Mason (a pseudonym) v The King

[2023] VSCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0016

ALICIA MASON (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]This judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant so as to protect the safety of a person.

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 April 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 75
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Mason] (County Court, 14 December 2022, Judge Wraight)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal – Sentence – Pursuant to Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16AC judge specified applicant’s sentence would have been 29 years’ imprisonment had she not cooperated with law enforcement agencies – Whether s 16AC specification part of sentence and relevant to whether sentence manifestly excessive – Section 16AC specification not a starting point for sentence – Section 16AC specification not useful to contend sentence manifestly excessive – Not reasonably arguable head sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive.

CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal – Sentence – Judge did not specify under Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16AC the non-parole period that would have been imposed had applicant not cooperated with law enforcement agencies – Whether failure to specify non-parole period that would have been imposed is a vitiating error – Section 16AC specification not a sentence or part of a sentence – Failure to make specification not an error in sentence – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr DD Gurvich KC and Ms K Mildenhall
Respondent:		Mr B Ihle KC and Mr MN Keks
Solicitors
Applicant:	Bowler & Co
Respondent:	James Carter, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

BEACH JA
NIALL JA:

1. The applicant was sentenced by a judge of the County Court on her plea of guilty to a charge of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug.[2] At the same time, the applicant was sentenced on a summary offence of breaching her bail conditions.

   [2]Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 s 307.1(1).

2. The importation was effected by concealing methylamphetamine and heroin in a shipment of household appliances. On any view, the quantity of drugs imported was enormous, comprising:

   (a)around 1.2 tonnes of methylamphetamine;[3] and

   (b)just under 30 kg of heroin.[4]

   [3]With a purity of 80 per cent.

   [4]With a purity of between 76 and 80 per cent.

3. It was agreed on the plea that this equated to almost 16 million individual doses of methylamphetamine and 1.5 million individual doses of heroin. Whether on a wholesale or street level basis the dollar value of the consignment was staggering. The combined value of the former being close to $200 million and the latter around $700 million.

4. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.

5. The applicant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.[5]

   [5]A sentence of 1 month was imposed on the summary charge which was ordered to be served concurrently.