CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Raghay

[2025] VCC 1546

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-25-00657

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

REDA RAGHAY

---

JUDGE:	His Honour Judge Rozen
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 October 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CDPP v Raghay
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1546

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:          Commonwealth offending – Sentencing – Importation of border controlled drugs – Apprehended at airport – 7.45 times commercial quantity – Swiss national – Guilty plea No prior convictions – Young offender – Very good rehabilitation prospects – Current sentencing practices.

Legislation Cited:         Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

Cases Cited:Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75; Quah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 164; R v SC [2008] NSWCCA 29; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Gwardys v R [2019] NSWCCA 62; Markovic [2010] VSCA 105; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157; Rodgerson (No 2) [2022] VSCA 154; R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; Luu v The King [2024] VSCA 267; R v Cunha [2017] QCA 6; Yip v The Queen [2017] VSCA 231; Legault v R [2014] NSWCCA 271; R v Agboti [2014] QCA 280.

Sentence: Total Effective Sentence – Eight years and eight months’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of four years and 10 months – S 6AAA – 13 years' imprisonment – Non-parole period of 7 years and 10 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms E Addams	Commonwealth DPP
For the Accused	Ms J Ellis	Spoken Legal

HIS HONOUR:

A cautionary tale

1This is a cautionary tale about the risks associated with the international drug trade. Australian courts all too often deal with cases involving otherwise law-abiding people who are tempted to make easy money by bringing illicit drugs into this country. It appears that such people are chosen by international drug syndicates as they are seen to be less likely to arouse the attention of law enforcement officials charged with disrupting the importation of such drugs.

2As this case demonstrates, there is a real risk that anyone so tempted will be caught. Further, if they are caught, they will face a significant period in custody and, even when released, they will live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

3The simple message that the court sends to anyone who may be so tempted is: it’s not worth it.

Introduction

4Reda Raghay, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Criminal Code’).

5The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.[1]

[1] Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 307.1(1) (‘Criminal Code’).

6You are to be sentenced on the facts disclosed in the ‘Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea’ dated 1 October 2025.[2] I note this is an agreed document.

[2] Exhibit P1.

Circumstances of the offending

7At about 9.30am on 3 January 2025, you arrived at Melbourne Airport on a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles, United States of America with a black ‘Maddison’ branded suitcase.

8At about 10:10am, your suitcase was examined by the Australian Border Force (‘ABF’). You gave an Incoming Passenger Card (IPC) to ABF officials, having answered “No” to the question “Are you bringing into Australia: Goods that may be prohibited or subject to restriction, such as […] illicit drugs?”. Your IPC also contained the following details:

(a)   Your country of residence was Switzerland,

(b)   Your intended address in Australia was Meriton Suites, Melbourne.

(c)   You were travelling to Australia to visit friends and relatives and for a holiday, and

(d)   Your emergency contact was “Dominic Jones”.

9When asked by ABF officials if you packed all of your bags yourself, you answered “Yes”. You agreed that you were fully aware of the contents of your bags. You told ABF officials that you had lost the key and forgotten the combination to the suitcase, and that you had paid $200 USD for the overweight suitcase as you had bought a lot of clothes in Las Vegas.

10You produced your iPhone 14 Pro from your pocket and provided the passcode on request.

11Shortly after, you told ABF officials that:

(a)   The suitcase did not belong to you, and was given to you by a person in Los Angeles whom you did not know.

(b)   You did not know what was inside the suitcase, and were to give the suitcase to someone who would approach you outside the Airport. You did not know who this person was.

(c)   You were contacted by a man named ‘Dominic’ a week prior to travelling in Switzerland, who gave you $4,000 to purchase flights and accommodation. You spent one week in Las Vegas before travelling to Los Angeles where you met the person who gave you the suitcase.

12The suitcase was examined by ABF officials, who located 21 black vacuum sealed packages inside, half of which were wrapped in a towel.

13The vacuum sealed packages weighed a total of 25 kilograms. A sample of white powder extracted from one of the packages was tested by ABF officials and returned a presumptive positive result for cocaine hydrochloride.

Arrest and Interview

14You were arrested and interviewed by members of the Australian Federal Police. You told police that:

(a)   You were born in Geneva and live there currently.

(b)   In late 2024, you travelled from Geneva to Las Vegas sometime between Christmas and New Year, spent a week alone in Las Vegas, before going on to LA. You had only been planning to travel to the United States for a couple of weeks and believed the reservation would be on your iPhone. You only travelled with a backpack.

(c)   You arrived in LA at about 1.00pm on Wednesday 1 January, and only stayed for a couple of hours. You departed LA on a flight to Australia at about 10.30pm on the same day. When you got to LA you didn’t have a suitcase, and stayed near the airport waiting for the plane.

(d)   You received the suitcase from a guy (or guys) you had not met before, next to the airport in LA. You walked there from the beach, where you had been waiting. The guy/s did not tell you what was inside the suitcase. “Everything was very confidential, no ask question”. When asked why it was all confidential, you stated “I guess because this is the way he works”. You did not ask the guys any questions when you received the luggage from them.

(e)   You knew where to meet the guy because the guy gave you an address telling you where to meet. When you saw the man with the suitcase, he signalled with a hand sign like a wave. He told you to fly with the suitcase but didn’t tell you why. After receiving the suitcase, you asked the man “wish me good luck” and he did so. He had given you a little money, which you had used to book flights and a hotel. Your flights from Geneva to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to LA and LA to Melbourne, and your hotel in Las Vegas, were paid for with the money you received.

(f)    To get back to the airport in LA, you had to walk for 20 minutes and then take a bus. After returning to the airport, you checked in the suitcase and paid $200 USD because it was 7 kilos overweight. You were not able to open the suitcase because you did not have the PIN for the lock. You were meant to give the suitcase to someone in Australia but you did not know how they would recognise you.

(g)   You did not think about what was inside the suitcase, adding “less I know, better it is”. You did not ask too many questions. You knew it was not something dangerous, like a weapon or something. You thought maybe it was fake watches or “something controversial”. When ABF officials examined the suitcase and you saw the black parcels, you were scared.

(h)   You were convinced to bring the suitcase for the free flights and a little bit of money. You were told there were no problems or risk.

(i)    When shown your IPC, you stated that the emergency contact details are fake. Dominic is your best friend in Switzerland, but the surname “Jones” is made up.

15If I may be forgiven the use of a colloquial expression, aspects of this account simply do not add up.

Forensic examination of substance

16The white compressed powder found in your suitcase was forensically examined. It weighed 21,006.8 g (i.e. a little over 21 kg). The purity of the powder was 71 %. The total pure weight of cocaine in your suitcase was therefore 14,914.8 g.

Analysis of seized devices

17Your iPhone 14 Pro was digitally analysed by law enforcement officials. It contained the following:

(a)   A WhatsApp chat with ‘rentcar’ on 2 January 2025, in which you said you would be in LA for seven hours and asked for a car. ‘Rentcar’ agreed you could have a car for $100 and agreed to arrange transport for you from the airport. You provided an address for the Hilton Los Angeles Airport for the meeting. They agreed to meet at 5:30 or 6:00pm. John Jones told you that before he gives you the suitcase, someone is going to ask for a password, and that the password is ‘Apple’. John Jones subsequently directed you to Homewood Suites by Hilton and sent a screenshot of the location. You confirmed you had arrived in a red Dodge and that you had given the person your clothes. You subsequently sent John Jones a copy of your passport and boarding pass.

(b)   A Signal chat with ‘Dom Faller’ in which ‘Dom Faller’ asked “where are you” at 11:07am on 3 January 2025, shortly after you landed in Melbourne.

(c)   Screenshots of locations in LA.

Commonwealth Sentencing

18Importation of border controlled drugs is a federal offence. Section 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘Crimes Act’) provides that:

'In determining the sentence to be passed, or the order to be made, in respect of any person for a federal offence, a court must impose a sentence, or make an order, that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.'

19In making this determination, section 16A(2) requires the Court to take into account a broad range of matters, including but not limited to:

(a)  The nature and circumstances of the offence;

(f)   The degree to which the person has shown contrition for the offence;

(g)  If the person has pleaded guilty to the charge;

(j)  Specific deterrence;

(ja) General deterrence;

(k) Adequate punishment;

(m)  The character of the offender, including their mental and physical condition;

(n)   The offender’s prospects of rehabilitation; and

(p) The probable effect of the sentence on the offender’s family

20The legislature has not prescribed a hierarchy of sentencing considerations. All of the matters set out in sub-section (2) must be considered by the court to the extent that they are ‘known to the court’.[3] I will address each in turn.

[3] Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75, [83] (‘Totaan’).

Section 16A(2)(a) – Nature and Circumstances of the Offence

21Both State and Commonwealth drug law sets various thresholds for drug-related offending. The seriousness of a given offence and the corresponding maximum penalty are determined by whether the offence before the court crosses one of those thresholds.

22Under Commonwealth law, there are two relevant thresholds for the offence of importing what the law describes as a ‘border-controlled drug’ such as cocaine.

23The first threshold is a ‘marketable quantity’ which in the case of cocaine is 2.0 g. A person who imports a marketable quantity of cocaine into the country faces a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.[4]

[4] Criminal Code (n 1) s 307.2.

24The second threshold is a ‘commercial quantity’. For cocaine, this is set at 2.0 kg, i.e. 1,000 times greater than the ‘marketable quantity’.[5]

[5] Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth) sch 2 item 43.

25Unlike Victorian law, Federal law has no higher threshold of ‘large commercial quantity’.

26The 14,914.8 g you imported represents 7.45 times the commercial quantity of cocaine.

27Considering that the importation of 2.0 kg (2,000g) attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, this was obviously a very significant quantity of cocaine. If you were not caught, it would have ended up available for sale in Australia.

28In Quah v The Queen, the Victorian Court of Appeal referred to the quantity-based nature of the drug trafficking legislative regime and concluded that, ‘other things being equal, an offence of large commercial quantity trafficking which involves … a quantity representing multiples of the large commercial quantity threshold is more serious than an offence of commercial quantity trafficking which involves a quantity representing multiples of the commercial quantity threshold.[6]

[6] [2021] VSCA 164, 20 [56].

29Although the Court was referring to Victorian law, the observation that the quantity of drugs that are trafficked or imported is an important consideration in an assessment of the seriousness of particular offending holds true for offending against the Criminal Code. It is however not the only determinant of seriousness. The role of the offender and what they stand to gain will also be relevant among other considerations.

30The quantity imported in this case, being several times over the ‘commercial quantity’, makes this a significant example of what is a very serious offence, being one which attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

31It is not alleged that you were involved in sourcing the drugs; nor is it part of the case that you were to play a role in the distribution of the drugs in Australia.

32Your role was effectively that of a courier, limited to collecting the suitcase in LA and to travelling to Australia with the intention of handing it to an unknown person on arrival.[7]

[7] Defence Plea Submissions dated 6 October 2025, 4 [25] (‘Defence Submissions’).

33While your role was therefore a fairly minor one in this international drug organisation, the drug trade cannot operate unless people like you are prepared to play their role. In this sense people performing the function of couriers are an indispensable part of this heinous trade in human misery.

Section 16A(2)(g) - Plea of Guilty

34In applying s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act, a court will have regard to the timing of the plea, the strength of the prosecution case and ‘whether the plea at a late stage was a recognition of the inevitable rather than evidence of contrition or a real willingness to facilitate the course of justice’.[8]

[8] R v SC [2008] NSWCCA 29, [48].

35In this case you entered an early plea of guilty. Your plea is indicative of a preparedness to accept responsibility and is some evidence of remorse.[9]

[9] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2)(f) (‘Crimes Act’).

36The guilty plea has a significant utilitarian value as it saves the community the resources associated with your trial. It also saves witnesses the anxiety and inconvenience of giving evidence.

37You will receive a significant sentencing discount to reflect these matters.

Degree of co-operation with authorities – s 16A(2)(h)

38The section is concerned with past co-operation. Section 16AC is concerned with prospective cooperation and is not relevant in this case.

39You were compliant and cooperated with police following your arrest. You  participated in a recorded interview with the Australian Federal Police despite the absence of a French interpreter. You made some admissions during the interview.

40You subsequently considered the opportunity to provide further assistance but declined to do so for fear of your life.[10]

[10] Defence Submissions (n 7) 6 [40]

Character, antecedents, cultural background, means and physical or mental condition of the offender – s 16A(2)(m)

41You were born in Switzerland and lived there until the present offending. Your father died when you were eight months old. You and your older brother were raised by your mother. During childhood, you were never exposed to violence, drugs or alcohol. You come from a modest family. Your mother works for the canteen at a school.

42You have reported no mental health issues. You do not drink (other than socially) and you do not gamble.

43You did well at school. You completed an economics degree after high school and worked in a real estate agency whist completing a real estate agent’s course. You planned to complete your studies after your one-year of compulsory military service in Switzerland.

Youth and rehabilitation prospects

44You are 22 years’ old and have your whole life ahead of you. It is well established that when sentencing youthful offenders such as you:

‘… rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. This is because punishment may in fact lead to further offending. Thus, for example, individualised treatment focusing on rehabilitation is to be preferred. (Rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender.)[11]

[11] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, 241.

45However, the law makes an exception to this general principle in respect of very serious criminal offences such as the importation of significant quantities of drugs. In such cases, even where the offender is young, general deterrence remains a highly significant sentencing consideration as does protection of the community.[12] The role of rehabilitation is correspondingly reduced (but not extinguished).

[12] The general principle is discussed in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157.

Character

46You do not have any prior convictions, and I accept that you are of prior good character. This is relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation and reduces the need for specific deterrence to be achieved by the sentence imposed.

47However, as the NSW Court of Appeal in Gwardysv R explained:

… it has been recognised that good character is not an unusual characteristic of persons who are involved, at this level, in this type of offending. It is not uncommon for persons who physically import drugs to be specifically selected for that task because of their blameless background, in the hope that the authorities will pay less attention to the venture which is being undertaken. It follows that the prior good character of a person involved in a drug importation offence is generally given less weight as a mitigating factor on sentence.[13]

[13] [2019] NSWCCA 62, [50]

Section 16A(2)(p) - Family hardship

48The court must have regard to the ‘probable effect that any sentence …would have on any of the [offender’s] family or dependants’. In contrast to the position under Victorian law,[14] there is no requirement for ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be made out in the application of s 16A(2)(p).[15]

[14] Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105.

[15] Totaan (n 3); Rodgerson (No 2) [2022] VSCA 154, 15 [73].

49Your family all live in Switzerland. You are clearly a much loved member of your family. This is reflected in the many character references provided to the Court as part of your counsel’s comprehensive and very helpful submissions. They include references by:

(a)   Your mother, Ms Raghay Hanane;

(b)   A family friend, Jean-Marie Fornerod;

(c)   Your aunt, Ms Moudade Meriem; and

(d)   Your brother, Adil Raghay;

50I have read each of the references. A number of these are very moving. They consistently describe you as a caring and respectful young man whose offending has shocked the writers. They describe the remorse and shame you have displayed. Each of the writers asks the court to exercise mercy while recognising the seriousness of your offending.

51I have no doubt that your incarceration in Australia has been, and will continue to be, felt acutely by your family and friends, who are unable to visit you due to the distance and expense of travelling to Australia.

52Other letters provided to the court by your counsel demonstrate that the recording of a conviction will have a deleterious effect on your future work prospects.

53Finally, there is your own letter of apology to the court which I accept is heart-felt. In the letter you inform the court that in a moment of poor judgment you accepted a proposition whose full gravity you did not comprehend. You state that you had no intention of harming anyone which I accept. You now understand that your action has “contributed to a network of suffering and destruction”. You fully acknowledge the gravity of your actions and remain profoundly sorry for having participated in “a trade that destroys life”.

54Despite the seriousness of your offending I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as very good. You have the support of your family, an impressive education and work history, your youth and that you are not afflicted by mental health challenges or drug addiction.

55I have taken these matters into account in setting the head sentence and especially your non-parole period.

Current Sentencing Practices

56Although Part 1B of the Crimes Act does not expressly require a court to take into account current sentencing practices, the ‘implicit’ requirement to do so is imposed on this court by the common law.[16]

[16] R v Pham [2015] HCA 39, 9 [23] by reference to s 5(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘Pham’).

57Consistency of sentencing, so that like cases are treated alike and different cases are treated differently, is an important sentencing principle. ‘Consistency’ in this regard is ‘not synonymous with numerical equivalence’ but means ‘consistency in the application of relevant legal principles’.[17] Because sentencing is fact-based, and all cases are different, a sentence imposed in another case ‘gives rise to no binding precedent’.[18]

[17] Ibid [28].

[18] Wongv The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, 18 [57]

58This court, when sentencing an offender for a federal offence, must have regard to ‘sentencing practices across the country’.[19] Comparable cases decided by the intermediate courts of appeal ‘provide the most useful guidance to a sentencing judge’ in this respect.[20]

[19] Pham (n 16) 8 [18]

[20] Ibid 16 [50].

59The prosecution provided the court with a table of cases said to be comparable to yours.[21]

[21] Luu v The King [2024] VSCA 267; R v Cunha [2017] QCA 6; Yip v The Queen [2017] VSCA 231; Legault v R [2014] NSWCCA 271; R v Agboti [2014] QCA 280.

60Each case involved a person who imported at least a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug by air. I have read each of the cases and have been assisted by them in determining the appropriate sentence.

61Your counsel referred me to a further 10 decisions which have also been of assistance.[22]

[22] Defence Submissions (n 7) 8 [51].

Consideration

62While the offender before the court must be sentenced in light of their own unique circumstances, I have taken the cases to which the court has been referred into account in imposing sentence. It is significant that the quantity of the drugs imported relative to the commercial quantity for cocaine in this case exceeds the quantities imported in each of the cases cited by the prosecution apart from Luu v The King.

63By your plea of guilty, you are taken to have been reckless as to whether you were importing border controlled drugs into Australia.

64Although you were not the mastermind of the operation, as discussed earlier, you played a vital role in the importation. Without your willing involvement, the importation could not have occurred. The drugs you imported do untold damage to society as this court regularly sees, and that you now clearly recognise. You were motivated by financial gain although the court cannot determine with any certainty what you actually stood to gain. Having said that, it is apparent that others within the organisation were to be the recipients of the bulk of the profits.

65I have taken into account in mitigation of sentence your early guilty plea, previous good character and your youth.

66I can only pass a sentence of imprisonment if, having considered all other available sentences, I am satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.[23] In all the circumstances, as recognised by your counsel, I have no alternative but to impose a term of imprisonment.

[23] Crimes Act (n 9) s 17A.

67In fixing the non-parole period, I must pay regard to section 19AKA of the
Crimes Act which sets out the purposes of parole. Those purposes are:

(a) the protection of the community;

(b) the rehabilitation of the offender; and

(c) the reintegration of the offender into the community.

68Taking into account the maximum penalty, the seriousness of your offending, the plea of guilty, your personal circumstances and the other matters in mitigation discussed above, the court makes the following order:

For the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, you are convicted and sentenced to eight years and eight months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and 10 months. The sentence commences today.

69I am required to explain the impact of the Order.[24] 

[24] Crimes Act (n 9) s 16F(2).

70The total effective sentence is eight years and eight months’ imprisonment. I have directed that you serve a minimum period of four years and 10 months before becoming eligible for parole. Accordingly, you will be required to serve a minimum period of not less than four years and 10 months less 294 days.

71If you are then released on parole (a question over which this court has no control), the balance of your sentence will be served in the community, subject to the conditions of your parole and subject to any order for your deportation. Any such parole order may be amended or revoked. If you fail without reasonable excuse to fulfil the conditions of your parole, your parole may be revoked and you may be ordered to serve the balance of your sentence in prison.

72Having come to the conclusion that I have no alternative but to impose a term of imprisonment, under section 17A(2)(b) of the Crimes Act, I direct that my reasons for so finding be entered in the records of the Court.

73Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare that you have served 294 days in custody, not including today, which is to be reckoned as time served in respect of the sentence the Court imposes today.

74Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), but for the plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 10 months.