sentence — conspiracy with others to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor, offence contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 307.11(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offences relate to 600 kg to 2500kg of pseudoephedrine — taking into account other offences —dealing in money being reckless as to the risk of the property becoming an instrument of crime offence contrary to s 400.6(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code taken into account — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — the plea of guilty saved both cost and time involved in running a trial and reflects significant utilitarian value — demonstrates willingness to facilitate the administration of justice — 25% discount applied — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — offender involved in conspiracy for relatively short period of 6 weeks and ceased involvement voluntarily — motivated at least to some degree by financial reward — willing participant in the conspiracy, playing facilitative role by passing messages about proposed importation — trusted participant by initiators of conspiracy — role at lower end of the scale and culpability significantly lower than that of co-conspirators — although quantity of pseudoephedrine proposed changed over the months from 2500kg to 600kg, on any view of it the quantity involved was very substantial — methodology utilised was not sophisticated, having regard to fact that number of meetings in public — conspiracy in early stages of planning and far removed from implementation stage — sentencing judge taken into account the role of undercover officer in the particular circumstances of case because they played an important role in bringing the conspiracy into existence, making it known to conspirators that they had a “door” to enable importation — never any possibility that pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture illicit substances resulting in dissemination of drugs into community, although through no positive act of the offender — nature and scope of conspiracy and role of offender limited — offence falls below middle of range of objective seriousness but not lower end as agreement involved importation of substantial quantity of border controlled precursor into Australia — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — general deterrence, denunciation and punishment are relevant and important considerations in determining appropriate penalty —serious offence involving agreement to import substantial quantity of pseudoephedrine into Australia — must be met with condign punishment that sends message to other potential importers of illicit substances that courts are prepared to proceed by way of lengthy custodial penalties — contrition — s 16A(2)(f)(ii) — offender genuinely remorseful for involvement in these offences — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — sentencing judge guarded of offender’s prospects of rehabilitation, however not a case where it can be said they have poor or no prospects of rehabilitation — continued support of family, is remorseful for criminal conduct, although did not completely severe ties with criminal associates, offender voluntarily ceased involvement in conspiracy — rehabilitation remains important consideration in this case — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — weight given to specific deterrence can be moderated to some degree, although remains important consideration in light of offender’s criminal history and haste in which offender become involved in further serious criminal offending upon parole release — moderated because offender demonstrated some maturity and capacity for restraint by voluntarily ceasing involvement in conspiracy — sentence — imposed 6 years imprisonment with a 3 year non-parole period — but for guilty plea, would have imposed 8 years imprisonment
