Legal Research
Cases
Mejia (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Mejia (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 141 2 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0249

SHAKIR MEJIA (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the applicant, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant and the applicant’s legal representatives.

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, BEACH and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 June 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 141

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Conspiracy to import border controlled drug – Cooperation with authorities – Whether sentencing judge treated 50 per cent discount as ceiling – Whether relevant that applicant not giving evidence against others – Non-disclosure of assistance relevant to assessment of benefit and risk – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Very serious offending – Very substantial discount – No error by sentencing judge – Sentence within range – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Hall (a pseudonym)	XYZ Lawyers (a pseudonym)
For the Respondent	Ms K Breckweg	Ms A Pavleka, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

MAXWELL P
BEACH JA

WEINBERG JA:

Summary

It has long been accepted that an offender who provides assistance to law enforcement authorities is entitled to seek a reduced sentence on that account. The availability of a ‘cooperation discount’ is of vital importance to the administration of criminal justice. It serves the public policy objective of encouraging offenders to provide information which will help bring other offenders to justice.[2]
[2]R v Su [1997] 1 VR 1, 77 (Winneke P, Hayne and Southwell JJA); R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243, 252 (Hunt and Badgery-Parker JJ); Collins (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 131, [25] (Osborn JA).

Determining the extent of the discount to which an offender is entitled is, however, a task of particular difficulty for the sentencing court. On the one hand, the discount must reflect the benefit flowing, or likely to flow, from the assistance provided, and the risk to which the offender is exposed by reason of having given the assistance. On the other hand, the discounted sentence must be — and be seen to be — an adequate punishment for the offending, having regard to its objective gravity, the offender’s moral culpability and the need for deterrence of the crime in question.[3]
[3]R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220, 232 (Gleeson CJ); R v Johnston (2008) 186 A Crim R 345, 350 [18]; [2008] VSCA 133 (Nettle JA) (‘Johnston’).

The present applicant was convicted, after a trial, of conspiracy to import a very large quantity of a border controlled drug. Taking into account the scale of the planned importation, and the applicant’s role in it, the sentencing judge concluded that a substantial sentence of imprisonment was necessary. He reduced the sentence by 50 per cent, on account of assistance which the applicant provided to law…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mejia (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Shakir Mejia (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen [2020] VSCA 141
Case: [2020] VSCA 141
Decision Date: 2 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the appellant, referred to as Mejia, who appealed against his sentence for conspiracy to import a border-controlled drug. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mejia argued that the sentencing judge erred in treating a 50 per cent discount as the maximum allowable reduction in his sentence, and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his cooperation with authorities. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the discount to Mejia's sentence, and if the failure to consider his cooperation with authorities constituted an error that warranted a reduction in his sentence.

The High Court considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in treating the 50 per cent discount as a ceiling, which could have influenced the final sentence. The court also examined whether the sentencing judge should have taken into account Mejia's cooperation with authorities in determining the appropriate discount. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in treating the 50 per cent discount as the maximum allowable reduction, and that Mejia's failure to give evidence against others was relevant to the assessment of the benefit and risk associated with his cooperation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the very serious nature of the offending and the substantial discount already applied.

The High Court concluded that there was no error in the sentencing judge's application of the discount, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range. The court found that Mejia's cooperation with authorities, while relevant, did not necessitate a further reduction in his sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders