Legal Research
Cases
R (Cth) v Cooper

R (Cth) v Cooper

Case [2020] NSWSC 515 8 May 2020

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Cooper [2020] NSWSC 515
Hearing dates: 01 May 2020
Date of orders: 08 May 2020
Decision date: 08 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 28 years with a non-parole period of 18 years, to date from 25 December 2016.

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL – conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – verdicts of guilty to two counts at trial – very high level offending – agreement to import substantial quantities of cocaine – sophisticated plan for importations by sea – offender Australian agent for international source of drugs – parity with other conspirators – role of general deterrence

Legislation Cited:
Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).

Cases Cited:
Chen v R [2002] NSWCCA 174; (2002) 130 A Crim R 300
De la Espriella-Velasco v The Queen (2006) 31 WAR 291; [2006] WASCA 31
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Melgar Sevilla v The Queen [2007] WASCA 116
R (Cth) v Li [2005] NSWCCA 154
R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329; (2003) 181 FLR 1
R v Elfar & Golding [2017] QCA 170
R v Ismunandar; R v Siregar [2002] NSWCCA 477; (2002) 136 A Crim R 206
R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; (2010) 205 A Crim R 106
R v [Person A], [Person C] & Tobin [2018] NSWSC 1953
R v Reaves [2004] WASCA 106; (2004) 147 A Crim R 26
R v Suarez-Mejia [2002] WASCA 187; (2002) 131 A Crim R 577
R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386
Sukkar v The Queen (No 2) (2008) 178 A Crim R 433; [2008] WASCA 2
Teng v The Queen (2009) 22 VR 706; [2009] VSCA 148
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Thompson v R [2007] NSWCCA 83
Velez v R (Cth) [2015] NSWCCA 177
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jonathon Cooper (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Barclay QC/Mr S Howell (Crown)
D Randle (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown)
Anderson Boemi Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/387430
Publication restriction: Judgment previously restricted pending finalisation of all co-accused trials and related appeals. Anonymised and/or redacted to excise any matters the subject of a non-publication order pursuant to s 7 of the Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 5 August 2019 Jonathon Cooper (“the offender”) was arraigned before a jury panel upon an indictment containing three counts. After a trial lasting until 18 September 2019, he was found guilty by the jury of counts one and…

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 R (Cth) v Cooper

Details

AGLC: R (Cth) v Cooper [2020] NSWSC 515
Case: [2020] NSWSC 515
Decision Date: 08 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R (Cth) v Cooper, the respondent was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically cocaine. The respondent played a pivotal role as an Australian agent for an international drug source, orchestrating a sophisticated plan for the importation of substantial quantities of cocaine by sea. The appeal was against the sentence imposed following his conviction, which the respondent considered excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and denunciation. The respondent argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offending, considering his role as an agent and the absence of a physical presence in the importations. The respondent also contended that the sentence did not reflect the mitigating factors, such as his lack of a criminal record and the absence of personal gain.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The majority opinion recognised the gravity of the offences, given the substantial quantities of drugs involved and the sophisticated nature of the conspiracy. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in drug importation cases, noting that the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of such offences. The court also considered the respondent's role as a key player in the importation plan, which warranted a significant custodial sentence. The majority concluded that the sentence, while severe, was proportionate to the respondent's culpability and the need for deterrence.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentence imposed by the primary judge was upheld as appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders