Site Logo

R v Ibrahim [2020] NSWDC 254

sentence — two counts of conspire to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug offence contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 307.1(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — three counts of deal in an instrument of crime offences contrary to s 400.3(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — offences relate to 594.43kg of pure MDMA for Count 1 and 737.55kg of pure MDMA, 91.87 kg of pure cocaine and 12.04kg of pure methamphetamine for Count 2, $2,863,870 for Count 3, $1,800,000 for Count 4 and $2,224,540 for Count 5 respectively — additional aid and abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence, namely trafficking of a commercial quantity of MDMA offence contrary to ss 302.2(1) and 11.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, smuggled tobacco products offence contrary to s 233BABAD of Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and offender did deal in proceeds of crime, namely money worth $1 million, offence contrary to s 400.3(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code taken into account pursuant to s 16BA — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — plea of guilty at first opportunity — having regard to complexity of issues and voluminous material, trial would have been a lengthy one, necessarily involving cross-examination of the undercover operative who was central to criminal enterprise — significant utilitarian value in plea of guilty so reduction in sentence of 25% — notwithstanding strength of Crown case, sentencing judge satisfied guilty plea also reflects a willingness on the part of the offender to facilitate the administration of justice — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — weight of drugs and value of drugs was substantial, each conspiracy to import border controlled drugs involved a high degree of criminality — although sophisticated, sentencing judge not persuaded the degree of sophistication exceeds that inherent in offences of this type — having regard to quantity and value of drugs, nature of conspiratorial agreement and methodology used, sentencing judge satisfied each conspiracy is properly characterised as objectively very serious — fact that number of offenders were acting in concert to achieve unlawful acts did not increase likelihood of crime occurring because of nature of undercover operation, sentencing judge not persuaded that offences of conspiracy here are more serious than substantive offences — primary consideration remains that offender intended substantial quantities of drugs reach Australia to be disseminated into community and through no act of theirs that no such risk arose — in respect of each conspiracy offence, sentencing judge found objective seriousness to be of a high (as opposed to the highest order) having regard to substantial quantity of border controlled drugs the subject of the conspiracies, the planning, organisation and methodology involved, the lengthy period of several months over which each conspiracy was on foot, and the degree of coordination and communication between Sydney-based and overseas syndicates — while role not principal in each conspiracy, offender a trusted and wiling participant who engaged in criminality expecting significant financial gain — in respect of each tobacco transaction, offender played senior role, was personally invested and obtained substantial financial benefit — entrapment — whether and to what extent the involvement encouragement or incitement by police operates to reduce an offender’s culpability must be judged on the basis of the facts in each case — undercover operative pivotal in offending conduct from very outset — no evidence offender engaged in or contemplated dealing in tobacco or agreeing to import large quantities of border control drugs prior to undercover operative’s involvement — sentencing judge persuaded offender’s culpability diminished but not substantially as degree of encouragement and perhaps enticement on undercover operative’s part, but no coercion or pressure was applied — offender not reluctant or unwilling participant — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — general and specific deterrence and denunciation are important sentencing considerations in this case having regard to duration and nature of criminality — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — as offender has prior criminal offences, not entitled to leniency for first-time or minor record offender — hardship to the offender — real chance offender’s mother will never see offender as a free person and due to failing health is no longer able to visit her child in custody — inability to see their mother will weigh heavily on offender during time in custody — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — offender’s letter does not contain apology or any expression of remorse — guilty plea reflects some remorse on offender’s part although strong Crown case against them — little other evidence to demonstrate remorse or contrition — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — having regard to criminal record and nature and extent of offender involved in these offences, sentencing judge guarded about future prospects of rehabilitation — sentence imposed 30 years’ imprisonment with a 18 year 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