DPP v Rawani [2026] VCC 162

1. The prosecution case, which you have accepted by your plea, is that on 26 February 2025, police attended a factory at 7 Federation Road, Dandenong South and executed a drug and firearms search warrant.
2. At 11.35 am you attended the premises in a grey 2023 Ford Ranger utility and you complied with the police request to unlock and open the front door.
3. Police conducted a search of you and located and seized:

(a) An Apple iPhone 16;

(b) An OPPO mobile telephone;

(c) A set of car keys; and

(d) A set of keys for the factory at 7 Federation Road.

1. Police commenced a search of the factory and took photographs.
2. At 12.15 pm you were arrested for possession of multiple drugs of dependence. You were cautioned and informed of your rights.
3. During the search of the premises the police located and seized the following:

(a) Australian currency to the value of $72,745;

(b) Multiple large zip lock bags containing numerous smaller zip lock bags of white crystalline substances including:

(i) 460.5 grams methylamphetamines;

(ii) 390 grams cocaine;

(c) Zip lock bags containing ketamine (25.4 grams);

(d) Zip lock bags containing cannabis (114.3 grams);

1. Also seized were digital scales and deal bags, a cash counting machine, an Apple iPhone, an Apple MacBook computer, an extendable baton and an Alfa CCTV system.
2. During the search, police located documents including a lease agreement in your name for the premises, personal and business documents linking you to the address and business extracts for Rawani Motor Trade confirming you are the director and secretary of the company.
3. A police examination revealed the iPhone contained many photos and videos filmed inside 7 Federation Road depicting what appeared to be drugs of dependence, cash and related paraphernalia.
4. Text message conversations on the OPPO phone included discussions consistent with drug debts, supply of bags and quantities of drugs, pricing and meeting arrangements for exchange. References were made to "rock", "met", "bags" and specific cash amounts and locations.
5. One text exchange referred to a "White Mazda" and "1g" to Metcalf for "650", another referenced an "oz" for "3k" and photographs of a "rock" for a potential customer.

1. The prosecution noted the high objective seriousness of the matter and submitted the main sentencing purposes were general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment. A head sentence with a non-parole period would reflect this.
2. The defence submitted a longer than usual non-parole period would be justified in your case given your youth, aged 23 at the time of offending and the absence of prior convictions.

1. Your counsel submitted you are one of five children to your parents and grew up in a stable family. You lived in the family home at the time of this offending and are supported by your parents and siblings. You attended Minaret College and after completing Year 12, you completed a Diploma in Building and Construction.
2. You have worked in manual roles, labouring, plastering and factory work. You then set up a business selling cars at the premises where your drug trafficking business was based.
3. You started using cannabis at the age of 15. After finishing school you started using methamphetamine and GHB, and more recently cocaine.
4. A reference from Mr Faiq Amiri, one of your teachers, described his deep shock and bafflement of learning of your arrest.[1] He was aware of your cannabis use and had counselled you against it. Your sister, Mina Rawani, provided a reference and described you as being interested in cricket, you played club cricket, and cars, which you bought, repaired and resold. She was shocked at learning you were involved with drugs. She described you as 'looking physically healthy again' after your period in jail.
5. You have also completed a number of courses whilst in custody, including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotic Anonymous, Ice & Me, Cannabis & Me and Changing Gears.
6. Your counsel also tendered a Youth Support and Advocacy Service (YSAS) referral dated 13 March 2025 noting you had accepted an Alcohol and Drug (AOD) referral and currently were on the waitlist for a worker at YSAS Dandenong.[2]

1. The principles of general deterrence and denunciation carry significant weight to sentencing for a commercial quantity of drugs because illegal drug offending causes great harm to the community and is difficult to detect. In assessing the seriousness of the offending the court should take into account the quantity of the drugs involved, the duration of offending, the sophistication of the enterprise and the offender's role. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, profit is inferred as the motivation.
2. In my view the main purposes in sentencing you are general deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation.
3. I take into account the factors in s5(2) of the Sentencing Act to which I must have regard.
4. I take into account current sentencing practices. I was referred to a total of seven cases from the defence and three cases from the prosecution. It was difficult to find a comparative case on all fours with your situation. Where the quantities of drugs involved were similar to your case, the accused were older and had prior convictions (DPP v Dang[3], DPP v Makdissi[4] and Roach v The Queen[5]). In cases where smaller amounts of drugs were involved the accused were older, had priors or had suffered domestic violence in childhood (DPP v Mazzeo[6]) or raised Verdins considerations (DPP v McCann)[7]. In two of the cases the drugs were found in the accused's cars (DPP v Burgess (a pseudonym)[8] and DPP v Nguyen[9]) which can be distinguished from your case where the drugs were located in your factory.
5. The most serious charge is Charge 1, trafficking a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. The offending is objectively very serious as reflected by:

The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment;

The amount is over the commercial quantity, namely 1.84 times the minimum amount for a mixed commercial quantity (although you are only sentenced for trafficking a commercial quantity);

The scale of the operation in that you leased a commercial premises for which you had the keys and controlled the premises, out of which you were operating the business of drug trafficking; and

The drugs were packaged for distribution with scales and bags present, as well as a cash counting machine.

1. Whilst you have been charged with commercial trafficking on a single date, the prosecution submits you were operating an ongoing business. Whilst mindful of defence submissions as to how this may be used, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from the packaged drugs, the multiple drug types, the cash counting machine, the scales and the $72,745 cash that it was an ongoing business for the context of the offence. Hogan v The King[10] is authority that those circumstances inform the seriousness in the way the offence can be viewed.
2. In my view, the same consideration applies to the two charges of trafficking cocaine and ketamine (Charges 2 and 3) which are each single date offences. The amount of cocaine, 389 grams, (where 3 grams is the mixed trafficable quantity) and ketamine, 25.4 grams, (where 3 grams is the mixed trafficable quantity) were pre-packaged in multiple zip lock bags. That evidence, together with the cash, the weapon and cash counting machine satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt you were operating an ongoing business. This informs the seriousness in the way the offences can be viewed.
3. Your moral culpability is high. You are responsible for your actions. You have had every opportunity such as a stable, normal and constructive childhood and adolescence as well as a good education.
4. In terms of the impact on your victims the use of drugs in our society causes untold misery on individual drug users and on the community in general.
5. I accept your early plea of guilty and I give you the full discount available.
6. I take into account your good character and no prior convictions and your youth. Although you are not a 'young offender' under the definition in the Sentencing Act, which is being, at the time of sentence, under 21, you are youthful.[11] You have strong family support. I accept your prospects for rehabilitation are strong.
7. R v Mills[12] is also authority for the proposition that youth of an offender, particularly a first offender, should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court when that matter properly arises. In the case of a youthful offender, rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence and a youthful offender is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided.
8. However, in Azzopardi v The Queen,[13] the Court of Appeal considered Mills and subsequent authorities and concluded:

'The general propositions which flow from these authorities is that 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. But only in the circumstances of the gravest criminal offending and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation may the mitigatory consideration of youth be viewed as all but extinguished.'[14]

9. In that case, the court held insufficient weight had been given to the youth of each of the applicants stating, 'Their youth though subjugated to other punitive sentencing considerations, remained a relevant mitigating circumstance requiring some degree of leniency that would not be extended to a mature offender.'[15]
10. I take these principles into account. Given your age, lack of prior convictions and realistic prospects for rehabilitation, which is in the public interest, I will set a longer than usual non-parole period.

Trafficking in a drug of dependence commercial quantity

Possessing of a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval

Four years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months

Pre-sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991:

6 years with a 4 year and 6 month non-parole period

HER HONOUR: And save for the issue in respect of the disposal and forfeiture orders I was going to make those orders but we will require those orders be resent to the court.

MS ROYSTON: Your Honour, if I may I have amended them and filed and sent to your associate.

MR BARKER: And likewise appears likewise with the disposal, so no issue with the judgment.

1. The application for disposal under the Confiscation Act is granted and I order the 18 items in the schedule to the application be placed in the custody of the

Chief Commissioner of Police and held until 28 days from this date or the conclusion of any appeal proceedings where it may be tested and/or analysed and then destroyed. 2. The application for forfeiture under the Confiscation Act is granted and I order the three items totalling $72,745 in Australian currency in the attached schedule to the application be forfeited to the Minister.

HER HONOUR: Are they any other orders sought or have I missed anything that

[3] [2020] VCC 1876.

[4] [2018] VCC 593.

[5] [2020] VSCA 205.

[6] [2020] VCC 684.

[7] [2021] VCC 541.

[8] [2022] VCC 978.

[9] [2022] VCC 353.

[10] [2025] VSCA 142, [33].

[11] [1998] 4 VR 235, 241 ('Mills').

[12] [1998] 4 VR 235.

[13] [2011] VSCA 372.

[14] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372, [44].

[15] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372, [55].