CDPP v Kaab Omeir & Anor [2026] VCC 366

(a) The same charge of importing border controlled drugs contrary to subsections 307.3(1), 311.1(1) and 11.2A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;

(b) One charge of trafficking a controlled drug contrary to subsections 302.4(1) and 311.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment; and

(c) One charge of possess a controlled drug contrary to subsection 308.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) which attracts a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

1. Charge 1, to which both offenders have pleaded guilty, relates to the importation by both them of a consignment of goods from Dubai to Melbourne which arrived in Melbourne on 19 June 2023. The consignment contained 88 small mattresses, within which were secreted black fibrous rubber mats. Twenty-three of those mats were impregnated with the border controlled drugs opium alkaloids and cocaine. The charges brought against both men are on a joint commission basis under s11.2A of the Criminal Code (Cth). That is, the prosecution case is that Saeed and Hamed Kaab Omeir entered into an agreement to commit the importation offence. In these reasons I will refer, without intending any disrespect to Hamed and Saeed, by their first names for ease of comprehension.
2. Charge 2 faced by Saeed relates to trafficking of opium. It is based upon 43.9 grams of opium possessed by him at his house in Lalor. Other evidence relied upon in proof of this charge includes two sets of scales and clip-seal bags found at the residence, and a series of coded calls (which were the subject of lawful interception) between Saeed and others about the purchase and collection of the drug.
3. Charge 3 relates to a small quantity of cocaine found in Saeed's wallet upon his arrest.

1. Saeed was born in Iran in March 1985 and arrived in Australia on 16 September 2012. He is a permanent resident but is not an Australian citizen.
2. Saeed is 40 years old and was aged 38 at the time of the offending.
3. Hamed was born in Iran in July 1981 and is 44 years old. He was aged 41 at the time of the alleged offending. He arrived in Australia on 11 May 2012 and has been an Australian citizen since 2019.
4. At the relevant time Saeed lived in Lalor, Victoria, previously having lived on the Gold Coast in Queensland. Hamed lived in Mernda, Victoria. The men are brothers. Their older brother, Masoud, lived overseas.

1. Due to the way in which the opium alkaloids and cocaine were concealed within the 23 black mats, a precise analysis of the quantity of the border controlled drugs has not been made.
2. By agreement, both offenders concede that the circumstances of the importation have a commercial element attached to it. Both offenders also concede that the quantity of border controlled drugs imported 'was not insignificant'.[2]
3. The company Noreen Furniture Pty Ltd ('Noreen Furniture') had a registered office and principal place of business both of which were listed as Saeed's Lalor address, with Saeed recorded as the company's sole director and secretary. Those details remained extant at the time of the alleged offending. Saeed also held all shares in the company, which shared its name with one of Hamed's daughters, Noreen.

1. On 19 May 2022 Saeed signed a Self-Storage Agreement on behalf of Noreen Furniture to lease a storage unit at Public Self Storage ('PSS') in Epping. On 25 May 2022, Saeed advised PSS that a container would be on site the following day at approximately 10.00 am.
2. Between April and June 2023, prior to their arrest, the brothers engaged in numerous phone calls, text messages and video calls to organise the delivery of the container, payment and delivery to the storage unit. These conversations are not produced here but are set out in detail in the Prosecution Opening for Sentence Indication Hearing.[3]

1. On 18 June 2023, container CAIU3631043 ('the container') was examined by X‑ray imaging at the Australian Border Force Melbourne Container Examination Facility (CEF). As a result the cushions and mattresses were marked for further inspection. The goods were described as 'Arabic Sofa & cushions, handmade barbeque and porcelain ornament'.
2. The seal on the container was removed and it was examined at the CEF. Investigators identified: 10 barbeques and 1 box at the front of the container; several stacks of large cushions immediately behind the barbeques; and 1 black mat.
3. A black mat was removed for further examination and preliminary testing. It appeared to be stiff and with differentiation in colours. The mat insert had been secreted beneath the fabric cover of the foam support in the mattress.
4. The remaining mattresses from the container were scanned, with 24 of them having similar abnormalities to the mattress which was first removed.
5. The seized mats were later forensically examined. The substances impregnated within the fibrous mats were found to comprise codeine, morphine, thebaine and/or cocaine, mixed with caffeine and paracetamol.
6. The container was further examined by AFP members. The black mats were removed and seized. Following the examination the container was repacked and resealed. The seized mats found within the mattresses were replaced with inert substitutes which were covertly marked with fluorescent tracer material.
7. On 27 June 2023 a controlled delivery was planned for the substituted drug consignment to storage unit G29 at PSS. The delivery was part of an authorised Controlled Operation.
8. Saeed's movements throughout the morning were the subject of surveillance by covert operatives.
9. At 11.35 am, after speaking to Saeed a number of times on WhatsApp, Hamed drove his Toyota Hilux to Saeed's house.
10. Between 11.50 am and 12.20 pm, the container was delivered to PSS. At 12.30 pm, it was unloaded near storage unit G29.
11. At 12.46 pm, the two men left Saeed's house and travelled in the Hilux to PSS which they entered at 12.58 pm and drove to the location of the container.

1. Both Hamed and Saeed approached the container and opened its doors. From 1.20 pm, Hamed and Saeed began moving mattresses from the container to storage unit G29 using a trolley. Both brothers had their jumper hoods drawn over their heads while they completed this task.
2. At 2.18 pm, Hamed and Saeed closed the container and walked towards the Hilux. Saeed returned to the unit, while Hamed moved the vehicle and also returned to the unit.
3. From 2.33 pm, both brothers were inside unit G29 intermittingly moving the black mats and mattresses inside it. They walked in and out of sight within the unit, appearing to inspect and move the black mats and mattresses around.

1. Charge 2 is based upon a quantity of opium found at Saeed's house in Lalor. The drugs were found and seized when a search warrant was executed at the address on 27 June 2023.

1. During the execution of a search warrant of the Toyota Hilux vehicle (registered to Hamed), AFP members found Saeed's wallet. It contained two small, clear plastic, clip-seal bags containing white powder. There was also a small tube with white powder residue. Saeed later made admissions that it was cocaine from the other night when he had been out with the 'boys'. He said they were at a nightclub, that it came from a party on Saturday night, and it was given to him by friends. The powder was later analysed and identified as 0.2 grams of pure cocaine.

Arrest, searches and interview of each offender:

1. On 27 June 2023, from approximately 3.40 pm onwards, AFP members executed warrants at:

(a) a Storage unit at PSS;

(b) the Shipping container;

(c) the Hilux;

(d) the Lalor address (Saeed's home);

(e) a Chrysler vehicle (Saeed's car);

(f) the Surfers Paradise address (owned by Saeed);

(g) the Mernda address (Hamed's home); and

(h) a Range Rover vehicle (Hamed's car).

1. Saeed was arrested and cautioned at the PSS. He was found with a blue iPhone Pro 12 in his possession.
2. Saeed and Hamed were taken to AFP headquarters and photographs were taken of their hands and clothing using a forensic light source. Green fluorescence was identified consistent with the fluorescent tracer material used on the consignment.
3. Hamed was interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter. He stated that:

(a) He returned overseas to visit his parents around September or October 2022. They met in Dubai.

(b) His phone number was a number ending in 001. He has no other phones or numbers.

(c) He did not know anything about the consignment that arrived at PSS. He did not see anything in the container and did not know exactly what it was. He denied handling anything inside the container, stating that he did not take anything.

(d) He did not know anything about Noreen Furniture.

(e) Saeed had called him and told him that he was not feeling well, so Hamed went with the car and took Saeed out.

(f) He did not know whose name the storage unit was booked in. His brother had not spoken to him about it.

(g) He later denied stating his brother was not well and he just went there. He did not know where his brother went or what he did because he (Hamed) had drank alcohol.

(h) After going to his brother's house earlier that day, they just went out. They did not go anywhere in particular. They drove to the storage facility but he was not really noticing much. He did not know how long they were there. He denied saying he went inside and said he did not know about the matter.

(i) When asked about the September 2022 consignment, he said he was overseas at the time. He denied ever having ordered or imported water heaters.

(j) The barbeques at his house were bought at a local market.

(k) He denied ever importing anything from overseas.

(l) He was asked about the March 2023 consignment and denied receiving anything.

(m) In reference to the gold jewellery at his house, he said it was part of their culture to buy gold as gifts. The majority of the time it was purchased overseas.

(n) He did not know how there was fluorescent powder on his hands.

(o) He was just there to give a hand, to help. He had no idea of anything there. There were so many other people there. It was not anything relating to him.

(p) He denied working for his brother. He helped with odd jobs, but not with his work.

(q) He denied knowing there were drugs in the container and said he just went out to go shopping for his wife and children.

1. The police examined a number of devices belonging to Saeed and found evidence of his involvement in the importation.
2. Final information was obtained from the ATO which revealed that Noreen Furniture did not lodge tax returns for the financial years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024.

1. The charges for which Hamed and Saeed are to be sentenced are federal offences.
2. Section 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ('Crimes Act') provides that:

In determining the sentence to be passed, or the order to be made, in respect of any person for a federal offence, a court must impose a sentence, or make an order, that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.

3. In making this determination, s16A(2) requires the Court to take into account a broad range of matters, including but not limited to:

(a) The nature and circumstances of the offence;

(f) The degree to which the person has shown contrition for the offence;

(g) If the person has pleaded guilty to the charge;

(m) The character of the offender, including their mental and physical condition;

(n) The offender's prospects of rehabilitation; and

(p) The probable effect of the sentence on the offender's family

1. The legislature has not prescribed a hierarchy of sentencing considerations. All of the matters set out in sub-section (2) must be considered by the court to the extent that they are 'known to the court'.[4] I will address each in turn.

Section 16A(2)(a) - Nature and Circumstances of the Offence

1. Importing border controlled drugs is a serious criminal offence, as is trafficking. The importation offence here is a serious example as it was quite sophisticated, involved considerable planning and execution, and involved what has been agreed to be a not inconsiderable quantity of drugs.
2. The trafficking charge faced by Saeed is towards the lower end of the range for such offending, having regard principally to the quantity involved and the fact that it is charged as single day trafficking.

Section 16A(2)(f) - Contrition or remorse

1. In the case of Day (a pseudonym) v The Queen, the Court of Appeal explained that:

In the context of sentencing, remorse involves an offender: accepting that the criminal conduct for which he or she is being sentenced took place; evidencing genuine penitence and contrition for committing that conduct and causing harm to the victims of the offending; and evidencing a desire to atone.[5]

2. The pleas of guilty entered in this court by Hamed and Saeed reflect remorse in the sense that they have each accepted their responsibility for the criminal conduct for which they are to be sentenced. However, beyond the pleas, neither Hamed nor Saeed appear to have evidenced a genuine penitence and contrition for committing the conduct. These are important considerations to be had when assessing the existence of remorse as discussed in the case of Day.
3. The references provided to the court display a degree of remorse by virtue of an acknowledgement of the impact of the offending on family and in particular a recognition of the subsequent impacts, in particular on Hamed's carer responsibilities. Despite this, there remains no apparent appreciation of the impact of the offending on the victims of the drug trade, nor a desire to atone.
4. On balance I accept that both Hamed and Saeed have expressed limited remorse for the offending.

Section 16A(2)(g) - Plea of Guilty

1. In applying s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act, a court will have regard to the timing of the plea, the strength of the prosecution case and 'whether the plea at a late stage was a recognition of the inevitable rather than evidence of contrition or a real willingness to facilitate the course of justice'.[6]
2. Hamed, your plea of guilty was entered after you sought a sentence indication from the Court as is your right. Your plea is indicative of a preparedness to accept responsibility and as noted, is some evidence of remorse.
3. It is important to recognise that your guilty plea has a significant utilitarian value as it saves the community the resources associated with your trial. It also saves witnesses the anxiety and inconvenience of giving evidence. In cases such as this, that is no small matter. The prosecution of large scale drug importation and trafficking cases is notoriously complex and very expensive. Such cases take up vast amounts of court time causing delays in the finalisation of other cases.
4. Hamed, you are therefore entitled to a significant sentencing discount to reflect these savings.
5. Saeed, your plea of guilty was entered on the first day of the trial for the offences to which this sentence relates. Like Hamed, your plea of guilty is indicative of a preparedness to accept responsibility for your conduct and evidences some remorse.
6. By entering a plea of guilty even at the commencement of the trial, you have saved the community the resources associated with the trial.
7. You are therefore also entitled to an appreciable sentencing discount to reflect the utility in these savings.

Section 16A(2)(m) - Character, antecedents, cultural background, means and physical or mental condition of the offender

1. Hamed, you were born in Iran in July 1981 and are 44 years old. At the time of the offending you were 41. You arrived in Australia on 11 May 2012 and have been an Australian citizen since 2019.
2. At the time of the offending you were living at Mernda. At that residence you lived with your wife, Kefayat Kaab Omeir; your 21-year-old son, Hussain; your

18-year-old son, Hassan; your 14-year-old daughter, Narges; and your 6-year-old daughter, Noreen. 3. As will be discussed further under the heading 'family hardship', Hamed, you were not employed at the time of offending and acted as the carer for your wife. 4. Saeed, you were born in Iran in March 1985 and are 40 years of age. At the time of the offending you were 38. You arrived in Australia on 16 September 2012. 5. Your primary residence is at the Lalor property. Your long-distance girlfriend at the time of the offending, Chelsea Leathem resided at your former address in Surfers Paradise. 6. The two of you are brothers, and as noted your older brother, Masoud, lived overseas.

1. Both of you come from an Iranian Arab family and are practising Sunni Moslems. Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iranian Arabs such as yourselves have faced religious persecution. As a result of this religious persecution, you both fled Iran.
2. Hamed, you arrived at Christmas Island by boat and spent one month in Immigration Detention there. You then spent a further month in detention in Adelaide, after which time you moved to Melbourne in August of 2012. You are, as noted, an Australian Citizen.
3. Saeed, you fled Iran in 2012 and arrived in Australia under the assistance of a protection visa, followed later by a bridging visa. You are a permanent resident but are not an Australian citizen.
4. In accordance with the operation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(3A), it is expected that Saeed will be deported from Australia upon the completion of your sentence if the total effective sentence is of a duration of more than one year.
5. It is well established that this risk of deportation is relevant to sentencing in two ways:

(a) The uncertainty about deportation will make serving a term of imprisonment more onerous; and

(b) In an appropriate case, it is relevant to take into account that the offender will lose the opportunity to settle permanently in Australia.[7]

1. As a matter of principle, it is erroneous to artificially lower a sentence to avoid the consequences of the Migration Act.[8]
2. As noted, Saeed fled Iran and came to Australia in 2012. There is no suggestion before the court that this was done to commit criminal offences in this country. Saeed has clearly sought to build a life in Australia.
3. I accept the risk of deportation must be taken into account in mitigation of sentence.

1. According to a diagnosis provided in a report by Sandra Cokorilo, Saeed suffers from Generalised Anxiety Disorder and a Persistent Depressive Disorder, with recurrent episodes of Major Depressive Disorder.[9] Further to this, Ms Cokorilo identified that at the time of the offending he was also suffering from Opioid Use Disorder.
2. Mr Chernok, who appeared for Saeed, contended that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins are applicable. He relied on the report of Ms Cokorilo. I accept that her unchallenged opinion[10] provides some support for the propositions that:

(a) The custodial setting will be more onerous for Saeed than would be the case for a person without his conditions; and

(b) It is likely that his condition will worsen in custody.

1. Saeed is therefore entitled to a modest discount on sentence.
2. Hamed suffers from physical ill-health. A letter from Dr Yousif, his treating doctor, explains that Hamed suffers from Insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus which means he needs eight insulin injections per day. He also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome.
3. These conditions will undoubtedly make his time in custody more difficult than it would otherwise be. I have taken this into account in setting both the head sentence and the release period.

Section 16A(2)(n) - Prospects of rehabilitation

1. Neither offender has any prior criminal history. Both have stable family lives and steady employment.
2. As against this, they have jointly engaged in a relatively sophisticated drug importation enterprise for financial gain.
3. In relation to Saeed, I accept the opinion of Ms Cokorilo that, despite his offending, the presence of a number of protective factors mean that his prospects of rehabilitation are good.[11]
4. In particular, I have read each of the character references provided to the court concerning Saeed's concern for his friends, family and community.
5. For essentially the same reasons, Hamed's prospects of rehabilitation are also good.

1. The court must have regard to the 'probable effect that any sentence ...would have on any of the offenders' family or dependants'. In contrast to the position under Victorian law,[12] there is no requirement for 'exceptional circumstances' to be made out in the application of paragraph (p).[13]
2. The prosecution submitted that decisions of intermediate appellate courts[14] have, 'in general terms' described family hardship as 'an issue of minor significance' and a matter that might warrant 'some weight' 'at the very best modest''.[15]
3. I do not accept this broad submission. The cases cited are best understood by reference to the evidence of hardship presented to the courts in those cases. In Rodgerson, the evidence was weak.[16] In Mohamed, the court explained that hardship was given little weight again on the basis of the evidence before the court.[17]
4. I accept the defence submission that family hardship, like any matter of mitigation, is to be accorded the appropriate weight in the sentencing synthesis that the evidence demands - no more and no less.
5. It is therefore necessary to examine the evidence before the court.
6. The court received an affidavit from Mrs Kefayat Kaabe sworn on 2 November 2025.[18] She was not cross examined.
7. Mrs Kaabe is the wife of Hamed and is 43 years old. The two were married in Iran in 2000 and have four children as noted.
8. The evidence before the court is that Hamed is the primary carer of his unwell wife. who has been diagnosed with a Generalised Anxiety Disorder, for which she is currently taking medication. The medication relieves her symptoms but also has a disabling effect which has meant that Hamed has taken responsibility for household and care duties. The children are able to provide their mother with only limited assistance.
9. Mrs Kaabe has made enquiries about external assistance but has not had a positive response. She is distressed at how she will cope in the event that Hamed is incarcerated.
10. The court recognises the distress and hardship that may result to Hamed's wife and children without him being there to provide the necessary care and support to them.
11. There is also some support for the submission in the form of a letter to the court dated 30 October 2025 from Mrs Kaabe's treating doctor, Dr Asadi. Dr Asadi relates the assistance that he understands is presently provided to Mrs Kaabe by her husband. It is clear to the court that his incarceration will place considerable strain on the family.
12. This evidence, which as noted was not challenged by the prosecution, is not weak and, in my view, establishes a fairly compelling case for mitigation of Hamed's sentence under paragraph (p).
13. In accordance with the relevant authorities,[19] I have taken these matters into account by imposing a lower head sentence and release period than would otherwise be the case.
14. Saeed also seeks to rely on family hardship in mitigation of sentence. The evidence in his case is considerably less compelling. In a letter to the court dated 26 November 2025, his 35-year-old wife Yola El-hassanieh, explains that she is undergoing IVF treatment and is understandably reliant on Saeed for emotional and financial support. However, she explains that she works full time and is otherwise not suffering any ill-health. It is not the case that Saeed is her 'carer' in any sense. Rather, he provides the typical support that might be expected of a spouse. This then falls into the category of the inevitable result of a person being imprisoned.
15. There is one final matter of mitigation to which reference must be made. On 28 February 2026, the State of Israel and the United States of America began joint air attacks on Iran. The bombing, which has been very extensive, continues to this day and there is no end in sight. Many Iranians have been killed as a result and the death toll includes civilians. The parents of Hamed and Saeed live in Iran. The court has been informed that Saeed has lost contact with his parents. He is understandably very concerned about their safety, as is his brother Hamed. I accept that this will add considerably to the stress of their time in custody and I have moderated their sentences accordingly.

1. Consistency in Commonwealth cases is important. Like cases must be treated alike; different cases are to be treated differently.
2. Counsel for Hamed referred the court to several cases, McMurray and Edge and Vestic.
3. In McMurray v R,[20] a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with release on an recognisance release order after six months after a plea of guilty to a charge of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug was described by the Court of Appeal as 'somewhat modest'.[21]
4. In DPP v Edge,[22] a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment with release after six months on an recognisance release order after a guilty plea to a charge of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug was characterised as lenient but not manifestly so.[23]
5. Finally, in CDPP v Vestic,[24] a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with release after six months was found on appeal to be manifestly inadequate. The offender had pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug.
6. The prosecution also referred the court to a table of cases, some of which involved appeals against sentences imposed under s 307.3 of the Code.[25] On appeal, the sentences imposed ranged from imprisonment for 18 months to three years.
7. I have been assisted by a consideration of these cases but, as is well understood, all cases are different and must be sentenced based on their own facts and circumstances.

1. It is trite that general deterrence is the principal sentencing consideration in cases involving drug importation and trafficking. In this case, specific deterrence is a lesser consideration in light of the lack of any prior offending and the acceptance by the offenders of responsibility for their crimes.
2. The courts have often remarked that the sentencing regimes applicable to drug importation and trafficking are quantity-based. That is, all else being equal the quantity of the drugs involved will be highly relevant, but not necessarily determinative.[26] A court must also consider the sophistication of the importation, the motivation of those involved and their place in the relevant business hierarchy.
3. As noted earlier there is simply no information about quantity before the court. It is for this reason that the importation charges faced by both offenders are brought under s 307.3(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment is considerably lower than would be the case if the charges was under either s 307.1 or s 307.2 of the Code.
4. Despite this, it is apparent that there was a degree of sophistication associated with the importation, it was engaged in for financial gain and the offenders before the court were senior operatives in the enterprise. For these reasons, the offending is properly characterised as towards the mid-range of offending of this type.
5. The trafficking charge to which Saeed has pleaded guilty is a relatively low level example of the offence. The quantity of Opium trafficked, 43.9 grams, is well below the marketable quantity threshold of 2,000 grams.
6. Finally, the possession charge is a very low level example of that offence.

1. In any case where co-offenders are being sentenced it is necessary to have regard to the parity principle.
2. That principle was recently summarised by Priest and Kaye JJA in Idrizi v The King:

The basis and content of the principle of parity in sentencing have been well established since the decisions of the High Court in Lowe v The Queen and Postiglione v The Queen. The principle is based on the proposition that equal justice requires that, all things being equal, like co‑offenders should be treated equally, subject to the qualification that relevant differences between the culpability of the offenders, and matters personal to them, be properly accommodated in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.[27]

1. In the present case, while both offenders are to be sentenced for the importation offence, and their respective roles in that offending were for all practical purposes identical, there are three significant differences between the two offenders that are relevant to the application of the parity principle:

(a) Saeed is to be sentenced for two additional indictable offences;

(b) Hamid has a family hardship argument; and

(c) Saeed faces the prospect of deportation.

1. As is often the case with sentencing, these differences pull in opposite directions.
2. Ultimately, I have imposed a moderately higher total effective sentence on Saeed as a result of my synthesis of the relevant considerations. The outcome reflects my view about the application of the parity principle in this case.

1. The prosecution submitted that only an immediate term of imprisonment will meet the relevant sentencing considerations for both offenders. It further submitted that whether the minimum term is set by way of recognisance release order or by a non‑parole period is 'a matter for the Court'.[28]
2. Hamed's lawyers submitted that a term of imprisonment of less than three years with conditional release is the appropriate outcome. Saeed's lawyers made a similar submission.
3. I can only pass a sentence of imprisonment if, having considered all other available sentences, I am satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. The reasons for this are that the objective gravity of the offending by both offenders is such that, even giving full weight to all matters of mitigation, only a term of imprisonment to be actually served meets all of the relevant sentencing considerations and is 'appropriate' within the meaning of s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914.
4. In all the circumstances, as recognised by both defence counsel, I have no alternative but to impose a term of imprisonment.
5. I accept that, in each case, a sentence of less than three years is adequate. Each offender will be eligible for conditional release under a recognisance release order.

1. For the offence of importing border controlled drugs contrary to subsections 307.3(1), 311.1(1) and 11.2A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) you are convicted and sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment
2. That sentence commences today.
3. The total effective sentence is two years and four months. I make an order under s 20(1)(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act that you be released after serving 10 months upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year.
4. I need to explain some of the features of this Order to you, and I am sure your lawyers will explain it further.

(i) Firstly, it will be open to you to apply to this court to vary the terms of the order if any of the conditions I have imposed have become particularly difficult to comply with. The court will consider the request in the relevant circumstances.

(ii) If you fail to comply with any condition of the order without reasonable excuse, you can be brought back to this court and a judge of this court can:

• fine you up to $1,000;
• increase the period that are required to be of good behaviour;
• revoke the order; or
• resentence you in relation to the original offending, that is require you to serve out the entire head sentence of imprisonment of two years and four months.

1. Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare the 53 days of Pre Sentence Detention you have served be reckoned as time served in relation to the sentence I impose today.
2. Finally, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), had you pleaded not guilty to the charge, I would have sentenced you to three years and four months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

1. For the offence of importing border controlled drugs contrary to subsections 307.3(1), 311.1(1) and 11.2A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) you are convicted and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment. That sentence commences today.
2. For the offence of trafficking a controlled drug contrary to subsections 302.4(1) and 311.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) you are convicted and sentenced to one year's' imprisonment commencing on 12 December 2027.
3. For the offence of possessing a controlled drug contrary to subsection 308.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), you are convicted and fined $500.
4. The total effective sentence is imprisonment for two years and nine months.
5. I make an order under s 20(1)(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act that you be released after serving 12 months upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year.
6. The explanation I have provided to your brother I will not repeat, but serious consequences can flow if you do not comply with the conditions after your release.
7. Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare the 65 days of Pre Sentence Detention you have served be reckoned as time served in relation to the sentence I impose today.
8. Finally, had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty by a jury, the sentence would have been four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months.

[1] Without intending any disrespect, and for ease of comprehension, I will refer in these reason to the offenders by their first names.

[2] Prosecution Submissions on Sentence dated 5 November 2025, 5 [19 ('Prosecution Submissions')].

[4] Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75, [83] ('Totaan').

[5] [2022] VSCA 73, 10 [37].

[6] R v SC [2008] NSWCCA 29, [48].

[7] Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196; (2010) 28 VR 288, 295 [27]; Tuarae v The King [2023] VSCA 303, [79].

[8] Loftus v The King [2019] VSCA 24, [81].

[9] Psychological report authored by Sandra Cokorilo, dated 27 December 2025, [55].

[12] Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105.

[13] Totaan (n 4); Rodgerson (No 2) [2022] VSCA 154, 15 [73].

[14] The cases relied upon are Mohamed v The King [2022] VSCA 136 at [94] and Rogerson [No 2] [2022] VSCA 154 at [86]- [92].

[15] Prosecution Submissions (n 2) [48], emphasis in the original.

[18] Exhibit D1 - Affidavit from Kefayet Kaab, the wife of the accused dated 2 November 2025, [91].

[20] [2024] VSCA 276.

[22] [2012] VSCA 289

[24] [2008] VSCA 12

[25] Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 156; DPP v Coory [2011] VSCA 316; R v Bonham [2014] QCA 140

[26] See generally Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen [2011] VSCA 32; (2011) 31 VR 673 at [34].

[27] [2025] VSCA 286, [138]

[28] Prosecution Submissions (n 3) [63].