CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Singh
[2015] VCC 1024
•24 July 2015
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-14-00902
CR-14-00905
CR-14-00906
| COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| AMNEET SINGH, ARVINDER SINGH & WILHELM MUELLER |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOWARD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF TRIAL HEARING: | 19-22, 25-29 May, 1-4, 9-12, 15-19 and 22 June 2015 | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING | 24 June 2015 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 24 July 2015 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Singh & Ors | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 1024 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence following trial – three offenders found guilty of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of drug of dependence – 18.59kg to 20.77kg pure Ephedrine – first offender also convicted of importing a commercial quantity of border-controlled precursor – 1.66kg pure Ephedrine – serious offending - first offender sentenced to TES of 15 years’ imprisonment with minimum of 10 years - second offender sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment with minimum of 8 years - third offender sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment with minimum of 10 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the CDPP | Mr J Singh with Ms R Champion (Trial) Ms R Champion (Plea) Mr J Singh (Sentence) | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For first accused/offender | Mr S Johns (Trial & Plea) Mr C D Traill (Sentence) | C D Traill Lawyers |
| For second accused/offender | Mr R Backwell | Valos Black & Associates |
| For third accused/offender | Mr P Skehan | Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Amneet Singh (Amneet), Arvinder Singh (Arvinder) and Wilhelm Mueller, following a 23-day trial, you have each been convicted of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, Ephedrine, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment (charge 2).[1] The relevant trafficking was possession for sale.
[1]Contrary to s71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
2 You, Amneet, were also convicted by the jury of importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor, Ephedrine, the maximum is 25 years’ imprisonment (charge 1).[2] This charge was put on the basis that you believed that another person intended to use any of the substance to manufacture a controlled drug.
[2]Contrary to s307.11 and s311.16 of the Criminal Code Act (Cth) 1995 (the Code).
3 I must now sentence each of you on behalf of the community.
Circumstances of offending
Charge 1 - Importation
4 The circumstances of the offending may be briefly summarised. First, turning to charge 1 which only concerns you Amneet. On 5 and 6 August 2013, you imported from India two large metal printing rollers, each weighing about 20kgs. On seizure and inspection by customs they were found to contain a total of 1,660.5g of pure Ephedrine cleverly hidden deep inside them.[3] A commercial quantity of pure Ephedrine under Commonwealth law was and is not less than 1.2kg. Hence, you imported 1.38 times the commercial quantity.
[3]The roller imported on 5 August 2013 contained approximately 595g and the one on 6 August 2013 contained 1,065g of pure Ephedrine. Each of these amounts was a marketable quantity of pure Ephedrine. The prosecution relied on s311.16 of the Code, thus aggregating the two amounts, which in combination gave a commercial quantity of the drug.
5 Ephedrine is a border-controlled precursor and a drug of dependence under State law. It is used on the black market in the illegal manufacture of amphetamine (speed) or methamphetamine or methyl amphetamine (ice). In that context it is a very expensive and very valuable product. According to the uncontested evidence of a drug expert, at the relevant time Ephedrine was sold in 1 kg lots on the black market for $25,000 per kg, making this lot worth $41,514.[4] It would have converted to 1.86kg of methamphetamine (ice) which, if sold in 1 kg lots, would have been worth between $373,400 and $597,440, or $1.49m to $1.86m if sold in “point” street deals of 0.1g.[5]
[4]See evidence of Det. Sgt. McNair, T605-614.
[5]See agreed chart exhibit E.
6
The background to the offending is as follows. Around September 2012, you Amneet, had connections with people in India who apparently came from the Punjab, which is your home state. One of them was a man referred to at trial as “Gurnam”, he also had an unnamed associate. You had a friend and work colleague at a security company in Melbourne named Gurwinder Singh (Gurwinder). You suggested to him that you set up a company which would import jewellery and groceries to be sent from India by Gurnam. Gurwinder agreed.[6] You took him to your accountant and on
31 October 2012, Gillsons Trading Pty Ltd was registered under Gurwinder’s name. But instead of importing jewellery or groceries, through Gurnam you imported a number of metal printing rolls.[7] You played a controlling role in the business, which included you recruiting various Indian friends or associates in Melbourne to act as the official consignees for the imports. Once the items arrived, you collected them and dealt with them in some unknown way.
[6]It was not contended by any party that Gurwinder acted criminally at any time.
[7]Evidence of these importations was led as context evidence.
7 It was not suggested any of this background activity involved criminality on your part and you are not to be sentenced for it, however, around this time authorities began investigating your conduct and that of others associating with you. A good deal of evidence for both charges came from intercepted telephone calls and surveillance by police. The informant, Det S/C Rebecca Christou and a taskforce from the Victoria Police, the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission are to be highly commended for their professional and diligent work in this case.
8 Turning now to the offending, in July 2013 you asked your friend from the Punjab, Jaspreet Singh (Jaspreet), to agree to receive what you described to him as a delivery of books at his address in Melbourne. He agreed. You then conveyed his details to your Indian connections and he was named as the consignee for the imports on 5 and 6 August 2013. They were meant to be cleared through customs by Gillsons Trading and once delivered to Jaspreet, you were to collect them and no doubt pass them and the drugs onto others. But, as noted, they were seized and the drugs were discovered.
9 You did not give evidence at trial. Your defence was that you knew nothing about any drugs and had been duped by others. It was not contested that you had facilitated and assisted in the importation by sourcing and providing Jaspreet’s details as the consignee. It is clear you took positive steps in furtherance of the importation, you were not just a “receiver” or proposed courier of the Ephedrine. Indeed, there could not have been an importation without a consignee, thus you played an instrumental and essential role in the importation of this drug. At the plea hearing, you conceded that you had played a crucial role in obtaining and providing the consignee details for charge 1, with an expectation that you would give the imported roller to someone else once it arrived and you had taken control of it.
Charge 2 – Trafficking
10 I shall now turn to the trafficking matter which concerns each of you (charge 2). On 9 September 2013, the same Indian connections sent a consignment to Gillsons Trading of eight large cardboard boxes. The goods were described as 190 plastic jars of samples of hydrosulphite of soda and had a gross weight of 142kg. Each box contained about 24 falsely labelled 500g plastic jars. A total of 18.59kg pure Ephedrine was imported. It was not alleged that any of you were responsible for or involved in the importation of the eight boxes however, you were each engaged in a joint criminal enterprise to traffic the drug by possessing it for sale.
11 I will deal with the roles played by each of you. You, Amneet, collected the Ephedrine from Gurwinder who acted as consignee for the importation. You transported the boxes from Melbourne in a borrowed car and gave them to Arvinder at his premises at Katamatite, which is a small country township near Cobram in northern Victoria. You first drove to Arvinder’s premises on 20 September 2013 so you could ascertain where he lived, and then delivered the boxes to him on 1 October. It is not contested that you, Amneet, had, as submitted by the prosecution, a “positive input into the planning and execution of the trafficking by taking active steps to avoid detection”. This involved you in deceiving Gurwinder by not telling him where you were actually making the delivery, leading him to believe the boxes were being delivered to an address in Shepparton; by telling Gurwinder you would deliver the boxes the following day when you had in fact delivered them on the day you collected them from him; by leading Gurwinder into believing that you had not delivered the boxes when you had already done so; by not telling Gurwinder that, at the request of the Indian connections, he was giving you your own mobile phone number as a contact number for the delivery; and by telling Gurwinder you had delivered the boxes the day after you actually had done so. There is no doubt that you expected to be financially rewarded for your role in this offending, especially as you exposed yourself to the risk of imprisonment and deportation as you were then striving to obtain permanent residency. At the plea hearing, you conceded that you played a crucial role in getting the eight boxes to Arvinder in Northern Victoria.
12 You, Arvinder, were a working on a dairy farm at the time. Your role was to accept the eight boxes from Amneet, to keep them safely at your property, which you did for 17 days, and then to deliver them to Mueller, who arrived in Australia from Canada on 2 October 2013. You and Amneet had a number of telephone conversations about the arrangements for the delivery of the boxes to you, and you also had a number of calls with unknown bosses overseas concerning the arrangements and delivery of the drugs. You had various calls with Mueller about assisting him and delivering the boxes to him. You helped Mueller to become established in your rural area by getting him settled in a motel in Cobram (you paid for some of this cost), then you assisted him to find a phone, house and to purchase a car. You also helped him with his computer system. Initially, the two of you were trying to secure a detached house in a rural area so that Mueller’s true identity did not have to be revealed in a private arrangement with a farmer or land owner. However, such a place could not be found and Mueller ultimately secured premises in his own name through an estate agent. He set up a house at Strathmerton, another small township outside of Cobram. You delivered six of the boxes to Mueller on 17 October 2013 (there was not enough room in your car for all 8 boxes). To hide your fingerprints, you wore gloves when carrying the boxes into Mueller’s premises. It was intended that you would deliver the remaining two boxes the following day, however Mueller was arrested by police a short time after the delivery. You were informed of this development the following day, you spoke with one of the bosses overseas who told you to get rid of the two boxes so, with the assistance of your housemate, Gurchetan Rishi,[8] you dumped the contents of the two boxes by a rural roadside at a place called Boosey.[9] When you returned to your home, police were waiting for you and you then took them to where you had disposed of the evidence.
[8]Rishi pleaded guilty to assisting an offender (Arvinder) contrary to s.325 of the Crimes Act 1958. On 6 March 2015 I sentenced him to 504 days’ imprisonment, which was time served, and he was subsequently released and deported from Australia.
[9]The prosecution relied on this evidence as incriminating post-offence conduct against Arvinder.
13 You, Arvinder, expected to be renumerated for your role in the offence by receiving money and a motor vehicle. One intercepted call refers to you receiving $10,000 to $15,000 to be spent on the vehicle for Mueller which was to be yours when he had finished his dealings with the enterprise. Another refers to you receiving $6,000. However, it is unclear how much you expected to actually receive, but at one stage, you confirmed with the overseas boss that there was a lot of money to be made. At trial, you did not dispute your activity as I have outlined it, but claimed to have no knowledge of the drugs. You did not give evidence at trial.
14 I will turn to your role Mr Mueller. You were a 58 year old builder running a successful construction business in British Columbia, Canada. As noted, you arrived in Australia from Canada on 2 October 2013. On the preceding day and before you boarded your flight, there was a significant call between Arvinder and an overseas boss which clearly referred to the roles to be played by the three of you in the joint criminal enterprise.[10] Based on the contents of this call, which was admissible against you and the other offenders, and your activity once you arrived in Australia, and the clear improbability of the account you gave in evidence at trial, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you came to Australia with the intention of trafficking the Ephedrine, that is, possessing it for sale. In evidence you claimed to be an innocent tourist who set up in Strathmerton because it was supposedly a central place for your travels and proposed visits to mines and vineyards. But apart from having some maps and visiting a tourist office, you did not apparently engage in any meaningful touristic activity. Instead, you engaged in activity directly related to the joint criminal enterprise. Within a short time of arriving in Melbourne, you went to Cobram and, aided by Arvinder in the ways I have already detailed, you stayed in a motel before setting up premises at Strathmerton, which was an isolated rural place away from prying eyes. On 12 October you went to Melbourne, waited around all day in the city until you received a text and met up with someone who gave you $10,000 cash in connection with the trafficking activity. You purchased a vehicle and took a six-month lease on the premises at Strathmerton. After a number of calls with Arvinder about receiving the drugs, on 17 October you took possession of the six boxes found by police, intending to receive the other 2 boxes the following day. It is clear that you intended to establish yourself at Strathmerton for a lengthy visit during which time, it is to be inferred, you would possess the drugs for sale. It was not alleged you were to be involved in the manufacture of amphetamines or ice, nor was any actual sale activity or potential purchaser identified by the prosecution.
[10]This was the so-called “identification call”, Tab 62, 1 October 2013.
15 In evidence you denied any knowledge of any drugs. You told a fanciful and ridiculous story about a chance meeting with a virtual stranger in a car park shortly before your departure from Canada. This person said his relative, who turned out to be Arvinder, could provide unspecified assistance to you in Australia. You had been to Australia a couple of times previously and you were a mature accomplished man of the world. It was not at all clear what sort of assistance a simple dairy farmer recently arrived in Australia from India might be able to provide to you. Shortly after your arrival in Melbourne, you claimed this person from Canada contacted you and that for the remarkable sum of $10,000 you innocently agreed to take delivery of some unspecified consignment on his behalf at some undetermined date to be stored at your then non-existent premises. Then you said you came to Melbourne on 12 October (which was true) and went to St Albans where you met a group of six Indians, complete strangers, who gave you $10,000 cash as the supposed storage fee. You said it never occurred to you that illegal drugs might be involved. It was not at all surprising that you were disbelieved by the jury. Clearly you expected to be well financially rewarded for your participation in this criminal scheme, but it is unclear how much you were to actually receive.
16 Under state law, not less than 750g of pure Ephedrine is a large commercial quantity of the drug. You, Amneet, are to be sentenced on the basis that you trafficked 18.59kg of Ephedrine (the amount in the 8 boxes), which is 24.79 times the large commercial quantity of the drug. Working on the sale price of $25,000 per kg, this amount of the drug was worth $464,975. Depending on different methods of manufacture, this amount would have converted to between 8.63kg and 13.94kg of methamphetamine (ice). Depending on purity levels, the value of this converted methamphetamine if sold in 1 kg lots was between $1.72m to $4.46m; or $6.90m to $13.94m if sold in street “point” deals of 0.1g.[11]
[11]See footnotes 4 and 5.
17 In your cases, Arvinder and Mueller, your convictions also involve your possession for sale of an additional quantity of 2.17kg of pure Ephedrine which was also found by police in your premises, Mr Mueller, in a black lap top bag hanging on a wall and in a bedroom cupboard. There were separately recorded conversations between you two involving the delivery of this additional quantity of the drug, which may have been delivered before or on the day of the police raid. Hence you, Arvinder and Mueller, but not you Amneet, are to be sentenced on the basis that you possessed for sale a total of 20.76kg of pure Ephedrine, that is, 27.7 times the large commercial quantity of the drug.[12] Using the same formula just mentioned, this amount of the drug was worth $519,375. It would have converted to between 9.63kg and 15.58kg of methamphetamine (ice), which if sold in 1 kg lots was worth between $1.92m to $4.97m; or $7.70m to $15.57m if sold in street “point” deals of 0.1g.
[12]No objections were taken by the defence to the Crown mounting its case in that way. The jury was specifically directed to inform the Court if any finding of guilt against Arvinder and /or Mueller on charge 2 involved any amount less than the total of 20.76kg of pure Ephedrine. No such indication was given by the jury when returning its verdicts. On the plea, it was not submitted by either offender that for sentencing purposes, the amount should be any less than 20.76kg of pure Ephedrine.
Police and court process
18 Following the police raid on 17 October 2013, you, Mueller, engaged in a short unhelpful interview with police. You were charged and have been held in custody to the present. Accordingly, for you there is 645 days’ pre-sentence detention up to, but not including, today.
19 You, Arvinder, were arrested on 18 October, after you had dumped the contents of the two boxes. You made a lengthy interview in which you concede your handling of the boxes but denied any knowledge of the drugs. This was followed by you making a statement which adopted your comments in the interview. You admitted that Amneet had delivered the boxes to you at the request of your cousin in India, a man you named as Gopi, who also asked you to look after Mueller when he arrived in Australia and told you to get rid of the remaining two boxes. You were charged and have been held in custody to the present. Accordingly, for you there is 644 days’ pre-sentence detention up to, but not including, today.
20 You, Amneet, were arrested by police on 4 November 2013. You were interviewed and denied the offending. You were charged and have been held in custody to the present. Accordingly, for you there is 627 days’ pre-sentence detention up to, but not including, today.
21 Each of you conducted a contested committal in May 2014.
Amneet Singh - background and personal circumstances
22 I will now turn to your respective backgrounds and circumstances. First, to you Amneet. You are now 31. You were 29 at the time of offending. You have no convictions and are to be treated as a person of previous good character. You come from a small village in the Punjab in India and you are a Sikh. You are the eldest of three children, the only son. Your father is a farmer with a small holding. Your parents are in their sixties, and no longer able to do physical work. The land holding, which has been in the family for generations, was sold to pay for your defence and I accept you feel great shame for this consequence of your offending.
23 You were educated to Year 12 equivalent, after which you completed a two-year Diploma in Sanitary Inspection. Unfortunately you could not find employment in that area and took up farming. But work was scarce and you migrated to Australia in 2008 on a student visa and completed a two year Diploma of Community Welfare Work in Melbourne. In 2008 or 2009 you started casual work with a security firm, where you remained until May 2013. Then you went to live in Perth but returned to Melbourne on several occasions doing some cleaning and truck-driving work.
24 You married an Indian lady in February 2013, of which relationship there are no children. Your wife supported you at trial at different times, but now works in Western Australia, where it is proposed she will remain whilst you are in custody. Indeed, I was informed she is going through a divorce with you because she is worried about the impact of your expected deportation upon her if she retains her status as your wife. Nevertheless, it was said that she loves you and wants to continue to support you. She wants to obtain permanent residence and, it appears, has a better chance of doing that if she remains in Western Australia, where it is easier for her to get the right job, upon which her present visa depends. If she obtains permanent residency it is proposed that she would then come to Melbourne to live with her sister and so that she can better support you whilst you are in prison.
25 Whilst in custody you have completed courses in communication skills, conflict management and occupational health and safety, and have been employed as a billet.
26 Given that your sentence will be in excess of 12 months, you will be deported once you complete your sentence.[13]
[13]Section 501(3A) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and DPP v Zhuang [2015] VSCA 96, [54].
27 As to your offending, it was made clear that your initial plan was to engage in genuine business through the trading company, particularly concerning the importing of Indian jewellery and groceries, but that all changed at some point. Counsel emphasised that notwithstanding the verdict - which you do not accept - you had led a modest life without ostentation.
28 The mitigating circumstances in your favour are that you are now a mature person with no prior convictions. You come from a hard-working simple family in India. Notwithstanding your modest background, you achieved well academically both in Indian and Australia, and you have been fully employed in good jobs since you arrived here. You have established a loving relationship. Additionally, your rehabilitation has been enhanced by your successful completion of courses whilst in custody, and your employment as a billet. I am satisfied that you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
Arvinder Singh – background and personal circumstances
29 Next, to you Arvinder. You are now 27 and were 25 at the time of offending. You also have no prior convictions and a good character background. You were also born in a small village in the Punjab. Your parents were simple crop farmers. You are the eldest of three children. You completed the equivalent of Year 12 and then commenced work on the family farm.
30 You were married in India in 2008. You came to Australia in 2009 on a spousal visa, your wife having preceded you. You spoke no English and so as to get a job went to the Cobram area to pick fruit. Your marriage broke up and you were divorced in 2011 after your wife formed another relationship with a man in Melbourne. For three years up to the time of your arrest you had worked in the dairy industry.
31 Since you have been in custody you have completed various courses and obtained certificates in cleaning and agrifood operations, hospitality and information digital media and technology. You have undertaken a program to assist in coping with stress and depression; mood and conflict management programs and a communications skills program. You have undertaken a prison legal education and assistance program and improved your physical capacity in the gym and undertaken a quit smoking program. Whilst in prison you have worked in the horticultural area.
32 Following your divorce you were placed on a temporary bridging visa which has now been cancelled. Again, given that your sentence will be longer than 12 months, you too will be deported upon the completion of your sentence. Like Amneet, you feel a good deal of anxiety for the shame that you have brought to your family in India.
33 The mitigating circumstances in your favour are that you come from a good, hard-working family background. You achieved well academically and having arrived in Australia have worked for many years in gainful employment. You have advanced your rehabilitation by the courses and work you have done in prison. I consider you have good prospects for rehabilitation.
Wilhelm Mueller – background and personal circumstances
34 Finally, to your background and personal circumstances Mr Mueller. You are now 60 and were 58 at the time of offending. You have no prior criminal history and a good character background. You come from the city of Chilliwack, British Columbia in Canada. Your father was from Germany and your mother from Russia. They migrated to Canada in the early-1950s following activity in the Second World War. You have one younger brother.
35 You married in 1975, from which relationship there are three sons. That marriage ended in 1978. You have a number of grandchildren. Your own sons have all been hard-working and industrious. You married for the second time in 1979 and that relationship continues. There are no children from that marriage, however your three sons treat your present wife as their mother and the grandmother of their children. Your wife and family remain supportive of you, although none have been able to come to Australia to visit you since your incarceration.
36 You graduated from high school in 1972. You were a good student, and by 1975 you had graduated from an Institute of Technology with a qualification in Aircraft (Modification and Design) Engineering. Then followed successful completion of business courses and building subjects at night school.
37 You have had a long and productive working history. You have worked on a family farm, as an aircraft maintenance engineer, as a seasonal logger, at sawmills where by your early-20s, you had become a foreman in charge of 32 men, then followed employment in the construction industry. From the age of 26 until your arrest you were self-employed running your own successful construction company. In the late-1990s you employed up to 52 workers in domestic and major industrial work.
38 Undisputed evidence was given by video at trial by four Canadians who had known you for many years. They indicated that you were a very hard worker, a community-minded and active person, completely against drugs and generally regarded as an honest and reputable person. You were a cub and scout leader for 12 years. You have been active in sports for many years and held provincial records in Canada for shot-put, sprinting and power lifting.
39 Since you have been in custody you have worked five days a week in the woodwork shop and have taught prisoners wood-working skills.
40 It was submitted that you had attempted to assist authorities in December 2013 when you spoke to police at prison. Apparently they asked you for your assistance with the investigation and you essentially gave them the improbable account which you gave in evidence, which was, not surprisingly, rejected by them and the jury. Accordingly, there is no proper basis for this submission as a mitigatory matter.
41 The mitigating factors are that you come from a good background, you have been a very hard-working, community-minded person and achieved greatly in your Canadian community. Other than this matter, you have a very good character. You have family support and have assisted your rehabilitation whilst in custody. It is indeed curious, that a man who has achieved so much in his life could become a major drug trafficker at the age of 58. Like the other offenders, I consider you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
Other sentencing considerations
42 There are, of course, other important sentencing considerations. The first of these is that I must have regard to the very significant maximum penalties applicable of life imprisonment for charge 2, and 25 years’ imprisonment for charge 1. These maximums reflect the very serious nature of this kind of offending and community concern about it.
43 Although the mitigating circumstances and your rehabilitation are important considerations, the principle of general deterrence is of great significance, as others who may be minded to act as you have need to understand that lengthy terms of imprisonment will be imposed for this type of serious offending. So, too, are the principles of just punishment and community protection. Denunciation is equally important. In a real sense, each of you have waged war on society by your involvement with this insidious substance which is used to make amphetamines and ice, which is a social evil that has the capacity to threaten our fundamental way of life and bring great misery to many people. On behalf of the community, I strongly denounce your conduct.
44 The trafficking in charge 2 concerned vast amounts of Ephedrine from which massive amounts of amphetamines and ice could be made, and massive profit, all of which I have explained. It was a very sophisticated and well-planned criminal enterprise, involving a particular international aspect with directorial overseas bosses in both Canada and India.
45 As I have said, I am satisfied that you, Amneet and Arvinder, should be treated as being at the same position in the criminal hierarchy for this offence. However, you both played a role beyond that of being a mere courier, serious as that would be by itself. You, Mr Mueller, played a higher, more responsible role than that of your co-offenders, given that you travelled specifically from Canada to Australia to substantially establish yourself in this country for a lengthy visit so you could possess the drug for sale. Clearly, the bosses in Canada, if not India as well, trusted you, Mr Mueller, to possess this vast amount of the drug for sale. They could have recruited any number of criminals in Australia to perform this task but obviously, you were hand-picked for the job. You were thus very close to the principals, although I am not able to conclude that you were one of the principals in the enterprise. For these reasons I do intend to pass a higher sentence upon you than for your co-offenders.
46 It is not suggested that any of the three of you suffer from any type of drug addiction or usage, nor mental health issue, so the only conclusion to draw is that each of you were motivated by greed, acting with your eyes wide open.
47 In truth, it was a very strong case mounted against all three of you on charge 2, and against you, Amneet, on charge 1. Whilst you were each entitled to contest the matter and are not to be punished for doing so, it remains the case that none of you have any remorse for, or it would appear, any insight into, your offending. No doubt you now regret what has happened to you.
48 I do take account in your favour of the fact that as foreigners, the three of you will experience isolation in a foreign prison, including the lack of family supports. You Amneet and Arvinder speak sufficient English to get by in that environment, but it will still be difficult for the three of you, particularly as you have never been to prison before. Of course you, Amneet and Arvinder, have now lost the opportunity of making a better life for yourselves and your families in Australia and ultimately to obtain permanent residency here. Your certain deportation will ensure that those hopes and aspirations will never be met. In your case, Mr Mueller, you came to Australia for the specific purpose of committing crime and not to settle here like your co-offenders. Accordingly, I do not give weight to the fact of your certain deportation, when compared to to the other offenders. Your deportation will mean you can return to your homeland and family, which is presumably what you want to do eventually.
49 The importation in charge 1 was also a sophisticated and well-planned criminal enterprise. As conceded, you Amneet, played a crucial role in this offence, well beyond that of a mere courier. I do take account that the quantity imported was just marginally above the commercial quantity threshold. In your case Amneet, I must apply the principle of totality in your favour. I have done that but, at the same time, I consider there should be some measure of cumulation in sentence because you have committed a separate offence at a different time to the other. I have had regard to all relevant matters set out in s16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
50 Of course, I must pass sentences which are proportionate to your offending, whether joint or separate, and I must avoid passing a crushing sentence upon each of you. Having said that, each of you have engaged in very serious offending for which there must be just punishment. It is clear that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. So much is conceded.
51 I must also consider current sentencing practice and have had regard to sentencing figures and a number of cases provided. I do not consider that any of them are particularly comparable although they do contain important statement of principle. At the end of the day every case must turn on its own facts and circumstances, and that obviously applies here.
Sentence
52 Amneet Singh, please stand up. On charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment. I order that you are to serve 4 years’ imprisonment before which you shall not be eligible for release on parole. That sentence is to commence today.
53 I declare that the period of 627 days’ pre-sentence detention, up to, but not including today, be reckoned as already served on that sentence, and that such declaration be entered in the records of the Court.
54 On charge 2, you, Amneet, are sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. I order that you are to serve 8 years’ imprisonment before which you shall not be eligible for release on parole. That sentence is to commence 2 years after the commencement of the sentence imposed on charge 1. For clarity, I indicate that it is my intention that there be 2 years cumulation of sentence between charge 1 and charge 2 and that the total effective sentence be 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years’ imprisonment.
55 Amneet, please sit down for the moment.
56 Arvinder Singh, please stand up. On charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. I order that you are to serve 8 years’ imprisonment before which you shall not be eligible for release on parole. That sentence is to commence today.
57 I declare that the period of 644 days’ pre-sentence detention, up to, but not including today be reckoned as already served on that sentence and that such declaration be entered in the records of the Court. Arvinder, please sit down for the moment.
58 Mr Mueller please stand up. On charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. I order that you are to serve 10 years’ imprisonment before which you shall not be eligible for release on parole. That sentence is to commence today.
59 I declare that the period of 645 days’ pre-sentence detention, up to, but not including today be reckoned as already served on that sentence, and that such declaration be entered in the records of the Court. Mr Mueller please sit down for the moment.
Ancillary Orders
60 I will make the ancillary orders which are sought by the Crown and not opposed by any of you.
61 On charge 2 the prosecution applies for an order that each of you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from the mouth and/or a blood sample. Given the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the order is by consent or not opposed and that the granting of the order is in the public interest, I am satisfied that I should make such an order. Accordingly, pursuant to s464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, you Amneet Singh, Arvinder Singh and Wilhelm Mueller are to undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from the mouth and/or a blood sample in accordance with sub-division 30A of Part III of the Crimes Act until a sample of sufficient standard is obtained for placement on the database. I inform each of you that if, at the time of the request, you do not consent to the taking of a mouth scraping under the supervision of an authorised member of the police force, then the sample to be taken will be a blood sample and police may use reasonable force to enable that forensic procedure to be conducted.
62 I will also make the disposal orders which are sought, the forfeiture orders and the pecuniary penalty order against you, Mr Mueller, which is made by consent.
63 I had down all those signed orders.
64 I ask counsel is there any mechanical issue with the sentences which I have imposed?
65 MR SINGH: No Your Honour.
66 MR TRAILL: No Your Honour.
67 MR BACKWELL: No Your Honour.
68 MR SKEHAN: No Your Honour.
69 Thank you. Each of the three offenders will need to go now with the prison officers. Thank you, please remove the offenders.
70 [Offenders removed].
- - -
0