s 16A(1)(2)Crimes Act (Cth) 191421(1)(b)
Customs Act 1901(Cth)
Judgment (2 paragraphs)
[1]
Judgment
Thi Thu To appears today for sentence in relation to an offence to which she pleaded guilty in early February of this year when her trial was about to start.
The offence to which she pleaded guilty alleged, that she, on 12 September 2016 at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, did without the requisite approval being obtained, intentionally import goods being, Tier 1 goods comprising pseudoephedrine, being reckless to the fact that the goods were Tier 1 goods and being goods the importation of which, is prohibited under the Customs Act 1901(Cth). This is an offence contrary to s 233BAA(4) Customs Act (Cth) and I am informed, carries the maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
I should point out from the outset, that the prisoner is to some extent fortunate that she, ultimately in the circumstances of the facts revealed in this case, brought pseudoephedrine into the country. Because, on the basis to which she has pleaded guilty to this charge, and having regard to the limited facts available to us as to her contact with people in Vietnam, it was possible that she may have brought within the same containers that she brought into this country drugs such as methylamphetamine or heroin. In which case, with similar quantities, she would have been facing a much greater maximum penalty than is available in relation to Tier 1 goods.
The paucity of information of the circumstances in which she was recruited to bring the drugs into the country is of course very much at the feet of the prisoner. I note in relation to that regard that notwithstanding the urgings of learned counsel for the prisoner for me to accept parts of the report of Mr Ballardie, the report of Mr Ballardie contains almost no detail whatsoever from the prisoner as to the real circumstances in which the current offence was committed.
The prisoner was arrested on 12 September 2016, as she was returning to Australia from Vietnam. To incorporate some of the background that she has given to the psychologist which in essence I am prepared to accept, the prisoner who was 49 years of age at the time as I understand it, being born in 1967, was a native of Vietnam coming to Australia as a "refugee" at the age of 25. She had been to Vietnam before her arrest for a time that is not described either by her in any information she has given to Mr Ballardie, nor in the statement of facts, but in circumstances where I understand from what she told the psychologist she was visiting her sick father.
She arrived in Australia with one blue bag and one black bag, as well as a handbag as hand luggage. She attended the baggage examination area. She told the officers there that she had packed the bags herself and was aware of the contents of her luggage.
The blue bag was found to have a number of items such as a hot water bag, packages of spa salts, two green tins labelled 'Tea' and a bottle labelled "P-H-Y-T-O-G-Y-N-O". The black bag contained two packages containing some form of gourmet blend coffee, two packages of spa salts and four bottles labelled "body wash".
Each of the items I have identified contained on examination a "light brown coloured substance" secreted within them. The prisoner told the Border Force officers that she bought each of the items that I have identified "at a market in Vietnam".
A presumptive test was conducted on the substance identified which returned a positive result for ephedrine/pseudoephedrine. The bulk weight of the substance ultimately located was 6.09 kilograms. The substance identified contained 64.5% pseudoephedrine on analysis. The total pure weight of the pseudoephedrine was 4163.3 grams.
The facts state that that quantity of pure pseudoephedrine can possibly produce, and I note it is "possible", "3,746.9 grams of methylamphetamine or 4683.6 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride". The prisoner had no permission to import the pseudoephedrine. She declined to participate in a record of interview and she has provided absolutely no account of the circumstances in which this substance came into her possession.
There were, however, it would seem on the basis of these bare facts I have been provided, some enquiries made about her. First of all, she had no prior criminal history. It is common place with people bringing drugs into the country particularly in circumstances such as this prisoner, travelling from Australia to Vietnam to bring drugs back to Australia, that she would have no criminal history. People with criminal history are more likely to attract the attention of the authorities. Such people, as this prisoner that bring drugs back into this country are and I use the word very advisedly "chosen" on the basis that they would not attract attention. I will come back to that aspect shortly.
It is also revealed in the facts that the prisoner lost approximately $24,900 on poker machines at "Mounties" in the 12 months prior to the offending. My knowledge of Western Sydney from playing rugby league out there for a number of years through the late 60s, to the late 70s, would suggest to me that that club is the Mount Pritchard Club, which I understand is called "Mounties", and it can only be said that $24,900 is far more money than a person on Centrelink benefits can afford to lose over five years let alone over one year.
The prisoner was arrested, but released on bail on 13 September 2016, she thus spent one night in custody. To my mind she was very fortunate to be granted bail in the circumstances, because save for some exceptional event or explanation for her involvement in this matter, short of course being innocent, a term of imprisonment it would be inevitable for offending of this type for the reasons that are eloquently set out in the Crown's written submissions.
The only evidence produced on behalf of the prisoner, as she did not give evidence nor call any witnesses on her behalf, is this report that I have referred to from Neil Ballardie. This is a report dated 3 December 2018. The first matter to be pointed out is a matter correctly identified in the learned Crown Prosecutor's very helpful written submissions and judges of at least of some experience in this Court are well familiar with the propositions what I am about to recite. Where there is reliance upon a report prepared by a psychiatrist or a psychologist and representations are made to the relevant psychiatrist or psychologist upon which the relevant expert acts to form particular opinions, considerable caution has to be exercised in relying upon any statements made by the patient or prisoner or any opinions that flow from those statements in circumstances where the prisoner's version of events has not been tested.
The Court in Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369, which is 17 years ago, pointed out,
"There has been a noticeable and disturbing tendency of more recent years for prisoners on a sentence hearing not to give evidence and to rely on statements made to experts. Prisoners should realise that if this course is taken great caution will be exercised in respect of the weight of any given to those statements."
That trend as it was identified in 2001 has continued throughout the last 17 years. Of course, one of the interesting things about the observations made in Qutami is that their Honours did not refer to, in the circumstances set out in Qutami that it is common place for certain symptoms to be claimed by a particular offender for which there is no contemporaneous record or record before the commission of the subject offence. In other words, the prisoner in consultation with the psychiatrist or the psychologist sets out a history said to be relevant to the offending, in respect of matters for which there is no contemporaneous record whatsoever and usually, although not always, no contemporaneous medical diagnosis.
The Crown also referred to another decision of Niketic [2002] NSWCCA 425, where one of the most wise judges ever to sit in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and certainly one of the finest judges before whom I ever appeared in my career as a solicitor and a barrister observed (that is Wood CJ at CL):
"As the applicant did not give evidence in the sentence proceedings the Crown has not had the opportunity to test (the prisoner's) account. And for the reasons discussed in Palu and Qutami it must be given limited weight. I would add my voice to the .. (not transcribable).. satisfaction expressed in those decisions in relation to the wholly unsatisfactory practise whereby facts of relevance to an assessment of the role of the offender as sought to be proved through histories provided to third parties which cannot be tested."
I add, by reference to what I said additionally to the observations of Qutami, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever to support the claims, which brings me to some aspects of Mr Ballardie's report.
Now I should state from the outset I have seen other reports from Mr Ballardie and I find his reports generally helpful and I make no criticism of him professionally. But in my view his report is self-evidently incomplete in a range of ways, I have already pointed to one aspect of it that is clearly indicative of its lack of thoroughness, that is, no account given in the report to explain the circumstances in which the prisoner committed the offence with which I am concerned. But may I just identify two particular matters out of the report that cause me some disquiet.
As I said earlier, I read from the Crown's facts that the prisoner had lost something over $24,000 in poker machine earnings, despite the fact for the last three years according to the history she gave Mr Ballardie she was on Centrelink benefits. Mr Ballardie conducted an examination of whether she had in fact had a "gambling disorder". He noted her account of attending the Mounties Club with friends but accepted her claim that she "did not have a gambling problem". She claimed to him that "she did not have any problem stopping gambling, did not chase her losses and did not gamble increasing amounts of money when she started gambling. She said she did not get irritable whenever she could not gamble and did not gamble when she was depressed or anxious."
He went onto make this observation, "Her stated claims relating to gambling behaviour and attitude do not fit the criteria from DSM-5 for a gambling disorder."
Well with the greatest of respect to Mr Ballardie, I would have thought the objective facts speak much to the contrary that the prisoner did not have problems stopping gambling or did not chase her losses. One would have thought the magnitude of the losses over a 12 month period were not in keeping with a person who was in control of her gambling.
One might ask oneself the question in the context of the need for her to pay her rent, to pay for food and her other living expenses where she could find 24,000 odd dollars to gamble on poker machines out of Newstart allowance. There is no evidence within the history she has given to Mr Ballardie, and no independent evidence, that she had some independent means of income or that she had in fact gained considerable savings over a period of time. I note in that regard and I am prepared to accept that whilst in Australia she worked in factories as a machinist, occupations that do not speak of enrichment.
So far as Mr Ballardie's history from the prisoner about the background to the "index offence" and her "attitude towards offending" all that he reports, apart from noting that her mental condition as he describes it does not mean she was not aware of the illegality of the offences she committed and she agreed with the facts as set out in the statement of facts, is that the prisoner said "in the period prior to offending she went to Vietnam to visit her father". She said to Mr Ballardie "She was considerably upset by seeing him sick and was worried about him passing away. She said she was also beginning to worry about her future and where she would live when her daughter eventually left home."
This tells me absolutely nothing about the circumstances in which this offence occurred, how she came to be recruited, where the drugs were provided to her, what she was told in relation to what she was bringing in the country. He asked her about the seriousness of the offending behaviour and the prisoner acknowledged it was "wrong to have committed the offence" and she "regretted her behaviour". But she says nothing more.
He came to a conclusion, which on face value I have difficulty accepting at least on the basis that he describes, that her "comments and attitude towards offending reflected someone who'd taken responsibility for her actions." How he could come to that conclusion without having any knowledge of the circumstances in which she committed the offending as his report reveals is beyond me.
I am prepared to accept that some aspects of the history she has given. I am prepared to accept that she came to Australia at 25, she had a daughter, she was separated from the father of her child, that she had unpleasant experiences in some respects nothing overly traumatic, but in some respects in Vietnam prior to coming to Australia and had to put up with her husband who was a "gambler" and a "philanderer". Whilst I accept the education and work history that she has given there is very little information provided that truly informs one in a meaningful way of matters relevant to the assessments made by Mr Ballardie.
She claims to have no alcohol or addictions to prohibited substances, which I am prepared to accept. The psychometric testing that was undertaken by him was based upon herself reporting. Whilst I am prepared to accept by reason of her life circumstances, if nothing else, that she may have periods of stress and tension and anxiety, that her father's condition may have caused her concern. She might have had worries about her own financial circumstances in light of her gambling conduct or the future of her domestic relationship with her daughter.
I cannot conclude that such information as she has given Mr Ballardie such as to enable him to come to conclusions about her state of mind at the time of testing and particularly her state of mind at the time of the offending are reliable.
It seems rather strange to me with respect that facing a term of imprisonment, accepting just for the moment the results recorded by Mr Ballardie, that she might be within the moderate range for "depression, anxiety and stress", but when tested in relation to her mood and functioning in the period "prior to her offending" she would be in "extremely severe range for depression, anxiety and stress", with nothing really of a concrete fashion revealed in the report to justify that conclusion.
As I pointed out, and as higher authority has said on a number of occasions, one must approach findings in a report from a psychologist or psychiatrist solely based upon the history given by an offender with some considerable circumspection.
I have no reason to accept any opinion expressed by Mr Ballardie about her state of mind at the time of the offending, such as to consider for example the matters that arose in the judgment of McClellan CJ at CL in the decision of De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, particularly at [177]-[178]. Because I cannot conclude that there is a relevant mental disorder or mental disability or mental illness such as to give lesser weight to general deterrence and specific deterrence in the context of the matters that he has summarised from earlier decisions.
I am prepared to accept on balance that there is a background to this matter that is tied up in the prisoner's gambling activities. I am mindful of the fact that I cannot speculate about matters obviously requiring proof by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt. Nor should I speculate about matters required to be established by the accused on the balance of probabilities, those matters of course all in keeping with the High Court's judgment in Olbrich. But it seems to me in this matter there is a pattern of behaviour that is reflected in many cases that come before this Court where prisoners are far more forthcoming that reflects upon advantage being taken of individuals with large gambling debts acquired at places such as Mounties and the Marconi Club and Star City and the like, where recruitment can occur in order for those debts to be waived.
Of course I do not know from any information given by the prisoner as to whether the prisoner did undertake her involvement in this crime to some way mitigate or waive the debt that she must have acquired in order to facilitate the gambling that is reflected in the Crown facts. As I said one has to speculate about where she got the money from. I am not suggesting for a moment that she committed other crimes in order to obtain the money. But it is common place in such gambling institutions for people sometimes described as "loan sharks" to provide funds for people to continue gambling in circumstances where prohibited rates of interest or other demands are made upon the unfortunate people in question.
This brings me back then to the submissions that have been made by the parties in relation to the matter and in the context of the submissions made by learned counsel for the prisoner, there is little at issue with the general principles and specific principles set out in the very helpful submissions of the Crown Prosecutor.
First of all, I am required to sentence the prisoner in accordance with the provisions of Pt 1B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. I am required to particularly have regard to s 16A(1)(2) I am required to have regard to the nature and circumstances of the offending by reference to s 16A(2)(a).
I pause for a moment to point out in addition to what I have already noted about the facts, that it is clear that the prisoner was the principal importer and that is reflected in the particular matters identified in para 14 of the Crown's helpful written submissions.
The quantity of particular substance, or "Tier 1 goods" as it is euphemistically described in the charge, was clearly significant and had a potential for substantial or significant profit to be made by those taking delivery of the packages that were brought into the country by the prisoner.
That having been said having regard to her background I cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that she organised this importation. Sometimes people such as this prisoner are described as "couriers" or "mules". But those words are insufficient to describe what a person actually did as the majority of the High Court in OIbrich made clear.
As the principal importer she was responsible for bringing the substance into the country, but the organisation of the substance, the means by which it was concealed, the profit primarily to be made out of the substance clearly would fall at the feet of other people and there is nothing in the background of the prisoner to suggest that she could have organised this importation by herself.
The offence was one at face value committed for financial gain. The Crown says at para 20 of its submissions that there is a "common sense" inference to be drawn from the statement in the facts as to the amount of money lost to poker machines or spent on poker machines by the prisoner in the 12 months leading up to the offending. Of course the prisoner has not assisted the Court or the prosecution for that matter by indicating what she was to receive for the matter. So it is a matter of speculation, but one might have thought that it is inevitable that the financial gain for the prisoner at least from her perspective must have been substantial for her to take the risk. But as to precisely what she was to receive we do not know.
One of the outstanding features of this matter is that the prisoner has never addressed, and I must say, she could have addressed it without necessary harm to the outcome of herself and the disposal of the case, the extent to which she received financial assistance to travel to Vietnam to see her sick father and return to Australia.
Again, in such cases it is common place for the facts to reveal that the relevant person that has imported the drugs has had their return airfare paid. Australian citizens travelling to family in Vietnam are logical subjects for such importations. But in this matter there is no evidence one way or the other.
Obviously the planning involved in the commission of the offence was substantial. But as I pointed out in the course of the submissions I do not conclude that the prisoner was responsible for the bulk of the planning. Her job was to receive what was given to her and try and successfully bring it into the country. The fact that she failed to assist the authorities means that there are undetected offenders in the Australian community that would have taken advantage of this substance to cause further harm to our community.
The Crown is correct by reference to s 16A(2)(ja) of the Crimes Act to identify general deterrence as a relevant matter to be considered and because of the weight to be given to general deterrence and specific deterrence, I could not conclude that a term of imprisonment to be imposed upon the prisoner should permit service of that term of imprisonment by way of suspended sentence or by way of Intensive Correction Order.
I should pause for a moment to point out that I have concluded that the starting point of any sentence to be imposed upon the prisoner should be two years and six months, bearing in mind the maximum penalty of five years, noting both the role of the prisoner, the quantity of the drugs involved and other findings of fact that are available on the evidence.
I have accorded the prisoner a discount of 10% upon the otherwise appropriate sentence noting the plea of guilty was entered on the day that the trial was supposed to start. The Crown has gone to some length as the Commonwealth Crown does in these matters to identify what has been held by our Court of Criminal Appeal Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 2 in respect of the issue of discounts that may be given in Commonwealth sentencing when matters are dealt with by New South Wales Courts, but also seeking to put before the Court some reasons either not to give a discount, or to give a discount less than might otherwise be appropriate, for example, when considering the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty.
I appreciate, as was the case before Xiao, that utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty was not a relevant matter usually in Federal sentencing matters. The general practise had been to approach the matter in accordance with the Commonwealth decision of Cameron a much earlier decision which came from Western Australia.
But it is correct to say that whilst the strength of the Crown case is a very important matter to be considered in what discount should be given in the Cameron sense, particularly having regard to the issue of facilitating the course of justice in relation to reflecting contrition and the like, where the utilitarian value of the plea is considered the strength of the Crown case is not such a dominating consideration. This was explained, although it is not directly applicable, in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Thomson and Houlton cited in the Crown's written submissions but is misspelt. (see (2000) 49 NSWLR 383).
In any event the prisoner's plea, whilst delayed, and on the day that the trial was to start, saved the cost of the trial. Notwithstanding the fact the plea might be regarded as "recognition of the inevitable", in my view a discount of 10% is not unreasonable in those circumstances.
I do not know of course on what basis the prisoner sought to contest the charges against her, to use a colloquialism. She was caught "cold" or "red-handed" by the authorities. Perhaps she was seeking to argue that she had no idea that what she had within her baggage contained the relevant substance. But the Crown pleaded recklessness and one would have thought the Crown case for recklessness was overwhelming.
That brings me back to my preliminary remarks that the prisoner can consider herself lucky that the people that provided her with all these containers that contained the pseudoephedrine did not place methylamphetamine or heroin in them because she would be looking at a prison sentence of some years greater than that, that I am imposing today given the maximum penalty for this offence.
As I have earlier indicated there is weight required to be given to personal or specific deterrence, there is no co-operation with law enforcement authorities, there is a need for the prisoner to be adequately punished in accordance with s 16A(2)(k).
I have taken into account her age, her prior good character, her antecedents and background such as I understand them from the history that she has given Mr Ballardie. The fact that she has no prior criminal convictions is a matter which the Crown says may be the subject of "limited weight" in an offence of this particular character. I acknowledge the fact that people of good character are people that are recruited to commit crimes of the type with which I am now concerned in order to minimise official attention.
But on the other hand as I pointed out in relation to other matters, the fact that she is of prior good character does provide some context for understanding aspects of her background, or put another way, accepting some of the hearsay representations she has made about her background which to my mind are not controversial.
The Crown is correct to point out that if the prisoner's commission of this offence is one that can be attributed to her gambling debts, or a gambling compulsion about which Mr Ballardie was not particularly impressed, this is not a mitigating factor. I respectfully adopt what Latham J, observed Anna Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136 [32].
So far as her prospects of rehabilitation are concerned it is difficult to gauge those. Again to my mind 49 years of prior good character at the time of the offending speaks of the fact that she has prospects of rehabilitation. But she will need assistance to address some of the matters that underline or underlie this offending, particularly if it be correct her involvement with gambling. She will also need professional assistance in managing her financial affairs on her release. Her circumstances are such that bearing in mind she and her daughter were renting premises, she will need assistance to find accommodation I would expect on her release from custody.
The Crown provided a series of judgments of various courts setting out sentences imposed which may or may not provide assistance for comparative purposes in accordance with the observation so of the High Court in the decision Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 particularly at [48]-[49]. I have taken into account particular sentences imposed acknowledging of course differences in objective facts and subjective circumstances.
Of course in arriving at my decision as to the appropriate sentence in this matter I have not lost sight of the helpful submissions of learned counsel for the prisoner. The prisoner's counsel of course was very reliant upon Mr Ballardie's opinions and sought to rely upon his findings so far as those findings, if accepted, would have relevance to the sentencing exercise if one was to accept that she was suffering a depressive illness at the relevant time, that amounted to a mental illness, or even a depressive illness slightly short of such a diagnosis, that could be a matter that could be taken into account in lessening her moral culpability or giving lesser weight to general deterrence or both.
However, as I said that is a matter where the prisoner bears the burden on balance in my view the unsatisfactory character of the report and the character of the material relied upon, the absence of corroborating material, leads me not to accept that conclusion on those bases. But that is not to say I have rejected everything that has been put on behalf of the prisoner.
First of all I bear in mind, which I am prepared to accept, her past history of fairly regular employment for at least some period of time, the discharge of family responsibilities, the raising of her daughter. These are all matters to her credit and in my view are matters that point to her capacity to return to a lawful place in our community.
I bear in mind the fact that his submissions on her behalf reflected upon her role as part of a larger or wider "organisation". To my mind of that there can be no doubt as I have said I see nothing in the hallmarks of this offending to suggest that she was capable of organising this importation by herself. I certainly note, and there would be evidence of it if it was available, there is no suggestion of any intelligence available to the Federal Police that she is involved in our community in the dissemination of drugs beyond the offending with which I am concerned.
However, as I said, the large bulk of principle that I have applied flows from the very helpful submissions of the Crown and most of what has been put by the Crown in its written submissions I accept. Obviously the penalty I must impose must be seen as one constrained of course by the maximum penalty. This is not the worst offence by the worst offender. It is a substantial offence or a significant offence of considerable seriousness within the context of an offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
It is not one in the circumstances which is deserving of consideration of a term of imprisonment that would permit suspension of that term of imprisonment or as I said earlier the imposition of an intensive correction order. There must be some term of imprisonment to service a salutary lesson to this prisoner and other members of her community who might be tempted to act in the way she has.
That having been said I also believe there should be an extensive period of supervision at least within the context of the total sentence I impose to permit her the opportunity to adjust to community living and to receive some professional assistance on her release from custody.
This matter has been I hasten to say around for some period of time. I note by reference to the simple facts of the matter that the prisoner's been on bail for two years and almost two months. I note that she has not committed any offences over that period of time. It seems to me another matter which is relevant to the assessment of her prospects of rehabilitation, working to her favour in so far as the prospects of rehabilitation substantially impact upon the outcome of the sentence.
I should point out that there is not any evidence of any matter concerning the prisoner's family or dependents, which gives rise to any exceptional circumstances. I also note there is not a particular victim whose circumstances need to be taken into account, nor any specific injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence. But that having been said the prisoner was reckless to the fact that she was introducing to Australia a substance which is capable of being converted into a drug, a prohibited drug under New South Wales law, which can cause great damage to our community. Recent events over the weekend as sad as they are, demonstrate that young people taking drugs and suffering permanent or life threatening damage.
Various people play their role in that happening and this prisoner's involvement in the importation of the substance with which I am concerned is an example of the way in which someone without regard to the ultimate consequences of their actions can contribute to devastating impact upon our community. Of course this prisoner's not solely responsible for any particular impact, but by doing what she did she played at least a part in potential catastrophic consequences for others.
You can stand up thanks very much ma'am.
In relation to the offence for which you pleaded guilty you are convicted. I sentence you to two years and three months imprisonment to commence on 9 December 2018 and to expire on 8 March 2021.
I direct that you be released at the expiration of one year of your sentence upon you entering a recognisance pursuant to 21(1)(b) Crimes Act (Cth) 1914 yourself in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year and three months from 8 December 2019 and to appear to receive sentence if called upon to do so at any time in respect of any breach within the said period.
A further condition of the recognisance is that you are to accept the supervision and guidance of an officer of the New South Wales Community Corrections Service for a period of one year and three months and obey all reasonable directions of that service and that you report to the Community Corrections Service within seven days of your release from custody.
I recommend the prisoner be immediately on reception by Corrective Services, be assessed by Justice Health for any psychological or other treatment being necessary but it.
Yes thank you any matters from you Madam Crown?
TEN KATE: No your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Any matters from you sir?
JAWAS: No your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Ma'am do you understand the sentence that's been imposed upon you?
INTERPRETER: A. Yes I do.
HIS HONOUR: You will serve a year in gaol. You will be released on a recognisance, you are to be of good behaviour during that period, you are to appear at court if you are asked to appear at court during that period. You are to report to Community Corrections Service on your release within seven days, you will be given an address to report to depending upon where you live and you'll obey their reasonable directions and I want you assessed by Justice Health on your reception at the prison to identify any particular assistance that you need. Yes thank you, you can take a seat.
Yes thank you Madam Crown very much yes I thank the Corrective Services officers for coming up. Could you take the offender into custody? She's never been in custody before she'll need to see Justice Health on a reception at Mulawa. I presume she'll go to Mulawa to start is that right?
There's no joy in sending anyone to gaol Mr Jawas I can assure of you that whether you sentence someone to 20 years imprisonment or 30 years imprisonment or six months in gaol, there's no joy in it one way or the other. But there's an old saying amongst professional criminals if you haven't got the time don't commit the crime that's the truth. The prisoner's daughter's here--
JAWAS: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Ma'am you understand the sentence imposed on your mother?
SPEAKER: Yeah.
HIS HONOUR: I'm not apologising for sending her to gaol; it's my duty to do so. But she'll be free to be released in 12 months time. If she brought heroin or methylamphetamine in the same quantities into the country, bearing in mind I'll accept for the moment she didn't know precisely what was in the containers, having regard to the charge she pleaded guilty to, she'd be in gaol for another six or seven years. Having regard to the maximum penalty in fact, she would have been in custody from the day she was arrested till the day she came to court. So it could have been worse. There's a Salvation Army officer there that might be able to provide you with some assistance thank you.
JAWAS: Thank you your Honour.
[2]
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: 06 November 2019