Site Logo

DPP v Rohi [2020] VCC 713

sentence — attempting to possess a marketable quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug contrary to s 11.1(1) and 307.6(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offence relates to 6,367.8g of pure opium — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — community been spared time and cost of trial and witnesses not required to give evidence — offender’s plea of guilty has utilitarian benefit — contrition — s 16A(2)(f)(ii) — sentencing judge prepared to accept guilty plea indicates remorse for offending now, although sentencing judge concerned about extent of remorse given texts messages the day prior to offender’s arrest, discussing potentially further such transactions — mental condition — s 16A(2)(m) — offender suffers Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to their traumatic childhood — sentencing judge agreed that principles 5 and 6 of Verdins are enlivened — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — offender’s role to provide an address for product that was to be sent — offender a willing participant, providing home address and personal details to collect item and retain until subsequent collection — moral culpability for this offending is high — offender integral part of it, although sentencing judge accepted moral culpability slightly lowered as result of circumstances, including financial need — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — sentencing judge accepted offender’s background is one involving hardship — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — regarding risk of re-offending, relying on your lack of criminal history, age at time of this offending and no subsequent offending since arrest, sentencing judge regards offender’s prospects of rehabilitation as this stage as good, although much will depend on their financial situation — in fixing appropriate sentence, sentencing judge must seek to maximise offender’s chances of rehabilitation as they may be — age — s 16A(2)(m) — whilst offender not a young offender as defined in Sentencing Act 1991, sentencing judge accepted that at age 26 (of offending) offender’s rehabilitation prospects (at 29) are a relevant sentencing consideration — deportation — prosecution conceded offender would be concerned about potential deportation and that of offender’s partner — that such could be taken into account as making offender’s time in prison more onerous being so concerned, including reference to Zhao v The Queen — sentencing judge accepted offender will be anxious about likely deportation and accepted that uncertainty will make offender’s time more difficult for them than a prisoner without that uncertainty — hardship to the offender — sentencing judge took into account this is offender’s first time in custody and that their English is limited — character — s 16A(2)(m) — offender’s prior good character, whilst relevant, has less weight in these types of cases than might otherwise apply — sentence — imposed 4 years’ imprisonment, with a 2 year and 3 month non-parole period — s 6AAA — had offender not plead guilty, would have imposed 6 years’ imprisonment with a 4 year and 4 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.

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

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow