appeal against sentence — importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug offence contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — offence relates to 60.5g of pure methylamphetamine — original sentence imposed 7 years’ and 11 months imprisonment with a 5 year and 6 month non-parole period — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — Crown expressly conceded that in light of Xiao, the sentencing judge in the present case had erred in failing to have regard to the utilitarian value of offender’s plea of guilty, and that the ground of appeal was made out — no dispute offender pleaded guilty at first available opportunity, which is some evidence of remorse and acceptance of responsibility — 25% discount allowed — re-sentence — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — offender performed an obviously important function, without which the importation could not have been effected — evident from method of concealment that offender engaged in considerable preparation and planning in an attempt to ensure that the presence of the drug would not be detected — offender expressly conceded that he was not forced to commit offence and did so because of promise of financial reward — amount of drug imported was 30 times marketable quantity, which is substantial — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — practice of offender providing handwritten letter to sentencing judge without being cross-examined on its contents has been the subject of criticism — where expressions of remorse by offender are untested, appeal judge placed little weight on its contents — co-operation — s 16A(2)(h) — naming others involved in important was significant — information was provided spontaneously — no suggestion in deciding to assist police in that way, offender was motivated by desire to secure a discount — if federal offender has co-operated with authorities, they are entitled by virtue of s 16A(2)(h) to have that factor taken into account on sentence, no fixed tariff to be applied — usefulness of co-operation provided will be relevant in considering nature and extent of co-operation, and in assessing quantum of any discount which is to be applied — absence of evidence establishing usefulness of co-operation does not lead to conclusion that there should be no discount at all, although in such circumstances the discount may be less than would otherwise be the case — 5% discount to reflect co-operation with authorities — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — criminal history disentitles offender to leniency — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — offender is yet to successfully address issue of drug use — doing so is fundamental to offender’s successful rehabilitation — in light of offender’s history in this regard, their prospects of rehabilitation must remain guarded against sentence — sentence — offender sentenced to 7 years’ and 5 months imprisonment with a 5 year and 2 month non-parole period
