Site Logo

DPP v Olczyk [2019] VCC 1641

sentence — importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, trafficking a marketable quantity of a controlled drug, attempting to manufacture a controlled drug, possession of a controlled drug, failure to comply with an order under s 3LA(2) — state firearm offence — Charge 1 relates to 629.9g of pure MDMA, Charge 2 relates to ‘no less than 100g MDMA’, Charge 4 relates to 330.3g of pure MDMA — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — offending very serious, involved in a sophisticated scheme to import, and traffick MDMA and manufacture MDA — level of sophistication and complexity in offending was high — offender not mastermind or driving force in importation, having more of an ‘hands on’ role — offender doing this for financial gain — conduct deliberate, sustained and ‘not uncomplicated’ — sentencing judge not satisfied on basis of probabilities of drugs being in any way instrumental in offending — delay — close to 3 years between arrest and sentence, offender sentenced 22 months after they were arraigned and pleaded guilty — delay here of significant mitigatory value, offender left in a state of uncertain suspense and status as remand prisoner made the service of that time more onerous owing to limitations upon courses and programs, and ‘just the plain fact of there being no light at the end of the tunnel’ — in course of delay, offender taken steps along path to rehabilitation — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) —  contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — offender has strong or positive prospects of rehabilitation — offender undoubtedly ‘leapt in down at the deep end’ with offending of this magnitude, but offender came to crime late in life and with no past proven criminality — offender took responsibility and did not seek to blame anyone other than themselves — offender has used time in custody usefully doing courses and programs and been drug free — sentencing judge prepared to find offender felt remorse for their crimes — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) —guilty plea at early stage, taking responsibility for crimes and facilitated the course of justice, and the community has been spared the time, cost and effort of a trial up in the court, and it would have been a trial of real complexity — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — general deterrence is the primary sentencing purpose, in relation to drug offences in particular — message must be sent that life altering sentences await those who chose to import or traffick drugs — sentence — imposed 9 years’ and 8 months imprisonment with a 4 year and 10 month non-parole period, with 1048 days having already been served — s 6AAA — s 6AAA statement is artificial in this sense, as had offender not pleaded guilty there would not have been guilty plea discount as well as no remorse on display and less favourable rehabilitation prospects — this case should not be used in other cases to demonstrate type of sentences generally open for importation of commercial quantity of border controlled drug — combination of factors which produced highly unusual outcome — had offender not pleaded guilty, would have been sentenced to 15 years’ and 6 months imprisonment, with an 11 year and 6 month non-parole period
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.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions