appeal against sentence — conspiring to import cocaine contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 307.1(1) Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 9 years’ and 6 months imprisonment with 3 year and 6 month non-parole period — appeal against sentence by Yavuz heard together with crown application for permission to appeal against sentence — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — expectation of conspirators does bear on motives and subjective criminality but does not provide sound basis on which to objectively evaluate seriousness of offending — evidence points to inference that larger amount than 2 kilograms was planned to be imported — sentencing judge found no more than that planned importation was of quantity not less than 2 kilograms — offender was fully engaged in conspiracy to import cocaine — co-offender Kola was initiator principal and controlling mind of the conspiracy — offender shouldered burden of communication with Parise to shield Kola — period of time over which conspiracy subsisted was not long and mainly result of delay — offender’s expressed hope to make profits is important but in absence of clearer evidence as to what conspiracy was realistically likely to deliver offender’s statements may have been no more than expression of vain or deluded hope — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — offender entitled to substantial reduction in sentence because plea was entered in Magistrates Court before committal — there is no prescribed hierarchy of reductions — some judges may have reduced sentence by more than 20% but reduction not manifestly inadequate — totality — sentencing judge considered that sentence commenced at expiration of non-parole period of State sentence — no greater degree of concurrency was required by reason of connection between cannabis offences and conspiracy — even though offender and co-offender were both involved in cannabis offending which financed cocaine conspiracy it nonetheless marked significant escalation in offending — overall sentence was not in any way crushing — sentence allowed adequate scope for rehabilitation — overall non-parole period of 76% not disproportionate for serious and persistent national and international high-value drug trafficking — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — offender’s involvement in commercial drug enterprises means that personal deterrence is important factor in sentencing — even though conspiracy persisted over short period of time it had to be considered in light of cannabis offending which occurred at same time — cannabis offending limited scope for more lenient rehabilitative sentence
