CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Crawford (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 919
•3 July 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MARTIN CRAWFORD (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Cahill | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 June 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 July 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Crawford (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 919 | |
SENTENCE
---
Subject:Attempt to possess commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug
Catchwords: Guilty plea – attempt to possess 117 kg of cocaine (58.5 times the commercial quantity) – controlled delivery –– removed concealed powder and transported to other premises under the direction of others – childhood trauma – psychological conditions – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Procedure Disclosure and Other Matters) Act 2022 (Vic); Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic); Criminal Code 1995 (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Corrections Act 1986 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; R v Hai Van
Nguyen; R v Phuong Thu Thi Pham [2021] NSWCCA 238; Nguyen v R; Phommalysack v R (2011) 31 VR 673; Suky Lieu v The Queen [2016] VSCA 277; Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237; R v Shi [2014] NSWCCA 135; Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Biba [2021] VSC 327; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Collins [2015] VSCA 106; Tran v The Queen [2021] VSCA; Li v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 100; DPP (Cth) v Wang [2019] VSCA 250; Kuo v R: Huang v R; Shih v R [2018] NSWCCA 270; Biango v The Queen [2018] VSCA 210; Shakhanov [2019] VSCA 38
Sentence:Total effective sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment; minimum non-parole period of five years and six months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr B Stevens | Commonwealth Director for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Defence | Mr C Farrington | Stephen Andrianakis & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Martin Crawford,[1] you have pleaded guilty to:
(a) one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border control drug contrary to subsections 11.1(1) and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth); and
(b) one charge of pre-trafficking a controlled precursor contrary to subsection 306.4 (1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).
[1] A pseudonym.
Circumstances of an alleged offending[2]
[2] The alleged circumstances are set out in a prosecution opening dated 12 March 2025 (Exhibit B). Mr [Crawford] accepts them as agreed facts for the purpose of the sentence indication application.
2Authorities intercepted an importation of 117 kg of cocaine,[3] which was hidden in a consignment of eight air purifiers (“the consignment”), which arrived at Melbourne from Hong Kong on 31 May 2021.
[3] Its estimated value ranges between $35.3 million and $52.2 million (wholesale value) and $70.2 million – $90.6 million (street value).
3They had been monitoring messages, on the notorious[4] AN0M platform, between members of an international criminal syndicate operating in Türkiye, Hong Kong and Australia.
[4] AN0M is a dedicated encrypted communications platform. Access to it was generally controlled by the serious crime community.
4Between 27 April 2021 and 26 May 2021, the syndicate had imported three “dummies”, that is, consignments of goods, which did not contain border control drugs, from Hong Kong by “piggybacking” a legitimate business for their shipment.
5They “piggybacked” the same business for the importation of the cocaine.
6Federal police substituted blocks of innocuous powder for the 160 blocks of cocaine and used physical and electronic surveillance to follow the movement of the consignment as syndicate members redirected its delivery from the premises of the legitimate business to other premises under its control.
7On the afternoon of 2 June 2021, you drove to a Keilor Park warehouse, with a trolley and two duffel bags, where, over a two-hour period, you removed the 160 substituted blocks from the consignment, put them into the bags and then drove to an Keilor East home, then occupied by Nathan Ferrer,[5] where you put the blocks into the garage and left.
[5] A pseudonym.
8You had taken photographs of blocks you had removed and sent them to a syndicate member.[6]
[6] You were not an AN0M user. You messaged one of the syndicate members using a different communication platform.
9On the afternoon of 3 June 2021, after the substitution had been discovered, you returned to the garage, with a sledgehammer, where, with Ferrer, you loaded 159 blocks into your car. You then drove to a Deanside housing estate where you disposed of the blocks into a commercial waste bin and then drove home.
10On the morning of 4 June 2021, police arrested you at Gisborne where you were on a worksite.
11In your wallet, they found false identity cards, including a New South Wales drivers licence with your photo, in the name of Benjamin Stephenson.
12In your car, they found an invoice, in the Stephenson name, for the lease of a self-storage unit at Braybrook.
13Later, the same morning police, arrested Ferrer.
14In the afternoon, the Türkiye based syndicate member messaged the Hong Kong supplier, “my 2 guys got pinched”.
15When police questioned you exercised your right to remain silent.
16On 17 June 2021, police searched the self-storage unit which you had rented, using the false Stephenson identity, on 20 April 2021.
17Inside the unit they found 30 green 20 L containers labelled “dishwashing liquid”.
18The containers contained 11.2 kg of pseudoephedrine,[7] which is a controlled precursor.
[7] A commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine is 1.2 kg.
Sentencing principles and objective seriousness of offending
19The sentencing principles in federal drug importation and possession cases are well-established:
(a) the offender's role and involvement in the enterprise, the sophistication of the enterprise and the amount of drugs involved are relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of the offending;
(b) because of the difficulty in detecting the offending and the great harm stemming from the distribution of illicit drugs in the community, significant weight is attached to the principle of general deterrence;
(c) sentences must signal to would-be drug traffickers the potential profits from serious federal drug crimes are neutralised by the risk of severe punishment;
(d) for involvement at any level, an offender should expect a significant sentence;
(e) as a matter of common sense, it should be inferred, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the person who possesses or imports drugs is doing so for profit; and
(f) prior good character is generally to be given less weight as a mitigating factor.[8]
Charge one – attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border control drug
[8]R v Hai Van Nguyen; R v Phuong Thu Thi Pham [2021] NSWCCA 238 at [72] followed in Nguyen v R;
Phommalysack v R (2011) 31 VR 673 at [34] and Suky Lieu v The Queen [2016] VSCA 277 at [41]-[43].
20A member of a sophisticated international crime syndicate hired you to remove cocaine, which was packaged in 160 1 kg blocks, hidden in a shipment of air purifiers, and transport it to other premises for further redirection or collection.
21You went to a warehouse where you removed the blocks of powder, which were believed to contain cocaine, photographed them to let the syndicate member know what you had done and then took them to other premises for storage. After the substitution was discovered, you collected the blocks and disposed of them in a commercial waste bin.
22Your involvement was essential to the syndicate’s plan to get the drugs from the shipment for distribution in Australia.
23The size of the drug shipment was substantial.
24The quantity of cocaine, 117 kg pure weight, is 58.5 times the statutory commercial quantity. Estimates of its value range from $35.3 million (wholesale) to $90.6 million (street value).
25The only conclusion to be drawn is you were involved for financial gain.
26Considering the sophistication of the drug importation enterprise, your crucial participation in it and the very large quantity of border-controlled drug involved, your offending is objectively very serious.
Charge 2 – pre-trafficking controlled precursor
27You had control of the pseudoephedrine which was stored in a storage unit which you rented.
28By your guilty plea, you admit you pre-trafficked the controlled precursor,
(a) by possessing it;
(b) with the intention of using it to manufacture a controlled drug;[9] and
(c) with the intention of selling, or believing that another person intends to sell any of the drug so manufactured.[10]
[9] There is a statutory presumption, if the possession was not authorised, the person who possesses it is taken to have possessed the substance with the intention of using some or all of it to manufacture a controlled drug s 406.8 (1) and with the intention of selling, or believing that another person intended to sell, some or all of the drug so manufactured s 406.8 (3).
[10] Ibid.
29It is not alleged you knew the nature of the precursor chemical[11] or the quantity you possessed.[12]
[11] The fault element for paragraph (1) (b) – the substance is a controlled precursor – is recklessness s 406.4 (2).
[12] The charge is the simpliciter offence.
30To reduce the risk of your detection you had used the false driver’s licence, bearing your image, to rent the unit in a false name.
31While objectively less serious than the offending in charge one it nonetheless represents additional criminality.
Criminal record
32You have admitted a criminal record.
33You have two summary convictions for drug possession, methylamphetamine in 2015 and a prescription drug in 2017. They are of limited relevance.
Chronology of proceedings
34When police arrested you on 4 June 2021, you were charged with serious federal drug offences and remanded in custody. Because of pandemic related restrictions, prison conditions were harsher then.
35On 2 December 2021 you were released on bail on stringent conditions including daily reporting and a curfew.
36On 26 March 2025, you pleaded guilty to the two charges on the indictment.
37On 6 June 2023, you voluntarily surrendered yourself into custody.
Personal circumstances[13]
[13] Your personal circumstances as set out in Carla Ferrari's psychological reports, dated 1 November 2021 (Exhibit 2) and 12 March 2025 (Exhibit 3).
38You were born in September 1994. You were 26 when you offended. You are now 30.
39Your father had four children before he met your mother. You are the only child of your parents’ union.
40You have always had a good relationship with your older half siblings. One of your sisters runs a family landscaping business which employs your other sister and you.
41Your childhood was disrupted and you were disruptive at school. You left during year 11 to start a mechanic’s apprenticeship. Before you completed the apprenticeship you went to work for your sister in a family landscaping business.
42Your parents had separated when you were was six years old. You lived with your mother who denied you contact with your father.
43When you were seven years old, the teenage son of your mother’s best friend sexually abused you over a 1 – 2 year period. Ten or so years later you reported the abuse to police and the perpetrator has since been convicted.[14]
[14] I have read the victim statements of your mother (Exhibit 25) and you (Exhibit 24).
44When you were 14, you went to live with your father but, because he was a violent alcoholic, you did not like or respect him. You left and lived between the homes of your oldest brother and sister. You started abusing drugs, cannabis and then methamphetamine and GBH, to manage your trauma symptoms and became “too much for them to handle”. You admitted you were an “angry teen”.[15]
[15] Report of Carla Ferrari (Exhibit 2), [26].
45In your early 20s, you recognised the negative impact of your drug use and you stopped.
46However, in your mid-20s, you started using cocaine, up to 2 g a week; you believed then it helped you “focus”. [16]
[16] ibid, [52].
47When you offended, you were working in the family business and living with your mother.
48In prison, you struggled with the isolation of prison lockdowns and absence of programs, and the hostile prison environment made your trauma and anxiety worse.
49When you were released on bail in December 2021 you returned to your mother and the family business. In 2024 you set up your own business. And your long-term partner agreed to marry you. Your engagement has given both of you a goal to look forward to preparing for a wedding when you are released from prison.[17]
[17] Letter of offender’s partner (Exhibit 27); Letter of offender’s mother (Exhibit 28).
50You voluntarily engaged with a psychologist, Laura Fleming, to develop emotional regulation strategies to cope with negative emotions and stress. You reconciled with your father who offered a surety for your bail. You renovated a house, which your uncle owns, for your mother to live in. You also helped homeless people through a local food charity.
51And you remained sober.
52Since your recent return to custody you have put in applications for employment[18] and education[19] courses.
[18] Written submissions for plea (Exhibit 26).
[19] Character reference of offender’s partner (Exhibit 27).
Psychological opinions
53In February 2025, a forensic psychologist, Carla Ferrari assessed you.
54In her opinion, based on your self-report, psychometric assessment and clinical presentation, you have post-traumatic stress disorder following a traumatic childhood.[20] As well, you have symptoms of a major depressive disorder, likely attributable to your worry the impact your incarceration will have, in particular, on your partner, your mother and you.[21]
[20] Report of Carla Ferrari (Exhibit 2), [121].
[21] ibid, [123].
55She also found evidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder which is consistent with your school history.[22]
[22] ibid, [123].
56She believes, because of your psychological conditions, prison will weigh more heavily on you than a person without them. She also believes there is a risk prison will significantly exacerbate your existing mental health conditions.[23]
[23] ibid, [134].
57A large number of impressive references[24] show your significant progress to your rehabilitation with the assistance of a wide pro social network, psychological treatment and drug abstinence.
[24] Exhibits 4 – 23; 27 – 28.
58You wrote a letter to the court.[25] In prison, you see the damage drugs cause. At age 26, you never thought about it. Now, at age 30, you are sorry for what you have done and are focused on living an honest, hard-working and law-abiding life with your fiancé, family and, hopefully, children.
[25] Letter of [Martin Crawford] (Exhibit 31)
Submissions[26]
Defence submissions
[26] While I will refer to them only briefly, I have carefully considered all prosecution and defence written and oral submissions.
59Your counsel, Mr Farrington, in comprehensive submissions, acknowledged, because of the objective seriousness of your crimes, a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period, must be imposed.
60In mitigation of penalty, he relied on
(a) your guilty plea, for its high utilitarian value and facilitation of the course of justice;
(b) your remorse, demonstrated by your plea and letter to the court;
(c) your mental health problems attributable to childhood trauma, because:
(i)prison will be harder for you than for a person without your conditions; and
(ii)there is a risk your conditions will significantly worsen in prison;
(d) the delay in prosecution because, since your arrest,
(i)you have struggled with the uncertainty of outcome; and
(ii)you have tried hard to improve your life and the lives of people around you.
61He submitted, considering your strong support network and the steps you have taken to reform, I should assess your prospects of rehabilitation as good.
Prosecution submissions
62Mr Stevens, who appeared for the prosecution, submitted the only appropriate sentence is a term of immediate imprisonment with a non-parole period.
63He submitted, considering the “common sense” inference is financial gain was your motive for offending, your moral culpability is high, and a substantial prison term is required to meet objectives of deterrence, denunciation and punishment.
64He accepted you are remorseful and have good prospects for rehabilitation.
Maximum penalty
65The maximum penalty of life imprisonment demonstrates the inherent seriousness of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug.
66The maximum penalty for charge two is seven years imprisonment.
67The maximum penalties provide a yardstick and a basis for comparison between your case and the worst case.[27]
[27]Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357.
Comparable cases
68The prosecution provided me with a helpful schedule of comparative cases.[28]
[28] Exhibit E on Sentence Indication Hearing.
69The sentences imposed for the offence of attempting to possess a commercial quantity an unlawfully imported border control drug, in quantities comparable to the quantity here, were six years three months, seven years three months, eight years, nine years, 12 years, 15 years and 18 years.
70They provide guidance as to the identification and application of the relevant sentencing principles and also show sentencing practices and a range of sentences against which to examine your sentence.
71For a federal offence, after taking into account all relevant factors, including the matters set out in s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act, which are known to the court, I must impose a sentence that is of a “severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence”.[29]
[29] S 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
72As I said earlier, your offending is objectively very seriousness. Considering you were involved in an attempt to get possession of a large quantity of a border control drug for a sophisticated criminal syndicate, for personal profit, your moral culpability is high.
73Overall, a significant prison sentence, with a non-parole period fixed, is required to achieve sentencing purposes.
Mitigating factors
74There are mitigating factors which moderate the sentence I will impose.
75Firstly, your guilty plea, in a large-scale drug case, which would otherwise necessitate a complex trial, has high utilitarian value.[30]
[30] Suky Lieu v The Queen [2016] VSCA 277.
76Secondly, your acceptance of responsibility for your actions, which is demonstrated by your guilty plea and your voluntary surrender into custody after you were arraigned.
77Thirdly, your remorse which I accept is genuine.
78Fourthly, your psychological conditions, following childhood trauma, because, I accept, they will make prison harder for you than person without them and, also because, I accept, there is a risk those conditions will significantly worsen in the volatile prison environment.
79Fifthly, the lengthy delay in prosecution, which was due to the entanglement of your case in the web of complex “operation ironside” proceedings, because you have endured an anxiety as to the uncertainty of your future and also because, you have taken impressive steps to reform.
80You are also entitled to some moderation of your sentence because your time in remand custody, following your arrest, was harder due to pandemic related isolation and restrictions.
81Your rehabilitation is another important sentencing consideration.
82Considering, during a lengthy period in the community, on bail, with the help and support of a large network of family and friends,
(a) you worked in the family business and then established your own;
(b) you consolidated your relationship with your partner with a mutual commitment to marry when you are released from prison;
(c) you voluntarily engaged a counsellor to help you deal with your psychological problems;
(d) you did charitable work;
(e) you remained sober; and
(f) you did not reoffend,
I assess your prospects of rehabilitation to be good.
83In reaching this conclusion, I have also taken into account your acceptance of responsibility for your actions and remorse.
84Additionally, totality, to ensure your total effective sentence properly reflects your overall criminality, and parsimony, which requires me to impose a sentence no more severe than is necessary to achieve sentencing purposes, also have application.
85By the sentence I impose I must denounce your conduct, punish you and deter you and others from committing crimes of the same or similar kind. I must also look to your rehabilitation.
86Considering the circumstances of your offending, your personal circumstances and antecedents, and endeavouring to produce a sentence which reflects and promotes the purposes of sentencing in a manner appropriate to you:
(a) On charge 1, attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border control drug, you are sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, which is to commence today ; and
(b) on charge 2, pre-trafficking a controlled precursor, you are sentenced to 2 years imprisonment which is to commence 18 months before the expiration of the sentence I have imposed on charge 1.
87Your total effective sentence is nine years and six months imprisonment.
88To mitigate punishment in favour of your rehabilitation, through conditional freedom, I fix a minimum non-parole period of five years and six months.
89I declare you have served 208 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
90Whilst there is some artificiality in the process are declared but for your guilty plea I would have imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment and fixed a minimum non-parole period of seven years and six months.
------------------------
0
17
0