officer in “encouraging” or “inciting” criminal conduct
1Where an undercover officer investigating drug offences persistently encourages or incites an offender to commit firearms offences that the offender would not otherwise have committed, the offender's moral culpability for those firearms offences is significantly reduced, warranting assessment of objective seriousness as well below mid-range, applying R v Taouk and Jomaa v R.
2In parity assessments involving co-offenders sentenced in separate proceedings with different agreed facts, the sentencing court is confined to the agreed facts and submissions in the instant case and cannot rely on evidence, submissions, or findings from the co-offender's proceedings.
3Unobjected-to expert opinion evidence tendered on sentence is admissible under common law rules (the Evidence Act not applying absent a s 4 direction), but the weight to be given to such evidence remains a matter for the sentencing judge in the particular circumstances.
