The Queen v DR (2017)
DR was charged with supply a prohibited drug, knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, and supply large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug.
The facts in this matter alleged that DR supplied large amounts of prohibited drugs to a co-accused, who in turn sold these drugs to an Undercover Operative over a number of months. The supplies included a commercial quantity of cocaine (supply a prohibited drug), and three separate supplies that amounted to a large commercial quantity of ecstasy tablets (supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug). The proceeds of crime were estimated at $30,000.00. DR’s actions were documented extensively through tapped phones, ongoing surveillance and finally, through the co-accused’ decision to cooperate with police and testify against him.
On paper the case against Mr DR was very strong. Thousands of telephone intercepts revealed Mr DR meeting with his co-accused before and after each transaction, also documented through police surveillance. The co-accused in the matter wrote a number of witness statements electing Mr DR as his supplier and testified against him in court.
However, multiple subpoenas raised by our office identified crucial evidence in the form of another dealer at the time supplying the co-accused with similar quantities of prohibited drugs. At trial, the co-accused had his credibility brought into question in a strong cross-examination that left the jury unable to rely on his testimony alone.
DR was found not guilty of one count of supply prohibited drug, and guilty of supplying a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug and dealing with the proceeds of crime. He was sentenced to eight years, with a non-parole period of five years. This was an impressive result for charges that can carry a maximum life sentence in prison, and hold a standard non-parole period of 15 years.