Site Logo

DPP v Luzza [2022] VCC 1992

The offender was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 1 count of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and 1 count of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Offender also sentenced for state drug offences. Commonwealth offending related to 496.8 grams of pure eutylone and 6.3687 kilograms of pure flurodeschloroketamine (FDK).

Nature and Circumstances: The amount of eutylone imported was 248 times the marketable quantity threshold. Offender arranged the importation and took steps to avoid detection by the use of a false name and address as they were aware that there was a substantial risk that the substance was a border controlled rug. Offender could have earned around $12,000 on the sale of this imported amount. The weight of FDK imported was 6.3 times the commercial quantity threshold. Offender’s culpability in respect to this charge is high. There is no evidence that offender was working for another person in arranging these importations. The ease of ordering these drugs online does not reduce offender’s culpability. Offender could have earned more than $600,000 from the FDK. The potential earning from the sale are above the low levels seen with drugs such as 1,4-Butanediol and GBL but below the very significant amount of money to be made from the sale of drugs such as methylamphetamine and heroin.

Guilty Plea: Offender’s plea occurred after a negotiation and a contested committal hearing. This was a complicated matter, and the nature of the drugs involved meant that time was legitimately spent determining whether they were analogues. The mitigation afforded by offender’s plea is significant. Offender saved a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the prosecution, and of court time.

Rehabilitation: Offender has made substantial and persistent efforts at addressing their issues, improving their insight and decision-making, and improving their interpersonal relationships. Offender has a mor positive direction in life. Although offender’s previous contact with the criminal law and imprisonment did not prevent them from engaging in the offending, they are now older and have a strong relationship. Offender has reasonable prospects for rehabilitation.

Parity: Eight other people were charged with the offending connected to offender. The charges against one of these people were withdrawn as they had been deported. Two of the people were sentenced. The offending alleged against co-accused is generally very different to the offending to which offender has pleaded guilty, save in respect to Mr Carbone. Mr Carbone was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.

Offender sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years for the Commonwealth offences.
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