(c) inadequate significance was given to the utilitarian benefit derived from the applicant's plea of guilty.
5 There was an agreed statement of facts. These and the judge's findings reveal that the heroin was concealed in four ornamental stone columns which had been consigned from Hong Kong in four crates. The consignment had been addressed to "Jee Hoon Rae" at 1/71 Wentworth Road, Strathfield. The judge found that the name of the consignee was a "slender subterfuge" in that the applicant sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to use a pseudonym. The address to which the narcotics were laster delivered to the applicant appeared to be premises in respect of which he had occupation and control.
6 The heroin arrived in Australia on 19 July 2000. The consignment notes showed the contents of the four crates in which the drugs were concealed to be stone columns. However, x-ray examination revealed packages inside each of the four columns. As a consequence, they were dismantled and each was found to contain packages of heroin wrapped in clear plastic. Controlled delivery samples of heroin were placed in the columns.
7 On 21 July 2000 police placed a listening device in one of the stone columns and the signal was thereafter lawfully monitored, as were telephone conversations by and to the applicant, which were intercepted pursuant to appropriate warrants. The electronic surveillance revealed that the applicant contacted a number of freight forwarders with a view to ascertaining their procedure for the removal of imported goods from storage, in the course of which he inquired about the delivery of the goods to his "home" at Strathfield as soon as possible.
8 In each case he sought to arrange for the payment of the freight forwarder in cash. In one instance (Sydney Express Couriers), when asked how quickly he wanted the goods delivered, he said that he needed to speak to his "business partner". He then put the phone down and after some conversation, came back with a further question. He was informed by a number of the freight forwarders that cash was not an acceptable method of payment.
9 In a conversation with another freight forwarder (DHL Express) the applicant told the phone operator that he had received a fax from Hong Kong concerning the shipment. When he was asked from whom the fax had come, he sought confirmation from somebody who was apparently with him, and then merely replied that the fax had come from Hong Kong.
10 The applicant also contacted the airline which had air freighted the columns and their concealed narcotics to Australia. He inquired about "his consignment", and said it was "urgent" as he "needed (them) for his job". Finally, the applicant contacted yet another freight forwarder and again sought to make arrangements for payment in cash, even going to the extent of asking if he could go to the office to pay the cash, and then have the goods delivered as "they were important for his business".
11 The applicant made further contact with the air freight company, using a false name, and stating that he was a business partner of the consignee Jee Hoon Rae.
12 During the course of the days that followed the importation of the drugs, the applicant contacted a person referred to as Dong, and asked him to collect the columns from Mascot. He offered Dong $400 - $500 to do this, but Dong was unable to do so because of the demands of his work. Dong appears to be a false name and the person in question could not be traced.
13 The applicant then telephoned another male, who was using a telephone service in the name of Tran Wang. The applicant and Wang had a conversation concerning the importation in the course of which several code words were used to conceal the nature of the goods, which were the subject of discussion. Tran Wang has not been able to be found, and is believed to be a false identity.
14 On 26 July 2000 a male, using the name Danny Wong, telephoned the applicant and they discussed the importation. In the course of this discussion the applicant talked of options for getting other people to pick up the consignment. It was apparent from this conversation that the applicant knew what was involved in the importation, was anxious to conceal his association with the criminal enterprise, and to interpose somebody between the arranging of delivery and the ultimate delivery.
15 On 27 July 2000 the applicant attended at the office of a Mascot customs broker. There he handed an authority in the name of Jee Hoon Rae to an employee of the customs broker, and paid $715.25 in cash for the delivery of the columns to the Strathfield address, shown as the address of the applicant. The applicant indicated to the customs broker that he would be at the premises waiting for the delivery.
16 The columns, still containing the controlled delivery samples of heroin, were delivered to the applicant's address at 1/71 Wentworth Road, Strathfield. The applicant, using the false name of Jee Hoon Rae, signed a receipt for the consigned goods, and had them placed inside unit 1.
17 The electronic surveillance established that on 28 July 2000 the applicant was involved in removing the columns from the wooden crates and removing some of the narcotics from the columns. In the course of so doing, the applicant confirmed to a confederate that "Everything is all beautiful and everything ready to take".
18 The work of recovery of the narcotics continued on 29 July 2000 in the course of which the applicants said that he was "bored" and words to the effect that removing the narcotics was, in effect, beneath him, and was a matter for others, whom he described as "the idiots". The physical work of removal was the role of the labourer, whereas, as the judge held, he, the applicant, saw his role as supervisory or managerial.
19 In the early hours of the morning the applicant discovered the concealed listening device, which was then discarded. It was later found on a vacant allotment some several blocks removed from the premises to which the columns had been delivered.
20 Later the same morning, when a search warrant was executed in the presence of the applicant at the Wentworth Road premises, the four stone columns were located in a bedroom, whilst the controlled delivery samples of the heroin were found in a kitchen cupboard, and in the refrigerator. The samples had been cut and then resealed. The crates were located in the backyard of the premises.
21 The applicant was cautioned, but after a short conversation, declined to participate in a formal record of interview. The estimated street value of the heroin imported was $A11,378,000.
22 The judge found that over a period of four days the applicant made considerable effort to effect delivery of the narcotics. His attempts, finally successful, to pay in cash, were clearly intended to cover his trail, as were his attempts to interpose somebody between him and the arranging of the delivery. The judge held that the applicant was of the view that the mechanical disassembly of the columns and the removal of the heroin was "beneath him and his role in the overall importation".
23 He then found that the applicant was "not ... a mere courier". The fact that the applicant gave no evidence and gave no assistance to the investigating officers meant that it was not possible to be precise as to the applicant's position in the hierarchy involved in the overall criminal enterprise. However, the judge held that:
"The prisoner was not a mere courier. He was a willing participant. He was in the position of being able to attempt at least to recruit others to do the donkey work. He was fully aware, as his conversations intercepted indicate, of precisely the nature of the task in which he was engaged. He was a serious and important player ... "
24 In determining the proper sentence, it is appropriate to bear in mind what was said by the High Court in The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270. Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ said:
"We do not accept the identification of the precise nature of the accused's involvement in an act of importation of prohibited imports is an essential aspect of the sentencing process" (supra at 277)