Sentencing for social supply of illicit drugs in Australia

Photo of pills and money

In Australia, threshold quantities of illicit drugs act as an indicator of supply offences in distinguishing traffickers from users. This is problematic because it can be difficult for the courts to discriminate between heavy users or ‘social suppliers’ and ‘dealers proper’. Currently, there is no systematic analysis of how the judiciary in Australia navigate the relationship between different types of supply and the consistency and proportionality of the sentence applied. This analysis maps out how current sentencing practices respond to offenders involved in ‘social supply’ and ‘minimally commercial supply’ who are charged with drug trafficking. It makes recommendations that could inform future drug law reform, including that review is needed of the system of thresholds; that sentencing objectives of general and specific deterrence be reconsidered in cases of social supply and minimally commercial supply; and that consideration be given to expanding the scope of current diversion programs to accommodate the needs of the types of offenders and offending behaviour addressed in this study.


URLs correct as at April 2021

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012–2014. Prisoners in Australia (various issues). ABS cat no. 4517.0. Canberra: ABS.

Bagaric M & Edney R 2011. Australian sentencing. Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional)

Belackova V, Ritter A, Shanahan M & Hughes C 2017. Assessing the concordance between illicit drug laws on the books and drug law enforcement: Comparison of three states on the continuum from ‘decriminalised’ to ‘punitive’. International Journal of Drug Policy 41: 148–157.

Braun V & Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77101.

Bull M 2010. Punishment and sentencing: Risk, rehabilitation and restitution. Melbourne: Oxford University Press

Bull M, Denham G, Trevaskes S & Coomber R 2016. From punishment to pragmatism: Sharing the burden of reducing drug-related harm. Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 4(2): 300–316.

Coomber R 2015. A tale of two cities: Understanding differences in levels of heroin/crack market-related violence: A two city comparison. Criminal Justice Review 40(1): 7–31.

Coomber R et al. 2018. The burgeoning recognition and accommodation of the social supply of drugs in international criminal justice systems: An eleven-nation comparative overview. International Journal of Drug Policy 58: 93–103.

Coomber R & Moyle L 2014. Beyond drug dealing: Developing and extending the concept of ‘social supply’ of illicit drugs to ‘minimally commercial supply’. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 21(2): 157–164.

Freiberg A 2003. Therapeutic jurisprudence in Australia: Paradigm shift or pragmatic incrementalism? Law in Context 20(2): 1–18

Hughes C, Ritter A, Cowdery N & Phillips B 2014. Australian threshold quantities for ‘drug trafficking’: Are they placing drug users at risk of unjustified sanction? Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 467. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Lenton S, Grigg J, Scott J & Barratt M 2016. The social supply of cannabis in Australia: Definitional challenges and regulatory possibilities. In B Werse & C Bernard (eds), Friendly business. Wiesbaden: Springer VS: 29–46.

Mizzi P, Baghizadeh Z & Poletti P 2014. Sentencing Commonwealth drug offenders. Judicial Commission of New South Wales monograph series no. 38. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales

Room R & Reuter P 2012. How well do international drug conventions protect public health? The Lancet 379 (9810): 84–91.

Simon LMJ 2003. Proactive judges: Solving problems and transforming communities. In D Carson & R Bull (eds), The handbook of psychology in legal contexts. Chichester: Wiley.