commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (cocaine) (State offences) and causing a corrupt benefit to be given to a Commo
Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Rodgers v R [2018] NSWCCA 47 Hoeben CJ at CL, Johnson J, N Adams J The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed an appeal against sentence brought by Nathan Rodgers (the applicant). On 15 July 2016 the applicant was sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment for 9 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years for the offences of supplying a large quantity of a prohibited drug (cocaine), offering to supply a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (cocaine) (State offences) and causing a corrupt benefit to be given to a Commonwealth public official (Commonwealth offence). At the request of the Applicant, an additional offence of supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug (cocaine) was taken into account on sentence (Form 1 offence). The State offences arose following a controlled police operation into the applicant’s involvement in the supply of cocaine. The applicant acted as a “middle man” facilitating the offer and supply of two kilograms of cocaine. The Commonwealth offence related to the applicant’s role in obtaining information from a serving AFP officer to assist with the importation of prohibited drugs, in exchange for a financial reward. Grounds of appeal asserted error in the commencement date for the Commonwealth offence, disparity in sentencing for one offence when compared with co-offenders, the approach to “special circumstances” for the State offences and a claim that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The Court held that the approach to the commencement date for the Commonwealth offence revealed no error with the Applicant receiving full credit for his presentence custody. The Court found that the different sentence imposed on the Applicant for one of the State offences, as opposed to the sentences imposed on co-offenders, was explained by the Form 1 offence and the differences in the roles played by each of the offenders. The Court found that there was no error in respect to “special circumstances”. On the manifest excess ground, the Court said that the Applicant was involved in substantial drug supply in addition to a very serious offence of providing a corrupt benefit to a police officer. The Court explained the objective gravity of the corrupt benefit offence and the importance of maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of police officers. Specific and general deterrence were important factors on sentence for this class of offence. The Court held that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
