CDPP v Lee [2025] VCC 1061

WillyWonka: Yeah, fucken oath it is, but it would sit there until docs sorted. Even if legit same issues. I'm just hoping they don't look into it.

WillyWonka: Yeah, bad, what doubts you got? Have they got back to you about documentation?

LEE: Yeah, broker will get it ready Monday. I am positive but have doubt.

1. On 1 October 2019, the consignment was moved from the Qantas depot at Melbourne Airport to the Container X-Ray Facility in West Melbourne for further examination. The packing crate contained one large stainless steel refrigeration unit that had been wrapped in clear cling-film. The X-ray detected anomalies.
2. A total of 53 concealed packages, wrapped in carbon paper and lead, of various sizes and weight, were removed from the consignment. Each package contained a quantity of crystalline material which was methamphetamine. The total amount of the methylamphetamine in weight 57.57 kilograms with a pure weight of 46.21 kilograms.
3. On 1 October 2019, you sent an email to Clarke Global freight using the whitegoodsvic@outlook.com address and the name 'Josh Tims', and you said: 'I am interstate at the moment. Please call 0432784800. Don't pick up straight away, please leave a message as I might be with the kids'.
4. From 3 October 2019, acting under a Controlled Operation Authority issued by the AFP, Qantas Freight staff communicated with you, sending emails to 'Josh Tims' and using whitegoodsvic@outlook.com .
5. On 3 October 2019, Susie Phillip at Qantas contacted the consignee contact number to notify them of the arrival of the consignment. The recipient of the call said they did not know anything about the shipment.
6. At 2.08 pm on 4 October 2019, you took a photograph of a computer screen displaying Google search results: 'White Goods Direct, 9 Dunstan Court, Thomastown' with a contact number, and that property is next door to the consignment address 'Dunstan Court, No 11'. As I follow it, that is the address of Kids Off The Kerb.
7. At 2.21 pm, the same day, using the name 'Josh Tims' and the email address whitegoodsvic@outlook.com, you sent an email to Clarke Global. Attached to the email was a photograph of a computer screen displaying a letter of authority dated 2 October which authorised Clarke Global to act in relation to the consignment.
8. On 4 October 2019, Rebecca Borg, operations manager at Qantas, emailed whitegoodsvic@outlook.com indicating that Qantas had not heard from the company regarding the consignment and that storage fees were accumulating daily and requested the company contact Qantas to arrange collection.
9. At 12.30 pm on 4 October 2019, 'Josh Tims' emailed Rebecca Borg stating that he was under the impression that their broker would contact Qantas and provide the contact details of Clarke Global Logistics. At 2.42 pm on 4 October 2019, Clarke Global emailed 'Josh Tims' and said that Clarke Global could not clear the shipment as 'the letter of authority does not match the document'.
10. On 7 October 2019 at 10.46 am, Rebecca Borg contacted Clarke Global indicating that Qantas understood Clarke Global was the authorised freight forwarder to handle the consignment but customs clearances and letters of authority for the freight had been received and that storage fees were accumulating.
11. At 11.05 am on that same day, 7 October 2019, Rebecca Borg indicated that they were unable to clear the shipment because 'we do not have a valid LOA for the consignee'. 'Josh Tims' was included as a CC on that email.
12. Then at 2.51 pm on 7 October, Clarke Global emailed Rebecca Borg indicating the consignee will use their own broker to clear the shipment and that Clarke Global would not be involved. Again, 'Josh Tims' was CC'd on that email.
13. Then at 3.56 pm, Rebecca Borg emailed whitegoodsvic@outlook.com indicating they had been told Clarke Global was no longer acting and asking how the company would like to continue.
14. Between August and October 2019, Kids Off The Kerb received a phone call from a male saying there was a parcel for them to collect. They decided not to go and collect it as it was not for them.
15. Rebecca Borg telephoned Kids Off The Kerb because it was their number on the consignment. She spoke to a staff member, Chloe Forbes, who said the consignment was not for them, especially as it was from Mexico, the email address had nothing to do with them, and they would not order an ice cream machine.
16. Then on 9 October 2019, Rebecca Borg emailed a Manuel Carrillo, who was the contact listed sender on the consignment in Mexico, indicating that contact had been made with the consignee but there had been no further information relating to collection of the consignment since 4 October 2019. Borg again indicated that storage fees were accumulating and sought information in respect of collecting the consignment.
17. It was after this that you met up with Mr Josifidis at the Doncaster Shoppingtown on 10 October 2019. You had a business relationship with him. You had supplied administrative services to him when he was establishing a furniture importation business.
18. During that meeting a Customs broker, David Zahorodni, at 20Cubes Logistics was contacted. The caller said he was looking for a broker because his old broker would not do a clearance.
19. Then on 11 October 2019, Zahorodni received an email from 'Josh Tims' using whitegoodsvic email address which said:

'Thanks for taking my call yesterday, this is the goods we need clear. We didn't have a good run with our last broker. Can you help us fix this shipment please? Please let me know any information you need. Regards, Josh.'

1. A freight arrival notification was forwarded.
2. Then later, on 11 October 2019, 'Josh Tims' using whitegoodsvic@outlook.com sent Zahorodni another email attaching paperwork for the shipment which included a person named Estefania Gutierrez, who was CC'd, and then Zahorodni received an email from Gutierrez advising that she was the seller's forwarder and asking if there was any information needed.
3. On 14 October Zahorodni emailed 'Josh' to inform him that 20Cube could not do the clearance for the shipment.
4. Zahorodni had previously advised Josifidis on how to construct a letter of authority for 20Cube to act on his behalf.
5. Then, on 16 October, 'Josh Tims' emailed Rebecca Borg asking whether their new broker had contacted Qantas about the shipment. Rebecca Borg replied that there had been no contact and again asked 'Josh Tims' to advise who would be clearing the goods and when.
6. On 21 October 2019, Rebecca Borg emailed whitegoodsvic@outlook.com reiterating that storage fees were accruing in addition to terminal and documentation fees and that Qantas may take action to dispose of the goods.
7. On 21 October 2019, 'Josh Tims', using whitegoodsvic@outlook.com, requested that freight forwarder United Freight Solutions act in relation to the consignment.
8. On 23 October 2019 you contacted Josifidis and you arranged to meet him on 28 October. On 23 October, you also accessed the website for White Goods Direct.
9. You also made some relevant searches of ABNs for AR Appliances Direct, Excelnetwork, Appliance Testing Supplies and White Goods Recyclers.
10. On the same day, 'Josh Tims' from whitegoodsvic@outlook.com sent an email to United Freight Solutions, attaching three photographs of a computer screen displaying a letter of authority dated 22 October 2019 for UFS to act in respect of the consignment. The letter of authority bore a letterhead with the following details: White Goods Recyclers, 9-11 Dunstans Court, Thomastown, and then a phone number.
11. The letter of authority detailed the same company details that had been sent to Clarke Global, except there was an alteration on it.
12. On 25 October 2019, your involvement in the attempted importation ceased because you were arrested for unrelated alleged offending in Perth.
13. The AFP have been unable to locate any individual by the name of 'Josh Tims'.
14. The remaining efforts to clear the consignment were taken up by Mr Josifidis and then Mr Maneiri, who you never met. Their efforts are described in the sentencing remarks relating to those two.
15. It is not alleged that you recruited Mr Josifidis into this venture.

1. On 7 April 2020, the AFP executed search warrants at your home address and at your parents' address.
2. Examination of your Apple iPhone containing a SIM card for the relevant phone number and Apple backups located on your laptop revealed relevant messages between you and Josifidis, photographs of MoneyGram and Western Union transfer receipts for the transactions you arranged in Mexico, photographs of passport biometric pages of nominated recipients of the MoneyGram transfer, screenshots of text conversations with Mayur Shah regarding bringing cash to Mexico, screenshots of text conversations with a Mexican telephone number arranging for the transfer of US$30,000.
3. The phone analysis revealed relevant internet browser cookies and internet searches that are set out in the prosecution opening.
4. Your counsel at the plea submitted that I should not infer that your activities in Mexico were related to the importation of the consignment containing the methylamphetamine. The defence take issue with the prosecution submission that in Mexico you entered into an agreement with others to import the consignment into Australia from Mexico. Your counsel submitted, based on your instructions, that in Mexico you received money from associates which you gave to a man named Nicholas Walsh to organise the collection of mobile phones. Your counsel also referred to your business in money transfers. You deny that all of that money related to the importation of drugs.
5. Your counsel submitted in Mexico you were earning money by assisting people overseas to access money and property in Australia and that you gave money to Mr Thakur and Mr Shah for that purpose and that your communications with Mr Thakur about the money did not involve discussions relating to the drug importation. Your counsel submitted that there had been evidence on your phone corroborating this account but all data was destroyed by a police officer in this matter when he performed a factory reset on the device.
6. Further, your counsel submitted that even if I am satisfied that you formed an intention in Mexico to import the drugs, I cannot infer that what is set out in the prosecution opening related to the importation, and that the only matters I can be satisfied about beyond reasonable doubt are that you were present in Mexico for a period prior to the consignment leaving Mexico, and that between 12 and 21 June you received $5,000 in an electric transfer from Mr Shah, and $30,000 in cash when Mr Shah arrived in Mexico.
7. It was further submitted that I cannot infer what type of 'logistics' you may have been involved in in Mexico or what arrangements you made in relation to the consignment.
8. In my opinion, the inference that your activities in Mexico were related to the importation of the consignment is irresistible in the absence of some evidential basis for some other inference, and there is no such evidence. There is no evidence you were involved in the distribution of phones.
9. Furthermore, when you pleaded guilty to these offences on previous occasions, it was based on a charge period that covers your activities in Mexico and a prosecution opening that sets out those actions in detail.
10. Having regard to the sums of money involved and the directions you gave to Mr Thakur and Mr Shah, and the various statements you made about the gravity of what you were involved in, I am well satisfied that you were organising these amounts of cash to facilitate the importation of methylamphetamine into Australia. This is supported by the fact that when you returned to Australia you made considerable efforts which I have set out in detail in trying to facilitate the release of the consignment.
11. In sentencing you for a Commonwealth offence, I must have regard to s16A(2) of the Crimes Act, which sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account in sentencing.

1. The procedural history in this matter is complicated. You first pleaded guilty on 20 March 2023 to the charge on the indictment, and then you again pleaded guilty to an amended indictment that is in the same form as it is now, later that year - or perhaps earlier the following year. Your guilty plea was entered after I gave the sentence indication that I would not exceed a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment and that I would impose a non-parole period of around 10 years, depending on the mitigatory factors. Subsequently, you sought to change your plea and the chronology of hearings that followed is set out in my ruling of 3 April 2025 where I refused your change of plea application.
2. The utilitarian value of your plea is reduced because you sought to withdraw your plea, and that process occupied many hearing days before it was resolved, and it was drawn out over a lengthy period. The original plea at the sentencing indication hearing came within just a few months of the fixed trial date, so even that was not an early plea.
3. Nonetheless, there remains utilitarian value in your guilty plea. You spared the court, the prosecution and the police the use of the resources which would have been required for a trial in this matter, and you spared all the witnesses the inconvenience of having to give evidence at a trial proceeding. There remains utilitarian value in your plea, and I have taken that into account.
4. I am not satisfied your plea indicates remorse. You still deny substantial parts of the offending in this case, that is clear from the application to withdraw your plea and the other material that has been filed in this case.

1. The offence of attempting to import a border-controlled drug carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is, therefore, an offence regarded by Parliament as of the utmost seriousness.
2. The sentencing principles relating to such drug offences under the Criminal Code (Cth), are well established. General deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration. The courts must signal to would-be drug importers that severe punishment will follow if they are convicted of being involved in the importation of significant quantities of drugs.
3. Factors personal to an offender have less weight because of the need for general deterrence. Section 16A(2) also refers to the need for adequate punishment and personal deterrence. Both of those sentencing principles are of importance in this case as well.
4. The role played by an offender is a key factor in assessing the objective criminality of the offence. The quantity of the drug imported is highly relevant and has increased significance when the offender is aware of the quantity of drugs imported. The amount of methylamphetamine contained within the consignment in this case was very large and very valuable - 46.21 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine is over 61.5 times the commercial quantity threshold of 750 grams.
5. In my opinion, given the time you invested in this matter, the statements you made to Mr Thakur and Mr Shah, and the money involved, you understood that what was being sent to Australia was a very substantial quantity of drugs.
6. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, it should be inferred that a person importing drugs is doing so for profit. Your counsel submitted there is no evidence on which I could find that you personally benefited from the importation. This may be so, but in accordance with the authorities, I infer that your motivation for the offending was to make a substantial profit. That is obvious from the scale of the importation involved in this matter and the other factors, such as the time you put into it and the amounts of money that were involved in Mexico, as I have detailed.
7. However, due to your arrest and replacement, it is unlikely you received any significant benefit for the offending.
8. I accept the submission you were not the controlling mind behind the importation and that your involvement was with a syndicate. This is evidenced by your replacement once you had been arrested and Josifidis' ongoing communications with those in Mexico involved in the importation.
9. The prosecution submitted that your role was more significant than that of Mr Josifidis and Mr Mainieri because you were central to the importation of the drugs in the initial stages. The prosecution submitted, and I accept, that you agreed with others who were part of a syndicate to become involved in undertaking the importation of drugs into Australia. You provided the syndicate with the name and delivery address details for the consignment. You asked for contacts in Melbourne to transfer you large amounts of money which I have found were related to the importation. You also arranged and paid for Mr Shah's airfares to Mexico.
10. When you returned to Australia, you continued to be involved in the importation in relation to the attempts to have the consignment cleared through Customs. Those actions are set out in the prosecution summary and in the written sentencing submissions.
11. Your involvement in this offending only ended because you were arrested for unrelated offending and you were no longer a viable person to be involved in clearing the consignment.
12. Josifidis and Mainieri each pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to import.
13. On 14 February 2024, I sentenced them as follows:

(a) Mr Josifidis: 11 years and 8 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years and four months.

(b) Mr Mainieri: nine years and eight months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and eight months.

1. Your counsel submitted that the role played by Mr Josifidis was no less significant than yours. Your counsel submitted that he had regular contact with people in Mexico and received money from people in Mexico, whereas you did not. She submitted that Mr Josifidis recruited Mr Mainieri, whereas you did not recruit anyone. Mr Josifidis assisted you to connect to a Customs broker and he had importation experience. Moreover, he was controlling the efforts to have the consignment cleared through Customs, on her submission, whereas you were not.
2. In my opinion and based on my findings regarding your activities in Mexico, and because you were initially involved in clearing the consignment into Australia, you performed a significantly more important role in this importation than did Mr Josifidis. As I have said, the only reason he took over control of clearing the consignment was because of your arrest. In those circumstances, based on your participation in Mexico and then in Australia, a more substantial sentence than either Mr Josifidis or Mr Mainieri is justified and necessary.
3. The sentence indication that I gave of 14 years' imprisonment is a longer period than the sentences imposed on Josifidis and Mainieri, and in giving you that indication I took into account your more substantial role in the importation. In my opinion, nothing has changed since then in respect of the assessment of your role.

1. You are now 46 years old. You were 40 years old at the time of the offending.
2. Your personal circumstances are outlined in the defence written submissions and the psychological tendered from Dr Mathew Barth.
3. You were born in Taiwan. You were the youngest of three children. You came to Australia with your family when you were 10 years old. You lived in North Balwyn.
4. You describe your childhood as 'mixed' and you often felt isolated when your parents worked long hours at their textile factory. You were regularly looked after by your grandparents in Taiwan and then by your older brother in Australia.
5. Your relationship with your father was distant but you have a close relationship with your mother and your sister.
6. You completed your early education in Taiwan and adjusted slowly to school in Australia, due to your limited English. You had below average grades in secondary school but finished Year 12 with high marks. The material indicates you then enrolled in a Bachelor of Commerce and Law at Melbourne University and then swapped to engineering /law, but you did not complete any of these degrees. You say you struggled with concentration.
7. You met your wife, Lina Okada, at university and you and she were together for 20 years. She is a dentist. You share two children with her, Chloe and Tristan. You and your wife separated in the period after the sentence indication in 2023. You now have only limited contact with your two young children. These interpersonal issues are causing you significant distress.
8. You have worked in various industries, including finance and property, across Australia. You told Dr Barth you had a constant need to move onto something else. You claim these business ventures were financially lucrative, despite declaring bankruptcy in 2017, which you said was 'strategic'. At the time of your offendin,g you were apparently working with wealthy Chinese investors to purchase property in Australia and assist them with immigration into Australia. You say that you did business with some shady people and you specialised in money transfers.
9. You recently commenced studying sociology at Griffith University via correspondence.
10. You have completed courses in custody and a bundle of certificates has been filed which I have taken into account. You have also worked as a billet whilst you have been in prison.
11. Your mother died of cancer in August 2022, and your father died in January this year from dementia. You were in custody when they both died. Your sister is your only remaining relative in Australia. Your older brother lives in Taiwan.

1. A psychological report dated 12 June 2025 from Dr Mathew Barth was tendered as an exhibit.[2]
2. He described you as a garrulous man with only a superficial awareness of your emotional experiences. He said your social reasoning is unsophisticated and governed by short-term gratification. You have a propensity to impulsivity, and you are slow to learn from negative consequences. He says your presentation is consistent with 'prominent traits of a narcissistic personality disorder'.
3. He says whilst the essential treatment you require is accessible in a custodial setting, tailored treatment for your narcissistic personality traits is not available. He knows of no programs in the custodial setting which address that part of your personal pathology.
4. Associate Professor Andrew Carrol, who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist, assessed you in 2023 and concluded that you present with 'maladaptive personality traits and a tendency toward addictive behaviours, rather than any form of acute mental illnesses'.
5. Dr Barth describes you as moderately depressed and anxious because of these legal proceedings, the breakdown of your relationship with your ex-wife and your consequential estrangement from your children. He says though, nevertheless, you have been able to adapt to the custodial setting despite some feelings of isolation.
6. Your main therapeutic relationship has been with Mr Garry Campell, a psychotherapist. You started seeing him in 2013 and he has continued to counsel you during your remand period. He provided a letter dated 12 June 2025. In his letter, he refers to your emotional issues as a result of these legal proceedings and in particular your feelings of injustice about the proceedings in this matter. He also refers to the burden of your period of imprisonment, including imprisonment during Covid and the experience of lockdowns in that timeframe.
7. You have had issues with alcohol, in particular from 2017 until you were remanded in 2020. You also admit to situational cocaine and cannabis use. Dr Barth said you suffer from an alcohol use disorder of moderate severity and recommends structured treatment to reduce the risk of relapse.
8. You have also had issues with gambling at casinos, on horse racing and via betting apps. You only have developing insight in respect of your gambling, and you require structured clinical intervention in relation to those issues.

1. Character references were tendered from your brother, Jonathan Lee, and your sister, Sarah Lee.
2. Your bother lives in Taiwan. He describes you as 'extremely intelligent, creative and disciplined'. He refers to the death of your parents while you were in custody and the emotional impact on you of not being able to say goodbye or attend their funerals. He describes you as a loving, caring son to your parents and a great father to your children. He says he wishes he could have been in court to support you, but he now lives in Taiwan.
3. Your older sister, Sarah Lee, attended court and provided a letter of support as well. She says you remain close. She buys presents for your children on your behalf and has been a babysitter for them. She says they miss you a lot. She says you have 'always been a caring, family orientated person.'
4. She also refers to the impact on you of being in custody when your parents died and missing their funerals. Your absence has placed stress on her.

1. You have a limited criminal history. In 2013, you were convicted of obtain financial advantage by deception under the Commonwealth Code and received a good behaviour bond, and, in 2017, you were convicted of failing to deliver books to a liquidator and you received a fine. You do not have any prior convictions for drug offending. You have the pending matter, the money laundering charge, for which you were arrested whilst this offending was taking place. Your criminal history indicates dishonesty, and it undermines, to a degree, suggestions of your good character. The history tends to support what you said to Dr Barth that in pervious roles you have been involved with shady people. The history has some relevance to the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation but overall is not of great importance in sentencing for this very serious offence.

1. You have been on remand in custody for over five years. This is an extremely long time, extended by your own attempts to change your plea. The first two years of your remand were spent in the restricted conditions that prevailed during the Covid-19 pandemic. I accept that in that period you were subjected to lockdowns and that you had restricted access to programs and that visits were curtailed. The harsher conditions that you experienced over those years is a significant mitigating factor.
2. I also take into account that you have been a remand prisoner, which reduces access to some of the services available to sentenced prisoners. I accept that the burden of your remand period has been substantial, and it has weighed heavily on you.

1. Your counsel relied on delay as a mitigating factor. You were charged in April 2020. Your committal hearing took place in March 2021. Your first trial date was 26 April 2023, more than two years later. The backlog of cases in this court caused by Covid-19 no doubt contributed to the long wait for a trial date.
2. I accept that period leading up to the trial was longer than it ordinarily would have been, and it is part of the reason that you have had this very serious matter hanging over your head for years, and this has caused you distress and psychological decline. That said, the delay since 2023 is entirely attributable to you prevaricating about your plea and then seeking leave to withdraw it.
3. Whilst you have had counselling from your therapist in that time, I am not satisfied that you have taken substantial steps towards rehabilitation, particularly given the absence of remorse and insight and a preparedness to take responsibility for the offending. Therefore, in assessing the impact of delay, I take into account the additional burden on you of that delay but not that you have demonstrated rehabilitation in that time.

1. Your counsel submitted you have good prospects for rehabilitation. You are a person with intelligence, you have strong ties to the community, you have no criminal history for drug offending. On the other hand, as I have just said, you lack insight and you have some psychological and personality traits which could easily lead you back into trouble. In the context of long sentences for serious offences such as this, it is always difficult to assess prospects of rehabilitation but doing the best I can I assess your prospects as reasonable.

The probable effect of sentence on your family or dependants - s16A(2)(p)

1. In sentencing you, I have taken into account the impact of your imprisonment on your children. The evidence suggests they have been affected by their separation from you and no doubt that will continue during the sentence you will be required to serve.
2. I also take into account the impact on your sister who says that your imprisonment has caused her stress, and no doubt on your former partner who will not have you to assist in looking after the children.

1. The prosecution filed a table of comparative cases during the sentence indication proceedings and then again at the plea hearing in this matter. These comparative cases are indicative of current sentencing practices and contain relevant statements of principle in respect of sentencing for drug importation offending. I have had regard to those cases which were discussed to some extent at the plea hearing. Offending such as this invariably results in very lengthy periods of imprisonment. Of course, sentencing practices are a guide to the appropriate sentence and a matter for me to consider amongst all the other matters I must take into account. They are not a controlling factor in the imposition of the sentence.
2. In sentencing you, I have had regard to all the matters I am required to have regard to under s16A(2) of the Crimes Act (Cth) which I have tried to set out in these remarks. In particular, general deterrence and adequate punishment are very important sentencing principles in this case.
3. In fixing the non-parole period in this matter, I have had regard to the need to facilitate your rehabilitation and reintegration in the community when you are released. The non-parole period mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation, but it must be consistent with the objective gravity of the offending. It is the minimum period justice requires you to serve before becoming eligible for release.
4. I turn then to my sentence in this matter.
5. On the charge of attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, you are sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.
6. I fix a minimum non-parole period in this matter of nine years and nine months.
7. I declare pre-sentence detention of 1,899 days to be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
8. I indicate that but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 18 years with a minimum non-parole period of 14 years and four months in this matter.