CDPP v Gainford

1. The agreed facts of your offending are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea (Exhibit A). In brief, on 29 January 2025, you returned to Melbourne from Los Angeles (LA). Upon your return you collected a large black suitcase from the baggage collection area. An unfastened padlock was observed by Australian Border Force (ABF) Officers hanging from the zipper of the suitcase. You were also in possession of two handbags, and a mobile phone.

1. You were subsequently directed by ABF officers to attend the Customs examination area for a baggage examination. You told the ABF that you had returned from the USA after a period of seven days, having travelled from Australia to LA on 20 January 2025. On your Incoming Passenger Card, you answered 'No' to all questions, including question one which asks: 'Are you bringing into Australia goods that may be...illicit drugs?' You confirmed that you had packed your bags yourself; you were fully aware of the contents of your luggage and that it contained personal belongings.

1. Your belongings were X-rayed by officers and upon anomalies being detected in the suitcase, you were transported to an examination bench for a full baggage examination. Prior to the examination, you confirmed for the second time that you had packed your own bags and were aware of their contents.

1. During the examination ABF officers located 20 vacuum sealed bags inside your suitcase, covered with a white towel. The bag emitted a strong odour. Examination revealed that 18 bags contained white crystalline material, and two contained white compressed powder. Subsequent forensic testing of the substances confirmed the crystalline material comprised 14.695.6 kilograms of pure methamphetamine and the powder was 1.659.5 kilograms of pure cocaine.
2. ABF officers also located three handwritten notes in your belongings, namely:

Note titled: 'Tomorrows to-do list fly home day'.

Go shopping wither w/Lulu or myself (refer to list) 11am-12pm

Check out of the hotel by 3pm - make sure get deposits back.

Another Note titled: 'Need to Buy @ shops tomorrow'.

I will not set them out but there were various items listed.

What's the go w/ shopping tomorrow? What time? Are they going w/ me?

1. On your mobile phone, police located three text messages sent from mobile service ending 8210 on 29 January 2025:

(b) At 07:50: "[Abbey] You need to call me immediately."

(c) At 07:53 "There coming for us, we are fucked, give it back now".

1. In an interview with police after your arrest you denied the offending, stating that you had been 'set up' and

a) You had organised the holiday to LA to 'hang out' by yourself.

b) Your friend 'Charlie' had paid for your flight as a birthday gift, several days prior to your departure. He had transferred you $2,500. You did not have contact with Charlie while you were in LA.

c) You met a person, 'Lou' on your second night in LA. He had pulled over in his car near the Live Hotel and tried to 'pick you up'. You added him on the mobile messaging application, 'Signal'.

d) Lou had taken you to the mall on the day you were returning to Australia. At the mall, Lou told you he wanted you to 'bring... like, fucking designer handbags or something back with her [you]' and would provide you with a new suitcase.

e) You said that when you met up with Lou later, upon entering a vehicle (being driven by an unknown woman), Lou told you that you would need to leave your original suitcase with him.

f) You were driven to an underground carpark where the driver parked and locked the car, and you exited the vehicle with Lou, who replaced your belongings with the black suitcase. You were later transported to a second car park, where you took what you thought was an Uber to the airport.

g) You believed the suitcase contained designer handbags.

h) You asked Lou if he was sure that the suitcase contained handbags and he responded, 'It's just designer handbags and stuff'. You said you were 'a bit suss on it, but she [you] were in a car with him, you now, in Downtown LA by herself [myself]'

i) You said the suitcase was heavy, which you believed was due to the weight of leather. You did not 'think anything of it' and did not want to tell Lou no.

j) You did not open the suitcase at any stage and you told police, 'None of my fingerprints will be on anything on the inside of the bag. I did not pack that bag. I did not have anything to do with packing that bag. I had no idea of the contents of that bag'.

k) You said, 'I swear that I didn't - I have no knowledge of them being in that suitcase whatsoever at all', 'Like, I packed my suitcase. I left. There are lock on it and everything and, like, I didn't put anything in there. Like, I swear to God'.

l) You said 'I was just kind of told I was bringing back some luxury bags and then clearly, I'm a fuckwit and trust people I shouldn't trust, and I got stitched the fuck up, and now I'm here. That's it.

m) You did not have any messages from Lou, you said, as he had disappeared on Signal.

1. You declined to provide the password for your mobile phone when asked by police.

1. You grew up in Melbourne mostly with your mother as your parents separated when you were around five. You have three older maternal half-siblings (two brothers and a sister), and you maintain close and positive contact with your

half-brothers but have limited contact with your half-sister who is much older than you and who lives in Townsville.

1. Your parents' separation was acrimonious and reports about your welfare were made to child protection. You had contact with your father, but he was not a reliable emotional support for you during your childhood because of his alcohol abuse and his inconsistent attendance at childhood events. Your mother had numerous partners when you were growing up, some of whom were abusive and hostile towards you and her last partner was physically violent towards her. You reported that your mother drank heavily during your childhood and suffered anxiety and depression but that she was loving and provided for you. Child protection records indicate that between 2004 and 2016, six reports were made about your mother's drug and alcohol misuse, physical abuse of you by your older siblings and an allegation in 2011 that your father had touched you sexually.

1. You also reported a history of chronic anxiety from early childhood that reached serious levels when you were 15 and were raped three times by your high school teacher. You are presently the subject of a redress scheme. You had serious depression between 16 and 21 and at 19 you were hospitalised after a suicide attempt.

1. You attended several primary and secondary schools because of relocations or because of being asked to leave due to truancy or behavioural issues. You were bullied due to your weight and not fitting in and in high school you ended up retaliating by bullying others. In high school you did manage to make some friends, and you have continued these friendships. You were diagnosed with dyslexia in Year 9. You exited secondary education after completing Year 10. In 2017, you attended the Avenue Neighbourhood House's re-engagement program where you completed the equivalent of Years 9 and 10. You started a course in Early Childhood Education in 2020 but ceased this due to mental health issues and caring responsibilities.

1. When you were 17 you went to live with your father. You commenced your first paid employment at 17, when you started working at a pizza shop at night and a café during the day. At this time, you were a hard worker and financially independent. You then commenced working at Ozmosis surf shop as a Christmas casual but were retained and promoted to second-in-charge of the store soon after. You quit your job there in early 2024 due to your escalating methylamphetamine use after the death of your friend in late 2023 and a partner in early 2024.

1. You have had relationships, but you are currently single with no children. Your first relationship was between ages 17 and 21 and this featured drug use, and deteriorating mental health. You then had a short relationship for a month with one of your brother's friends in October 2023 which was positive, but ended when your partner was killed in a car accident in January 2024 which was extremely traumatic for you. This had followed the death of your best friend in a car accident in October 2023 which had also emotionally destabilised you.

1. You then had a relationship with another of your brother's friends between March and September 2024. You had left your father's home with him and at the time you left, your methamphetamine use had increased, you were experiencing conflict with your brother who was also using drugs whilst on bail at your father's home, and you were still very much affected by your best friend's death. You and your partner were largely transient living in hotels, cars and crisis accommodation. This relationship was very toxic with your partner being physically violent towards you when intoxicated.

1. In July 2024, your partner secured you a job as a sex worker in a brothel and it was there that you were introduced to the drug GHB, which you used to cope with your work at the brothel. You moved to a larger brothel a few months later and it was there that you became further entrenched in drug use and became a heavy drug user. You reported that you stayed in the relationship as you were frightened of your partner and due to, what Ms Cokorilo described as 'trauma bonding and homelessness'. Your sex work combined with some online sex work meant that towards late 2024, you were able to secure a private rental.

1. You reported that your last relationship formed when you were still engaged in sex work but after you stopped this work your partner arranged many bookings for his friends to engage in sexual activity with you while you were drugged and unconscious. He controlled your earnings. You said you were very ashamed so did not seek family support. This relationship ended when you were remanded for the current offending. Between February and October 2025, you engaged in a period of care with West CASA's specialist trauma counselling service whilst in custody.[2]
2. Your drug history is canvassed in Ms Cokorilo's report. Most relevantly, for some period prior to your remand you were using methamphetamine and GHB heavily. You also used marijuana.

1. I received three references written on your behalf (Exhibit 3). Ms Leanne King of the Avenue Neighbourhood House, which has two programs for young people who have disengaged from mainstream schools and require a different learning environment. You attended the Year 9 alternative re-engagement program in 2017 after you left mainstream secondary school. Ms King was your social worker for the two years you were on the programs, and you successfully completed both programs which was the equivalent of Years 9 and 10. Ms King wrote that your attendance was impeccable notwithstanding you had to travel nearly two hours per day to get to school. She said you made friends easily and you were

...a shining light in the years that she was in our programs...Although she faced some hardship early in her life, she was friendly to all members of our neighbourhood house community, volunteered in our childcare and disability classes and always had a beautiful nature. Abbey was well-mannered, respectful, funny and always created a positive and bright classroom environment. At times, Abbey was naive and easily led when among peers and needed guidance when people took advantage of her naivety.

1. Ms King noted that you and your mother took on the full-time care of your nephews while you were completing the programs. Ms King has contacted you in custody and will continue to support you now and on your release.
2. Ms Ferguson who was the store manager at Osmosis where you worked as 2IC from November 2022 to December 2023. Ms Ferguson described you as hard working, kind, dedicated, trustworthy, professional and a natural leader who would help train both new and existing staff.
3. Your mother wrote that you experienced considerable loss in October 2023 and again in early 2024 when your best friend and another close friend were killed in car accidents. Your mother said these events led to a clear decline in your mental health and you began to use drugs eventually leaving your job and withdrawing from family and friends for months. Your mother noted you were withdrawn when she saw you and that you were working as a sex worker and she had grave concerns for you also given your drug use, and the type of people you were friends with. You have confided in your mother about the abuse you suffered during this time. Your mother has regular contact with you, and you have expressed your remorse to her and your desire to live a good life. She has witnessed a significant improvement in your mental health and attitude in the last nine months and will support you on your release.

1. In assessing the gravity of your offending, I have had regard to the well settled sentencing principles that apply to offending involving the importation of drugs, including:[3]

a) General deterrence is to be given chief weight on sentence and stern punishment will be warranted in almost every case given the difficulty of detecting importation offences, and the great social consequences that follow.

b) Where general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration, personal mitigatory factors such as prior good character, age, and prospects of rehabilitation are given less weight than might otherwise be given. [4]

I have set out the remaining sentencing principles in my reasons; I will not repeat them here.

1. I also note that in sentencing you, I have had regard to the matters applicable in sentencing for Commonwealth offences, notably s16A(1) and I have taken into account the factors that must be taken into account in sentencing you in s 16(A)(2) of the Crimes Act, most relevantly here 16A(2)(a), the nature and circumstances of the offence.

16A(2)(a) Nature and circumstances of the offence

1. There is no doubt your offending is very serious given:

a) The maximum penalty for the charge is life imprisonment reflecting the seriousness with which Parliament considers this offending.[5] > > b) I accept and give weight to the fact that your role was that of a bare courier as opposed to a principal or organiser. However, whilst this is a role in the lower echelons of drug hierarchies and enterprises, it remains an integral and crucial role as it is necessary to ensure the successful importation of drugs. As such it requires punishment which reflects the primacy of general deterrence. As the court stated in Gwardys v R:[6]

The fact that another person may be characterised as the 'mastermind' does not mean that a person in the applicant's position, who has responsibility for effecting the actual importation into Australia, is properly described as having only a middle (or indeed, lower) level of responsibility. The relevant inquiry must centre upon what the applicant actually did. Put simply, the applicant imported a significant quantity of a prohibited drug into Australia. In doing so, he helped to facilitate and promote large scale international drug trafficking. Even if it is accepted that his place in some notional hierarchy was low, that does not mean that his role was insignificant. On the contrary, without him performing the role that he did, the importation could not have been effected.

Similarly, in DPP (Cth) v Aqbal Omar[7] the court held that '...the role of a courier is indispensable. Illicit drug networks are only able to prosper because people like [Aqbal Omar] 'are ready, willing and able to undertake these types of roles.

1. You imported a very significant quantity of drugs being 14.695 kilograms of pure methamphetamine and 1.659.5 kilograms of pure cocaine. This represents 19.59 times the commercial quantity of methamphetamine which is 750 grams[8] and 829.7 times the marketable quantity of cocaine which is 2 grams or for the cocaine 83 per percent of the commercial quantity, which is 2 kilograms.[9] In combination, this represents 20.4 times the commercial quantity threshold being imported.

d) You are to be sentenced on the basis that you were reckless as to your suitcase containing a border-controlled drug and I accept that there is no evidence that you had any actual knowledge of the contents of your suitcase. I note however that in sentencing you, having a mental state of recklessness is not a mitigating factor, rather the presence of intention or knowledge would be an aggravating factor.[10] Further, in the circumstances of your offending, the level of recklessness involved cannot be said to be low. When in a foreign country you were given a suitcase by a person who you said randomly approached you, you were required to leave your own personal belongings and suitcase behind and take only that suitcase, you did not check the contents of the suitcase, and you accepted it contained luxury handbags. You also gave competing versions of the events such as telling Ms Cokorilo that when in LA you were introduced by your then-parter to a man who could supply you with drugs and this same man provided you with the locked suitcase, which you believed contained designer handbags.

e) I accept that you had no financial interest in the sale of the imported drugs or any propriety interest in them at all. Your role it appears was to provide the drugs to others upon your arrival in Melbourne. In terms of personal reward, it was accepted that your airfare was paid for however, it may be inferred as a matter of common sense that you were to receive some further reward given the consignment was a valuable commodity and the risks you were taking were great, although it is not possible for me to quantify the precise amount or reward you were to receive.

f) You were on bail at the time of the offending, having been charged with drug possession offences on 4 September 2024.

1. Your plea of guilty was entered at a relatively early stage. You sought a sentence indication hearing shortly after the committal where only the informant was questioned. The matter then resolved in October 2025 before any sentence indication was heard. Your plea was entered well before the trial date. Your plea warrants a clear reduction in the sentence to be imposed to reflect its utilitarian value in saving the community the time and expense of a trial and witnesses from having to give evidence, and to reflect its demonstration of acceptance of responsibility, willingness to facilitate the course of justice and remorse.

1. In your case, I am satisfied that you have also demonstrated genuine remorse for your offending over and above that reflected by your plea alone. Your contrition for the offending is evident from the 'profound remorse' you expressed to Ms Cokorilo including by stating that the offence has devastated your family and the remorse you demonstrated to your mother.

1. I must impose a sentence that deters you personally from committing any offence like this again. I must also give weight to the need to punish you for your offending and to denounce your offending. The case law makes it clear that stern punishment will be warranted in almost every case involving drug importation or possession.

1. As noted earlier, general deterrence is a primary sentencing consideration in offending such as yours especially in view of the harmful impacts of illicit drugs on the community from trafficking, the consequences to the community if imported substances are released, and the difficulty detecting such offences.

16A(2)(m) Character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition

1. You were 21 at the time of the offending and are now 23. You were not however a child nor are you a 'young offender' as defined statutorily[11] and your offending was very serious. As stated in Azzopardi v R:[12]

...where the degree of criminality of the offences requires the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus, the weight to be attached to youth is correspondingly reduced. As the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of the offender's youth.

1. Further, in R v Thomas[13], in dismissing an appeal against a sentence imposed on a drug importer aged 21, the court remarked:

Being 21 at the time of the offence does not, however carry as much weight as it might in other cases. That is partly because of the gravity of the offence, partly because of the pressing need for general deterrence and partly to discourage drug runners from engaging young men or women as couriers on a promise that they will be treated leniently if they are caught.

1. Having made those points, you are still very young, and whilst rehabilitation plays a lesser role in sentencing you, I must still promote your rehabilitation and not impose a crushing sentence on you.

1. You have no criminal history however again this factor carries less weight in sentencing for drug offences.

1. Your counsel argued that the principles in Bugmy[14] apply in sentencing you in the general sense referred to in that case. I accept that your childhood experiences of emotional neglect, involvement with DHS, family trauma, and sexual assault as a teenage student are of such magnitude that your moral culpability and the weight to be given to general deterrence both require moderation.
2. I received a psychological report authored by Ms Cokorilo dated 1 February 2026 (Exhibit 1). Ms Cokorilo confirmed diagnoses of Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, which included severe depressive symptoms since adolescence and a suicide attempt involving hospitalisation. You were also diagnosed with Stimulant and Sedative/Hypnotic Disorder, with a history of cannabis use disorder since adolescence. She opined that you have PTSD stemming from the exploitation, sexual violence and coercive control you experienced in 2024 and you presented with 'clinically significant symptoms which persist to date'.
3. Your counsel sought to rely on limbs 1 and 3 of Verdins[15] arguing that there is a causal connection between your mental health conditions and the offending such that your moral culpability for the offending and the weight to be given to general deterrence should be reduced. Your counsel relied on Ms Cokorilo's opinion that your drug use impaired your functioning thereby contributing to your offending, however she opined that while the effects of your drug use were relevant, it was important to note that:

Ms [Gainford's] psychopathology is inferred to have precipitated and perpetuated her drug dependence, rather than substance use being the primary or sole driver of her impaired functioning... Ms Gainford's' psychopathology also exerts an independent and significant effect on her functioning beyond its role in increasing vulnerability to substance use. Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are each associated with impairments in emotional regulation, cognitive control and interpersonal functioning, which can compromise judgment and adaptive decision-making even in the absence of acute intoxication.

1. Ms Cokorilo also concluded that depression, anxiety and PTSD were also each linked to impairments in your executive functioning when stressed, such as emotional dysregulation, and diminished planning and that drug intoxication '...further compromise these systems'. In summary, Ms Cokorilo concluded that your psychopathology did not directly cause your offending, but it was plausible that it impaired your judgment, increased your ability to be coerced and reduced your ability to cope. She continued that your drug use was a proximate factor while your untreated mental health conditions were a critical predisposing influence.
2. As I understand it, the opinion expressed by Ms Cokorilo was that whilst your mental health conditions did not directly cause your offending, they led you to use drugs. In this way your drug use was not the sole driver of your impaired functioning at the time of the offending although it was a proximate factor.
3. The prosecution accepted your drug use was a significant contributing factor in your offending but submitted this was intertwined with your mental health conditions such that both played a causal role in the offending and your moral culpability and the weight to be given to general deterrence should be reduced.

1. In my view your drug use was the significant causal or contributing factor in your offending, and its significance is somewhat downplayed by Ms Cokorilo. Ordinarily where an offender suffers from a mental disorder, the disorder is not to be treated as a mitigating factor because it explains the offender's recourse to drugs but is not directly causative of the offending.[16] Again, Ms Cokorilo concluded that your psychopathology did not directly cause your offending but predisposed you to drug use. You were able to exercise the choice to take drugs at the time of your offending and there was nothing to suggest you were unaware of the effects these had on your mental health. It was not the case that you could not make any choice about whether to take the suitcase.

1. This is not to say that I completely ignore your mental health issues. I give weight to your mental health conditions generally as considerations arising from your troubled childhood and adolescence and/or being in existence at the time of the offending (but not causative of it) - bearing in mind also that I have given full weight to the mitigating effect of Bugmy considerations on your moral culpability and the weight to be given to general deterrence and of the need to avoid double counting these factors.[17]
2. I accept, and the prosecution did not argue otherwise, that your impaired mental functioning will make imprisonment more burdensome for you (Verdins limb 5). In terms of limb 6 of Verdins, Ms Cokorilo opined that there is 'a plausible risk that your mental health may deteriorate over time in custody'. This opinion does not provide the evidentiary basis for enlivening limb 6 in my view as the risk is 'plausible' rather than 'significant' and the risk is posited as only being present in the absence of 'ongoing, targeted therapeutic intervention' in circumstances where there is no evidence this will not occur. Further, your mother indicated that she has noticed an improvement in your mental health in the past nine months.

1. You have spent your time in custody productively completing several personal development courses, alcohol, drug mental health programs and attaining competency in several Kangan Institute subjects. You report that you have been abstinent from drugs in custody and provided a clear urine screen on 11 December 2025. You have no prior convictions, and you have shown you can undertake employment. You have family support and other external supports. Ms Cokorilo assessed your risk of reoffending as low if you do not relapse into substance use, and/or enter drug associated and/or coercive interpersonal relationships.
2. You have protective factors such as your age and your desire to live an offence free life, and you have demonstrated sincere remorse for the offending. In my view your prospects of rehabilitation are very promising but will be highly contingent on you ceasing drug use, not associating with drug affected peers or negative influences and accessing treatment for your mental health issues.

1. I was provided with a schedule of comparative intermediate appellate sentences which are of assistance in illustrating the relevant sentencing principles that apply in sentencing you and in providing a sentencing yardstick bearing in mind that these do not set a numerical limit on the upper and lower limits of the appropriate sentence in a single case, especially as some of the cases did not feature a guilty plea and all but one are significantly lower in terms of the quantity of drugs imported.

1. I have done my best to synthesise the very high objective gravity of your offending with mitigating factors such as your youth, the need to promote your rehabilitation and the effect of Bugmy considerations on your level of moral culpability and the weight to be given to general deterrence.
2. I will now proceed to sentence.
3. On charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
4. I set a non-parole period of four years' imprisonment.
5. I declare pursuant to s18E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), that you have served 400 days in custody (excluding today).
6. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), but for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective head sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years' imprisonment.

[2] Letter from Margaretha Josephsohn, West CASA, undated.

[3] The Queen v Nguyen & Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; (2010) 205 A Crim R 106 [72] adopted in Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen [2011] VSCA 32; (2011) 31 VR 673 at [34].

[4] Tran v The Queen [2021] VSCA 292, Dickinson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 50; R v Jafari [2017] NSWCCA 152.

[5] Markarian v The Queen (2006) 228 CLR 357, [30]-[31].

[6] [2019] NSWCCA 62.

[7] [2019] VSCA 188.

[8] Schedule 2, Item 121, Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth)

[9] Schedule 2, Item 43, Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth)

[10] Lau v R (2011) VSCA 324

[11] The offender is not, for the purposes of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), a "young offender", since he is not under 21 at the time of being sentenced: s 3.

[12] [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43 at 57 [44]. See also DPP (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 at [116]; DPP (Cth) v MHK (a Pseudonym) [2017] VSCA 157; (2017) 52 VR 272 at [56]- [60].

[13] [1999] VSCA 204

[14] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

[15] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.

[16] R v Johnston [2015] NSWSC 31

[17] DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; 290 A Crim R 110