Site Logo

Cadzow v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 108

appeal against sentence — 14 counts of procuring conduct of person to commit offence of preparation of prescribed goods for export at unregistered establishment offence contrary to s 8A(1) of Export Control Act 1982 (Cth) — 1 count of preparing prescribed goods for export at unregistered establishment contrary to s 8A(1) of Export Control Act 1982 (Cth) — 1 count of attempting to export prescribed goods in contravention of specified conditions ore restrictions contrary to s 8(3)(1) of Export Control Act 1982 (Cth) — 14 counts of exporting prescribed goods with false trade descriptions contrary to s 15(1)(b) of Export Control Act 1982 (Cth) — 1 count of exporting prescribed goods using OECD labels containing false trade descriptions contrary to s 15 of Export Control Act 1982 (Cth) — original sentence imposed 4 years’ and 3 months imprisonment with 1 year and 10 month non-parole period — nature and circumstances — s 16(A)(2)(a) — offences relates to lucerne seed — procurement and preparation offences with respect to 15 consignments — Eckert’s farm was licensed to treat Lucerne seed but not registered establishment for re-bagging and labelling — offender sentenced on basis that offences were not committed intentionally — offender held mistaken belief that Eckert’s did not need to be registered — offender was reckless in this regard — recklessness that actuated offending constituted single course of conduct — offender signed commercial invoices containing false descriptions — offender applied labels designed to leverage off the quality of genuine OECD labels — offences are serious — offences exist to protect existence and reputation of Australia’s trade market — 5 year penalties are designed to cover broad range of conduct that may well vary considerably in seriousness — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — offender was contrite and remorseful and has shown genuine insight into offending and accepted responsibility for actions — cooperation — s 16A(2)(h) — offender has been cooperative with investigation — offender emphasised that cooperation extended to disclosing preparation offences of which investigators had previously been unaware — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — delay of 4 and a half years between date of last offence and date of sentence — offender had rehabilitated themselves or was well advanced in rehabilitation — this is powerful consideration against imposing period of imprisonment such as would jeopardise rehabilitation — comprehensive rehabilitation when taken with contrition and cooperation renders head sentence manifestly excessive — leave to appeal granted — original sentence quashed — offender resentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment to be released on recognisance after 12 months  
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2024 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow