Nguyen v R

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The grounds of appeal have been set out above. It is appropriate to deal with the issues raised in Grounds 2, 3 and 4, before dealing with the asserted manifest excess of the sentence which is the subject of Ground 1. GROUND 2 - THE SENTENCING JUDGE ERRED IN SENTENCING THE APPLICANT AS A PERSON NOT OF GOOD CHARACTER

The evidence at trial

1. At trial, both the Crown and the applicant conducted their respective cases on the basis that there was essentially one issue for this jury's consideration, namely whether the applicant was reckless as to the fact that the goods imported were Tier 1 goods, the importation of which was prohibited. In support of its position on that issue, the Crown led evidence of the applicant's history of overseas travel in the form of a schedule which demonstrated the following travel undertaken by the applicant from July 2009 up to the time of her arrest in May 2012: Arrival (from) From date Time OS 19.07.09 (Vietnam) 28.6.09 3 weeks 2.10.09 (Vietnam) 11.9.09 3 weeks 2.11.09 (Vietnam) 14.10.09 2 weeks 24.1.10 (Vietnam) 18.12.09 5 weeks 5.5.10 (Vietnam) 26.3.10 5 weeks 14.7.10 (USA) 17.6.10 1 month 15.9.10 (Vietnam) 22.8.10 3 weeks 6.2.11 (Vietnam) 28.11.10 10 weeks 11.5.11 (Vietnam) 5.4.11 5 weeks 30.7.11 (Vietnam) 17.6.11 6 weeks 15.1.12 (Vietnam) 15.10.11 3 months 13.5.12 (Vietnam) 1.4.12 6 weeks

1. The applicant did not give evidence at her trial. In his closing address to the jury, the Crown Prosecutor (who did not appear for the Crown before this Court) submitted (commencing at T28 L43) that the applicant's pattern of travel was not that of "somebody on Centrelink" but rather that of "somebody who's engaged in business overseas". Counsel for the applicant at trial (who similarly was not counsel before this Court) urged the jury (commencing at T45 L27) to be "very careful" of such evidence. He submitted that the Crown's position in respect of the applicant's pattern of travel was wholly speculative. He stressed that the applicant had family members living overseas and submitted that her travel, and in particular the length of her stays overseas, was inconsistent with what might be expected of a person travelling on business, who would be likely to stay only for short periods before returning home.
2. In the course of his summing up, the sentencing judge reminded the jury of the competing positions of the Crown (commencing at SU 13) and the applicant (at SU 18) as to this issue. He also gave the applicant the benefit of a direction as to prior good character (at SU 12).

The evidence of the applicant on sentence

1. Having been found guilty by the jury, the applicant gave evidence on sentence. In the course of doing so, she said the following about her travel movements (commencing at T11 L45): Q This trip that we're talking about now, your last trip to Vietnam, is that the only trip that you've made to visit your boyfriend? A INTERPRETER: No I made many trips. Q And who pays for your airfares and accommodation during these trips? A INTERPRETER: Normally - sometimes my boyfriend bought me the tickets, sometime I bought ticket. Q How did you afford to buy the ticket yourself on those occasions? A INTERPRETER: I stay home looking after children for other people and also cook their meals for other people. Q Do you have other relatives yourself in Vietnam? A INTERPRETER: Yes Q What relatives do you still have in Vietnam? A My foster mother … Q On this last trip, who paid for your airfares and accommodation while you were away? A WITNESS: Yeah my boyfriend. A INTERPRETER: My boyfriend."
2. When cross-examined by the Crown the applicant agreed (at T22 L21) that between 2009 and 2012 she had travelled out of Australia on 12 occasions and had spent approximately one third of that time overseas. She was asked (commencing at T24 L32): Q Who paid for your overseas trips? A INTERPRETER: Which trip? Q Well all of your overseas trips? A INTERPRETER: Normally my husband bought, sometime I did buy. Q Which ones did you pay for? A INTERPRETER: The trip that I went back to look after my mother. Q But all other trips otherwise were paid for by him? A INTERPRETER: Yes.
3. The applicant said (commencing at T27 L19) that she had been given money from her father to travel to the USA in 2010 and that this money had been spent on fares for her children. She was then asked (commencing at T27 L26): Q Who paid for yours? A INTERPRETER: I bought it myself because I look after children and cook meals for other people. Q But Ms Nguyen if you're outside the country for 65 weeks in 150 weeks you don't have much opportunity to make money? A INTERPRETER: I look after children three days a week. Q But you can't do it when you're not in Australia? A INTERPRETER: This time I went away only a few weeks not very long.
4. The applicant denied (at T11 L3) that she was being untruthful in her evidence as to her income. She repeated (at T11 L31) that she earned money by minding children and cooking for other people. She said that she was able to afford to travel with the frequency that she did because she "waited until the tickets were on sale" (at T11 L43-44).

The findings of the sentencing judge

1. At the commencement of his remarks on sentence the sentencing judge observed that the objective facts of the applicant's offending could be stated simply, but that there were other facts which were disputed and which therefore had to be resolved in accordance with the verdict of the jury. In turning to the areas of factual dispute, his Honour said (commencing at ROS 3): "As noted, there is some dispute as to whether the offender was living beyond her means at the time that she committed this offence. I heard evidence from the offender in this regard. It was submitted by the offender that I could not find on the evidence that the offender was living beyond her means. To the contrary, the Crown submits that it was very clear that the offender was living well beyond her humble means and that if I make such a finding, it reflects badly upon her in terms of her character. Further, it is submitted by the Crown that as the offender has been travelling back and forth to Vietnam often, as is noted in the objective evidence, she must have been importing goods which one way or another were providing her with the financial rewards that were over and above that which she could possibly have earned on her own behalf. If that is the case, it must be that she was aware of the nature of goods being imported and that the goods were valuable. In that sense, it is submitted that this is not a case of recklessness, but a case of actual knowledge about the importation of the goods. The Crown opened to the jury that this was a case about actual knowledge. The Crown submits that it is the only possible conclusion available from the fact that she was living well beyond her means and had been for many years. It is submitted by the offender that this Court could not make that finding beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that it would be an aggravating factor on sentence if the Court here was to decide that she had previously imported goods for which she was paid. At the very least, it would affect a finding that she was previously a person of good character. There is evidence before the Court that the offender was a pensioner at all relevant times in the years leading up to the commission of the offence. In the four years prior to her arrest, the offender travelled to Vietnam 11 times. In addition, she travelled on holiday to the USA. Moreover, the offender often travelled with her children to Vietnam. There are 12 international flights undertaken by herself. Another 21 international flights were undertaken by her children. She has explained that on some occasions, her father paid for the travel of her children. On the occasion that the offender took herself to America, it was for a period of a month. This was in the same year that she also travelled with some of her children to Vietnam on three other occasions. Even if it was true that her father paid for some of the travel, and I note her father did not give any evidence to support this claim, in my view it stretches incredulity that she was able to afford that level of travel based on her own means. The offender claimed in evidence that she had been working. She claimed to have been undertaking work as a nanny, doing babysitting. Again, there was no independent evidence to support her claim, but even if it was accepted that she did work in this way, in my view it does not explain the obvious displays of wealth evident in the offender's overseas travel. Further, she had spent very significant periods of time overseas in the four years before her arrest. This was a period of some 53 weeks or one year. Given her absences overseas, it appears her work, if she did undertake it, would only have provided her with limited financial reward. Given the lack of any independent evidence to support the claim that she was working in this way or that it was providing her with some significant income, I reject this as a source of income to pay for the flights referred to above. The offender has attempted to explain in her evidence how it was that she could travel to the extent that she did. In my view, nothing she said explains that travel. There is no independent evidence that would support a conclusion that she could have come into this money innocently. In the circumstances, the only reasonable inference is that the offender has been receiving a significantly greater level of income than that to which she has attested to (sic). She has attempted to explain the source of income as an innocent one. I have rejected that explanation. In the circumstances, the only reasonable inference is that the offender has been travelling to Vietnam for some nefarious purpose and obtaining income from that travel. The next question is whether I am able to find that she has been importing other goods from Vietnam over the last 4 years. On all but two of the trips to Vietnam, the offender imported some goods which she declared as food. The most likely explanation for the offender's unexplained wealth is that she has been importing goods to Australia from Vietnam for profit. I am not at this stage able to say more. I cannot, for example, be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the goods were Tier 1 goods or drugs. On the other hand, given the evidence of her travel and her unexplained wealth, I am satisfied that she was aware of the nature of the goods that she was importing on this occasion and consequently, this is not a case of recklessness. The offence is a serious one. The fact that she was prepared to knowingly import these goods adds to the seriousness of the offending. This was quite a sophisticated offence with the goods being concealed in packaging that resembles sugar. Pseudoephedrine is a precursor that is used to manufacture other drugs. One of the drugs that is involved in the manufacture by using pseudoephedrine is the drug "ice". There is at least anecdotal evidence and based on my own experience, evidence that this drug is now freely available in the community and is causing extremely serious psychological damage to many users and there may be many ways in which pseudoephedrine might make its way into Australia, but at least one of the ways is demonstrated by the facts in this case. The offender's willingness to participate in this crime for what appears to be greed rather than need adds to the seriousness of the offending. I accept that the offender has essentially used the money she has obtained by her illegal activities for the purposes of her family. Her children are indeed a credit to her, but they should understand that their lifestyle has, in part, been based on her illegal activities. I accept that the offender has no previous convictions, but in my view she is not a person of good character. Given my findings in this case, the offender is not entitled to such a finding. In my view, the offender has deliberately given false evidence here in Court. Her answers in evidence to the effect that she saved money for her own travel in such that I cannot accept the evidence as truthful."

Submissions of the applicant

1. Senior counsel for the applicant before this Court submitted that the applicant was entitled to rely on her prior good character as a mitigating factor pursuant to s 21A(3)(f) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). It should be noted immediately that in circumstances where the applicant was a federal offender, that provision had no application. The relevance of the applicant's character as a mitigating factor on sentence was governed by s. 16A(2)(m) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ("the Act") which is in the following terms: (2) In addition to any other matters, the court must take into account such of the following matters as are relevant and known to the court: … (m) the character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition of the person;
2. Senior counsel submitted that suspicion that the applicant may have earned income from other "nefarious" acts was not open to be used by the sentencing judge as an aggravating factor. He further submitted that the reasons of the sentencing judge did not support the conclusions at which he had arrived concerning the applicant's evidence and that, in particular, that there was no evidence that the applicant had previously imported any drug or other prohibited item into Australia. It was further submitted that the sentencing judge had ignored aspects of the applicant's evidence.

Submissions of the Crown

1. The Crown submitted that properly understood, the sentencing judge had done nothing more than conclude that the absence of any previous convictions did not (as might ordinarily be the case) demonstrate an absence of previous criminal behaviour on the part of the applicant. It was submitted that the sentencing judge had concluded, on the basis of the evidence before him, that what was known of the character and antecedents of the applicant did not demonstrate that the offence for which she was found guilty was the first criminal conduct in which she had ever engaged.
2. The Crown specifically submitted that his Honour had been careful not to treat his finding(s) as aggravating the offending, and had concluded that the issue of character was essentially neutral, and a factor which worked neither in favour, nor against, the applicant.

Consideration

1. The passage from the sentencing remarks set out at [20] above includes the following findings relevant to this ground: 1. the applicant had been a pensioner at all relevant times in the years leading up to the commission of the offence (ROS 8); 2. the applicant's evidence as to her work, even if accepted, did not explain the obvious displays of wealth which were evident from her overseas travel (ROS 8); 3. the applicant's work did not provide her with sufficient income to sustain her travel (ROS 8); 4. the applicant had been receiving a significantly greater level of income than that to which she had attested (ROS 9); 5. the applicant had been travelling to Vietnam for some nefarious purpose, and had obtained income as a result of so doing (ROS 9); 6. the most likely explanation for the applicant's unexplained wealth was that she had been importing goods from Vietnam to Australia for profit (ROS 9); 7. the applicant's evidence that she had saved money for her own travel was not truthful (ROS 9); and 8. the applicant had deliberately given false evidence (ROS 9).
2. Those findings were necessarily based, at least in part, upon an evaluation of the applicant's evidence. That evaluation, in turn, included an assessment of the applicant herself. In my view, the conclusions reached by the sentencing judge were open on the evidence. The regularity of the applicant's travel, and its associated cost, were wholly inconsistent with a person who was, for the entirety of the relevant period, in recept of Centrelink benefits. His Honour was entitled to reject the applicant's various explanations for her ability to fund that travel, particularly in circumstances where that evidence was uncorroborated.
3. His Honour accepted that the applicant had no prior convictions. However, in light of the findings that he reached, he found that the applicant was not, and was therefore not entitled to a finding that she was, a person of good character. Contrary to the submission advanced by senior counsel for the applicant, his Honour did not use any finding to aggravate the applicant's offending. There is nothing whatsoever in his Honour's remarks on sentence which supports such a submission.
4. In Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629 the plurality (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ) observed (at [25]) that there are difficulties in treating good character as a single and undifferentiated whole. The plurality also observed that the character of the appellant in that case (like that of the applicant in the present case) had at least two relevant aspects: firstly, the absence of criminal convictions, and secondly, whether there was evidence of having engaged in other criminal conduct. Importantly, the plurality observed (at [27]): "… the relevant sentencing fact was what was known about the character and antecedents of the appellant. That task was not to be performed by assigning a single label to the appellant's character or his antecedents as either "good" or "bad". Rather, the question for the primary judge was, what was known about the appellant's character and antecedents? Was what was known of those matters to be taken into account in a way that favoured the appellant, or in a way that did not? Importantly, did the case fall between these extremes? Was the state of the material before the primary judge such that the appellant's character and antecedents worked neither in his favour nor against him?"
5. In the present case, the sentencing judge acknowledged that the applicant had no prior convictions. He contrasted that position with the applicant's evidence, which (generally speaking) he did not accept, and which caused him to reach the findings I have set out. He concluded that in those circumstances, the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of a finding that she was a person of good character. There was no error in his Honour's approach, nor has it been demonstrated that the findings he reached were not open on the evidence.
6. This ground is not made out.

GROUND 3 - THE SENTENCING JUDGE ERRED IN SENTENCING THE APPLICANT ON THE BASIS THAT HER CASE INVOLVED GREED RATHER THAN NEED

The findings of the sentencing judge

1. In the passage set out at [20] above, the sentencing judge concluded that the applicant's willingness to participate in the commission of the offence for what appeared to be greed rather than need added to its objective seriousness. In reaching that finding, and relevant to this ground, his Honour also concluded that: 1. there were obvious displays of wealth which were evident from the degree of the applicant's overseas travel; and 2. in the circumstances, the only reasonable inference available was that the applicant had been in receipt of a significantly greater level of income than that to which she had admitted.

Submissions of the applicant

1. Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the findings made in respect of the applicant's character (discussed in relation to ground 2) "relied on (the applicant) being an impecunious pensioner". It was submitted that in these circumstances, the finding that the applicant's involvement in the offending arose out of greed rather than need contradicted the findings made in respect of ground 2.

Submissions of the Crown

1. Counsel for the Crown submitted that there was no error in the finding of the sentencing judge that the applicant's willingness to participate in the commission of the offence arose from greed. It was submitted that such finding was completely consistent with those of his Honour's findings which were referable to ground 2.

Consideration

1. His Honour noted that the applicant had been in receipt of a pension in the years leading up to the commission of the offence. He found (inter alia) that the frequency of her overseas travel was inconsistent with a pension being her only source of income. For the reasons previously expressed, that finding was open. In these circumstances, his Honour found that the offence had been committed for what appeared to be greed rather than need.
2. Inherent in that finding was a rejection of the proposition that the applicant was (to use the description adopted by senior counsel for the applicant) an "impecunious pensioner". To suggest, in these circumstances, that his Honour relied upon such a proposition reflects a misunderstanding of the finding which was reached. That finding is not inconsistent with, nor is it contradictory to, any of the conclusions reached by the sentencing judge which are relevant to ground 2.
3. This ground is not made out.

GROUND 4 - THE SENTENCING JUDGE ERRED IN NOT SENTENCING THE APPLICANT ON THE BASIS OF RECKLESSNESS

The relevant legislation

1. The indictment presented against the applicant alleged an offence contrary to s. 233BAA(4) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). That section is in following terms: (4) A person is guilty of an offence against this subsection if: (a) the person intentionally imported goods; and (b) the goods were tier 1 goods and the person was reckless as to that fact; and (c) their importation: (i) was prohibited under this Act absolutely; or (ii) was prohibited under this Act unless the approval of a particular person had been obtained and, at the time of the importation, that approval had not been obtained. Maximum penalty: A fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.
2. The Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ("the Code") contains a number of provisions relevant to the present case. In particular: 1. s. 3.1 provides that an offence consists of physical elements and fault elements; 2. s. 4.1 provides that the physical element of an offence may be (inter alia) conduct; 3. s. 5.1 provides that a fault element for a particular physical element may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence.
3. Bearing in mind these provisions, and for the purposes of the present case: 1. the physical element of the offence with which the applicant was charged was conduct, namely the act of importation; 2. the fault element was recklessness.
4. Section 5.4 of the Code defines recklessness in the following terms: 5.4 Recklessness (1) A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if: (a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and (b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk. (2) A person is reckless with respect to a result if: (a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and (b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk. (3) The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact. (4) If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.

The Crown case

1. At trial, the parties agreed that the issue for determination by the jury was whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was reckless as to the fact that the goods were Tier 1 goods. In the course of his final address to the jury, the Crown said (commencing at T27 L10): "The fourth element was the important one, the knowledge element in relation to whether it was a tier 1 good or not, that's the wording. So his Honour has given you that list of goods. Did she know it was a tier 1 good or was she reckless as to whether it was a tier 1 good and that's what this, I suggest to you, is all about. She knew she had those products in her bag. Did she know what they were or was she at least reckless as to what they were, that's the one I'm obviously going to deal with in my address to you this morning".
2. The Crown then continued (commencing at T27 L23): "So we're left with, I'd suggest to you, element 4. So the Crown needs to prove either that she knew it was a tier 1 good or that she was reckless as to that fact. Recklessness, the legal definition is that I'd have to prove to you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Ms Nguyen is aware of a substantial risk that it was a tier 1 good and two, having regard to the circumstances known to her, that is that there was risk that it was a tier one good or a substantial risk that it was tier one good and bearing in mind all those other things that go with brining such goods into the country, that's another circumstance, it was unjustifiable to take the risk that she did" (emphasis added).
3. The Crown then said (commencing at T 27 L43): "So let's go through those things and there's a number of them I want to take you through. The circumstances by which the Crown refers (sic) knowledge or recklessness, that is knowledge that it was pseudoephedrine and there's evidence that she knew what it was, I'd suggest to you, that at the very least there's evidence that she knew there was a substantial risk that it was a tier 1 good".
4. Towards the conclusion of his closing address, the Crown (at T38 L33-35; T39 L13-15) submitted that the jury would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant either knew that she was carrying Tier 1 goods, or was aware of a substantial risk that this was the case, and that having regard to the circumstances known to her, it was unjustifiable to take that risk.

The directions to the jury

1. In the course of his summing up to the jury, his Honour set out the elements of the offence before saying (commencing at SU 7): "So element 4 is the element that is really in dispute. Element 4 as I have set out for you requires that the accused be reckless to the fact that the goods were tier 1 goods. Reckless in this context means that the accused was aware of a substantial risk that it was a tier 1 good that she imported and having regard to the entirety of the circumstances known to her it was unjustified to take the risk of importing such a good. Let me repeat that. Reckless in this context means that the accused was aware of a substantial risk that it was a tier 1 good that she imported and having regard to the entirety of the circumstances known to her it was unjustified to take a risk importing such a good" (emphasis added).
2. His Honour then said (at SU 8): "What the Crown submits amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt of element 4 is a set of circumstances which when taken together point inexorably to one reasonable conclusion only, namely that the accused was aware or at least reckless as to whether the goods she imported were tier 1 goods".
3. His Honour then said (at SU 8): "Briefly the factors referred to by the Crown fall into a number of categories, these are the factors which the Crown says make clear that (the applicant) was aware of this risk"(emphasis added).
4. His Honour then proceeded to set out the circumstances upon which the Crown relied to sustain the requisite inference.
5. It will be evident that his Honour explained to the jury (in the passage set out in [45] above) that recklessness in the context of this case meant awareness of a substantial risk in circumstances where the taking of that risk was unjustified. He again made reference to such risk in the passage set out in [47] above. Between those two passages (as set out in [46] above) his Honour made a passing reference to the Crown's submission that the applicant was aware that she was importing Tier 1 goods. However, his Honour did not (and was not asked to) direct the jury, in accordance with s. 5.4(4) of the Code, that knowledge could amount to recklessness for the purposes of that element of the offence.

The findings of the sentencing judge

1. As set out at [20] above, his Honour concluded that in light of the evidence of the applicant's travel, and in light of what he regarded as her unexplained wealth, the applicant was in fact aware of the nature of the goods that she was importing. He concluded that this was "not a case of recklessness". That, in my view, can only be interpreted as a finding by his Honour that this was not a case where the applicant had been reckless in the manner contemplated by s. 5.4(1)(a) and (b) of the Code.

Submissions of the applicant

1. Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that it was necessary that any factual finding made on sentence be consistent with the jury's verdict. It was submitted that the finding of the sentencing judge that this was not a case of recklessness was inconsistent with: 1. the terms in which the charge had been brought; 2. the position of the Crown at trial; and 3. the terms in which his Honour had directed the jury.

Submissions of the Crown

1. In written submissions, the Crown placed some significance on the provisions of s. 5.4 of the Code, and emphasised that recklessness could be constituted by proof of knowledge. It was submitted that the Crown's position at trial was that the applicant knew that the goods in question were Tier 1 goods and that in these circumstances the finding of the sentencing judge was both open, and consistent with the jury's verdict. It was further submitted that on sentence, his Honour had available to him evidence which was not before the jury, and which provided support for the finding he reached.
2. However in oral argument, the Crown properly conceded that having regard to his Honour's summing up, the issue had not been left to the jury on the basis of recklessness constituted by knowledge, but rather on the basis of recklessness constituted by the appellant's awareness of a substantial risk. The Crown appeared to accept that the terms of his Honour's directions to the jury were not consistent with his ultimate finding. However, the Crown submitted that there was nothing to indicate that such reached by his Honour had operated to increase the length of the sentence which was imposed.

Consideration

1. It was not the Crown's position at trial that the applicant knew that she was importing Tier 1 goods. As will be evident from the references to the Crown's closing address to the jury at [41]-[44] above, the Crown's position oscillated between asserting on the one hand that the applicant knew that she was importing prohibited goods, and asserting on the other hand that she was aware of a substantial risk that this was the case, in circumstances where it was unjustifiable to take that risk. His Honour directed the jury only as to the latter. In doing so he explained to the jury, by reference to the terms of s 5.4(1)(a) and (b) of the Code, what amounted to recklessness "in this context", or in other words, in the context of the applicant's trial. Moreover, immediately prior to enumerating the factors upon which the Crown relied in respect of this element, his Honour directed the jury that these factors were relied upon by the Crown to "make clear that (the applicant) was aware of this risk".
2. The sole reference in his Honour's summing up to the applicant being aware that she was importing Tier 1 goods was that set out at [46] above. That was a passing reference only. It fell between the specific directions as to the applicant's awareness of a substantial risk, and an enumeration of the factors relied upon by the Crown to infer such awareness. In my view, there can be no doubt that the issue was left to the jury on the basis of recklessness as defined in s. 5.4(1)(a) and (b) of the Code.
3. In determining sentence, his Honour was required to find facts consistent with the verdict of the jury: R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 380 per the Court. There was only one issue for the jury's determination. As the Crown properly conceded before this Court, there is an inconsistency between the basis upon which that issue was left to the jury, and his Honour's finding, on sentence, that the applicant knew that she was importing prohibited goods. That inconsistency is reflective of error.
4. I have noted the Crown's submission that there is nothing to indicate that his Honour's finding that this was not a case of recklessness caused the length of the sentence to be increased. In my view, that is not to the point. The error clearly had the capacity to infect the exercise of the sentencing discretion, and was therefore material: Baxter v R [2007] NSWCCA 237; (2007) 173 A Crim R 284 per Latham J at [83].
5. For all of these reasons this ground is made out.

The approach of this Court

1. Ground 1 asserts that the sentence which was imposed was manifestly excessive. However, error having been found in respect of Ground 4, the provisions of s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) apply. In those circumstances, it is the duty of this Court to exercise the sentencing discretion afresh: Kentwell v R [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 201 at [42]-[43] per French CJ, Hayne, Bell and Keane JJ. It is not incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. In exercising the sentencing discretion afresh, I have had regard to those provisions of s. 16A(2) of the Act as have application in this case, as set out below.

The nature and circumstances of the offending - s. 16A(2)(a)

1. For the reasons stated in considering ground 4, the verdict of the jury reflects an acceptance of the Crown case that the applicant was reckless as to the fact that the goods she was importing were prohibited. The applicant's role was that of an importer.
2. The amount of pseudoephedrine which was imported by the applicant was, on any view, significant. I accept that weight is not determinative, be it of the sentence itself or the range into which it should fall: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584 at [68]-[69] per Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ; DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [68] per Allsop P (as his Honour then was). However, it is clearly a factor which is relevant on sentence: R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; (2010) 205 A Crim R 106 at [72] per Johnson J (Macfarlan JA and R A Hulme J agreeing). Further, although Wong and Nguyen were cases concerning the importation of narcotics there is, in my view, no distinction to be drawn (in terms of the relevance, on sentence, of weight) between a case involving the importation of narcotics and a case involving the importation of Tier 1 goods. This is particularly so in circumstances where the Tier 1 goods are several kilograms of pseudoephedrine, a substance which, as a matter of common knowledge, can be used as a precursor to the manufacture of illicit substances.
3. Weight has added significance for the purposes of sentence where an offender is aware of it: Nguyen (supra) at [72]; Garcia v R [2013] NSWCCA 241 at [74] per Bellew J (Emmett JA and R A Hulme J agreeing). Senior counsel for the applicant, whilst accepting that weight was a relevant consideration, submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant was aware of the weight of the pseudoephedrine she had imported. However as I have noted in [8] above, the sentencing judge found the applicant had indicated to Customs officers that she had packed her bags herself. There is no challenge to that finding. Even if the applicant was not aware of the precise amount of pseudoephedrine she was importing, I am satisfied that she must have been aware that it was substantial. Her role as the importer was performed with that knowledge.

The degree to which the applicant has shown contrition - s 16A(2)(f)

1. A report of Phil Gorrell, Psychologist, was tendered before the sentencing judge and forms part of the material before this Court. Mr Gorrell concluded that it did not appear that the applicant was suffering from any psychiatric disorder. He also noted that the applicant "regrets her offence". He concluded that she had "learnt" from it, and that she was "remorseful for her naivety in trusting her ex-partner". As against those observations, a pre-sentence report dated 17 March 2014 noted that the applicant "maintained her innocence".
2. The degree to which a person has shown contrition for an offence is a matter which the Court must take into account on sentence under s 16A(2)(f) of the Act. An expression of regret for the commission of an offence in terms such as those noted by Mr Gorrell, is to be distinguished from an expression of genuine contrition. Moreover, the observations in the pre-sentence report are at odds with expressed contrition. In all of the circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated any contrition for her offending.

The applicant's character, antecedents and background - s. 16A(2)(m)

1. I have already noted that the applicant has no prior convictions. However, I regard the applicant's evidence as to her capacity to meet the cost of her repeated overseas travel as fanciful and untruthful. The cost of that travel, bearing in mind its frequency, would be unaffordable to a person whose income consisted solely of Centrelink benefits.
2. I do not accept the applicant's evidence that her employment provided her with an additional source of income. That evidence was both vague and imprecise and I am satisfied that it was untruthful. Her evidence that she purchased air tickets when they were on sale was, in my view, an answer of convenience.
3. There is necessarily a great deal of suspicion attaching to the underlying reason(s) for the frequency of the applicant's travel to and from Vietnam. Notwithstanding that suspicion, I cannot be satisfied that the applicant has been a party to the importation of prohibited goods in the past. However, and even though the applicant has no prior convictions, her untruthful evidence before the sentencing judge necessarily reflects the identification of an unfavourable aspect of her character: Weininger (supra) at [25]. That is not to be regarded as an aggravating factor but it leads to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to a finding that she is a person of good character. I am left in a position where the applicant's character works neither in her favour, nor against her.

The applicant's prospects of rehabilitation - s. 16A(2)(n)

1. There is no evidence before the Court to enable me to make any determination of the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation

The probable effect of the sentence on the applicant's family - s. 16A(2)(p)

1. The applicant is a single mother of three children, the youngest of whom is now 9 years old. Whilst the applicant's incarceration has an obviously adverse effect upon her family, it has not been suggested that such effect is any greater than might otherwise be expected. In particular, it has not been submitted that the effect upon her family is exceptional. Accordingly, whilst it remains a relevant factor on sentence, the provisions of s 16A(2)(p) of the Act are not engaged: R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222 at [22] per Hoeben CJ at CL (Latham J agreeing).

General deterrence

1. Although not specifically referred to in s. 16A of the Act, general deterrence nevertheless remains an important consideration in determining sentence for a matter of this nature: DPP (Cth) v El Kaharni (1990) 21 NSWLR 370 at 377 per the Court; R v Riddell [2009] NSWCCA 96; (2009) 194 A Crim R 524 at [55] - [58] per Beazley JA (as her Honour then was), Blanch and Howie JJ agreeing.

Sentences imposed in other cases

1. The Crown provided a schedule of sentences imposed in other cases involving the importation of quantities of pseudoephedrine. Senior Counsel for the applicant relied upon that schedule in support of a submission that the sentence imposed upon the applicant was outside of the established range. This Court has repeatedly commented upon the danger of seeking to establish the appropriateness or otherwise of a particular sentence by comparing it with sentences imposed in other cases of like offending: see for example the observations of Gleeson JA in Briouzguine v R [2014] NSWCCA 264 at [74] and following. The High Court has recently reaffirmed that consistency in sentencing is not synonymous with numerical equivalence: The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39 at [28] per French CJ, Keane and Nettle JJ.
2. I have considered the information contained in the schedule prepared by the Crown. It is sufficient for me to note that the vast majority of cases referred to in that schedule were determined in circumstances where the particular offender received the benefit of a substantial discount to reflect a plea of guilty. That is obviously not a relevant circumstance in the present case. Such a fundamental distinction simply highlights the fact that the circumstances of cases necessarily differ and that there is limited utility in engaging in comparative exercises.

Conclusion

1. For the reasons I have set out, the applicant's offending was serious. It calls for a significant measure of general deterrence. Her subjective case is unremarkable. Taking all of the identified factors into account, and exercising the sentencing discretion afresh, I have come to the view that no other sentence is warranted.
2. I therefore propose the following orders: 1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal dismissed.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 10 February 2016