By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
New South Wales man Daryl Young’s Carrai property on the state’s mid-north coast was raided by police on 22 February 2024, after aerial surveillance identified it as the site of a potential cannabis plantation, and what was uncovered was a cultivation and supply operation being run out of a partially constructed shed-like dwelling, where the plants were being processed for sale.
A cannabis plantation was found in the thick bush, surrounded by wooden walls, with 168 plants up to a metre high. Inside the shed, cannabis weighing 38.85 kilograms was located at various stages of being processed, including branches being hung out to dry, trays containing trimmings, garbage bags stuffed with buds, and vacuum sealed bags filled with the product sitting on a pool table.
Further items located were an unsecured .177 calibre airgun rifle, a metal cannister of .177 ammunition, two .243 Winchester calibre cartridges and two centre fire calibre bolt assemblies, which are all defined as firearms, ammunition and parts under section 4 of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). Also located were five mobile phones, a set of large scales and a vacuum sealer.
Young, co-offender Brian Brustle and three individuals were taken to Kempsey police station to be charged with various drug offences, with those pressed against the unidentified trio later dropped. Young, 66 at the time, was charged in relation to the firearm and ammunition and was found to have previously possessed a Category A/B firearms licence, which police had suspended in October 2023.
Sentencing in the NSW District Court
Young pleaded guilty to numerous charges at the earliest possible chance in Kempsey Local Court. These charges included one count of supply a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, contrary to subsection 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (the DMT Act).
The maximum penalties applying to this offence in Young’s case were 15 years prison time and/or a $385,000 fine, due to his charges relating to cannabis. If the substance involved was any other illicit drug, the maximums for commercial supply are 20 years in gaol and/or a $385,000 fine. The penalties that apply to cannabis as opposed to other drugs are lower in the DMT Act.
This supply offence carries a standard non-parole period for any drug besides cannabis. An SNPP is a reference point for the sentencing judge when determining the minimum time a person must spend behind bars before being eligible to apply for release on parole. The SNPP for a subsection 25(2) commercial quantity offence is 10 years. But as Young was dealing in cannabis, it didn’t apply to him.
New South Wales drug laws carry heavier penalties the larger the quantity of drugs involved in the offending. Five distinct quantities of drugs are recognised in the DMT Act. These are small, traffickable, indictable, commercial and large commercial quantities. Schedule 1 of the DMT Act lists the various quantities for all the different outlawed drugs, plants, drug precursors and reagents in NSW.
A commercial quantity of cannabis leaf is at least 25 kilograms but under 100 kilograms, and Young was found with just over 38 kilograms.
Young also pleaded guilty to one count of cultivate an indictable amount of a prohibited plant, under subsection 23(1)(a) of the DMT Act. An indictable amount of cannabis plants grown outdoors is between 50 and 250 plants. Young was found with 168 plants. Cultivation of an indictable amount of cannabis plants in NSW carries up to 15 years imprisonment and/or a $385,000 fine.
The accused also pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorised possession of a firearm, contrary to subsection 7A(1) of the Firearms Act. The maximum penalty for this crime is 10 years imprisonment.
Four more charges laid against Young were taken on a Form 1. These included possess an unregistered firearm, contrary to subsection 36(1) of the Firearms Act, which carries a maximum of 5 years. One charge of not keeping a firearm safely, contrary to subsection 39(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, which is a crime that carries 12 months prison time and/or a $2,200 fine.
And there were a further two charges of possess ammunition without licence, contrary to subsection 65(3) of the Firearms Act, which were also taken into consideration on this Form 1. This crime carries a fine of up to $5,500.
Form 1 offences are charges laid against a defendant, of which they haven’t been convicted of. Section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that these charges are taken into account alongside a principal offence of which the offender has been convicted, when they request the judge do so. Young’s Form 1 charges were linked to his firearm conviction.
NSW District Court Judge Michael King sentenced Young to 3 years and 3 months prison time, with non-parole set at 1 year and 6 months. This sentence reflected a 25 percent discount due to the utilitarian value of his having entered early guilty pleas, in accordance with section 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
The judge also found ‘special circumstances’ in respect to Young, who has Parkinson’s disease, and had already spent 160 days on remand, prior to being granted bail, and it was considered that his time in prison had been more difficult due to his condition and so would his having to return to incarceration after his break on conditional release.
In relation to special circumstances, section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that a parole period must not exceed a third of the overall time an offender has been sentenced to, unless special circumstances are found. This means that Young would spend more time on parole in the community than he would usually be permitted to.
Appealing to the higher court
Young appealed against the severity of his sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on 30 March 2026. He did so based on four grounds. The first was that procedural fairness was lacking when he was denied opportunity to address the firearm conviction carrying prison time or to answer an assertion made by the judge implying that he offended and expected not to be imprisoned due to his Parkinson’s.
The inmate also raised contention about the sentencing judge not addressing a submission about the potential for him to serve an intensive correction order (ICO), as well as asserting that accumulation and concurrency hadn’t been considered when handing down his sentence and that his punishment was overall manifestly excessive.
In respect of the 3 months sentence applied to the firearms charge, NSWCCA Justice Hament Dhanji found “nothing untoward in the process”. Judge King remarked the firearms charges were of “a relatively insignificant nature”, and the sentence reflected this, and as the time for the firearms crime was to be served concurrently with the drug offence sentences there was nothing unfair about this.
As for the contention about the sentencing judge suggesting that Young committed his offending whilst expecting not to spend time in gaol because of his Parkinson’s disease, Justice Dhanji pointed out that the prosecution and the judge had neither suggested this during the trial, however Judge King asserted it twice as he was providing reasons for the sentence he was directly handing down.
His Honour added the judge made these assertions at the end of the trial about Young having been “‘anticipating’ or… ‘seeking to use’ his disease as a ‘shield against sentence’”, when the defendant had no way of responding to this, which raises questions as to whether an injustice had occurred in terms of “negatively impacting his sentence” and “a more favourable outcome”.
Justice Dhanji then explained that as the judge raised Young using Parkison’s as a shield twice during his reasons, it can be expected that it did impact his sentence, and the fact that it was presented in a manner whereby the offender had been calculating this, would also suggest a heavier sentence in order to deter Young and provide general deterrence to others with the disease from following suit.
So, this ground of appeal was made out. But in terms of the judge not considering an ICO submission, this was not an error, as the length of the sentence that he’d come to had precluded the availability of such an order being granted.
The NSWCCA justice then turned to the two last grounds regarding accumulation and concurrency and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, of which his Honour found the latter was made out. Justice Dhanji further explained that the third ground actually pointed to the issue of the totality of the punishment in respect of the overall offending.
The indicative sentence handed down by Judge King for supply was 2 years and 6 months and in terms of the cultivation conviction, it was 18 months. And these were not lenient sentences. So, prior to the 25 percent discount, the aggregate sentence that he’d come to was 4 years and 3 months prison time.
As the two indicative sentences were lengthy and the two offences basically involved the same crime in terms of the broader operation, the degree of concurrency, or the length of time that each of the sentences were to be served simultaneously, would have been expected to be higher, his Honour insisted. Therefore, the head sentence of 3 years and 3 months was manifestly excessive.
The reapplication of instinctive synthesis
In resentencing Young, Justice Dhanji considered that the inmate was in his late 60s, he had no criminal record prior to this offending, and the onset of Parkinson’s disease had been lifechanging and had further made prison more onerous.
In terms of the indicative sentences handed down, his Honour agreed with those that were determined by Judge King, but he considered that due to Young’s circumstances a greater degree of concurrency was warranted.
The justice also noted that the 3 months for the firearms offence had no bearing on the overall aggregate sentence, and the firearm offending itself probably wouldn’t have received a prison sentence if committed under other circumstances.
On 22 May 2026, Justice Dhanji ordered the earlier sentence to be quashed, and he resentenced Young to 2 years and 9 months imprisonment, with non-parole set at 1 year, 3 months and 6 days.
And NSWCCA Justices Anna Mitchelmore and Sarah McNaughton agreed with their colleague’s orders.
