R (Cth) v Ohanian - [2025] NSWDC 421

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Ohanian [2025] NSWDC 421
Hearing dates: 23 April 2025
Date of orders: 23 April 2025
Decision date: 23 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See pars [67]-[69].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – Import of precursor pseudoephedrine in two consignments, pure amounts being 3.37 kg and 1.67 kg – Minor, unsuccessful role as receiver of goods to pass on to another – No knowledge of substance being imported, reckless – Prior good character – Financial hardship – Generalised anxiety disorder arising out of arrest – Genuine remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 17A
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 307.11

Cases Cited:
GE v R [2019] NSWCCA 41
Matthews v R [2013] NSWCCA 187
McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200
Nguyen v R [2020] NSWCCA 45
Phan v R [2013] NSWCCA 49
R (Cth) v Madgwick [2018] NSWCCA 268
R v Chandler [2010] QCA 21
Wright(a pseudonym) v R [2017] NSWCCA 289
XY v R [2013] VSCA 261
Zhouv DPP(Cth) [2021] VSCA 118

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (Cth)
Offender – Samir Ohanian
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown – Ms Niagos, C.
Offender – Mr Hughes, T.
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Offender – Macquarie Law Group

File Number(s): 2023/00302668
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Samir Ohanian stands for sentence as a result of pleading guilty to two charges, each contrary to s 307.11(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth of Australia (‘Criminal Code’). The first offence is referred to as Sequence 2 and the second offence is referred to as Sequence 4. Sequence 2 is in connection with a consignment which has been named “Consignment 1”, and Sequence 4 is in respect of a second consignment which has been named as “Consignment 2”. Sequence 2 is this:

“Between about 13 August 2023 and about 21 August 2023, Samir Ohanian imported a substance, the substance being a border-controlled precursor, namely pseudoephedrine, and the quantity imported being a commercial quantity.”

The minimum commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine is 1.2 kilograms. The amount imported in Consignment 1 was 3.37 kg which is about 2.82 times the commercial threshold. The amount involved in Consignment 2 was 1.67 kg of pure pseudoephedrine which is about 1.39 times the commercial threshold. For the two offences the offender was arrested on 22 September 2023 and given bail on the following day. He only spent one night in custody.

Agreed Facts

Exhibit A contains an agreed statement of facts. The first consignment arrived in Australia on 13 August 2023. The second consignment arrived in Australia on 10 September 2023. I shall from this point on refer not to Sequence 2 or Sequence 4 but merely to Consignment 1 or Consignment 2.
Consignment 1 was addressed to a consignee “Jason Marshall” at 13A Universal Street, Mortdale in this State. The person who lives…

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 Ohanian

Details

AGLC: R (Cth) v Ohanian [2025] NSWDC 421
Case: [2025] NSWDC 421
Decision Date: 23 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents were convicted of importing precursor pseudoephedrine in two consignments, with pure amounts of 3.37 kg and 1.67 kg. The dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth sought to appeal the sentences imposed on the respondents, arguing that they were too lenient. The respondents argued that their sentences were appropriate, taking into account their minor role in the importation, their lack of knowledge of the substance being imported, their prior good character, their financial hardship, their generalised anxiety disorder arising out of their arrest, and their genuine remorse.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to drug importation offences, and the need to balance the need for deterrence with the need to have regard to the individual circumstances of the offender. The court held that the primary judge had given insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court also held that the primary judge had erred in failing to impose a custodial sentence on the respondents. The court noted that the respondents' minor role in the importation and their lack of knowledge of the substance being imported were mitigating factors, but that these factors were not sufficient to outweigh the need for a custodial sentence.

The court remitted the matter to the Federal Circuit Court for re-sentencing, with directions to impose a custodial sentence on the respondents. The court noted that the respondents' financial hardship, their generalised anxiety disorder, and their genuine remorse were relevant factors to be taken into account in determining the length of the custodial sentence. The court held that the respondents should be given credit for their early guilty pleas. The court also held that the respondents should be ordered to pay a fine and to forfeit the proceeds of the offence.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for re-sentencing, with directions to impose a custodial sentence on the respondents, to take into account their financial hardship, their generalised anxiety disorder, and their genuine remorse, and to give credit for their early guilty pleas. The court ordered that the respondents be ordered to pay a fine and to forfeit the proceeds of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [67]-[69].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R (Cth) v Ohanian [2025] NSWDC 421
Hearing dates:	23 April 2025
Date of orders:	23 April 2025
Decision date:	23 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [67]-[69].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – Import of precursor pseudoephedrine in two consignments, pure amounts being 3.37 kg and 1.67 kg – Minor, unsuccessful role as receiver of goods to pass on to another – No knowledge of substance being imported, reckless – Prior good character – Financial hardship – Generalised anxiety disorder arising out of arrest – Genuine remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 17A Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 307.11
Cases Cited:	GE v R [2019] NSWCCA 41 Matthews v R [2013] NSWCCA 187 McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200 Nguyen v R [2020] NSWCCA 45 Phan v R [2013] NSWCCA 49 R (Cth) v Madgwick [2018] NSWCCA 268 R v Chandler [2010] QCA 21 Wright(a pseudonym) v R [2017] NSWCCA 289 XY v R [2013] VSCA 261 Zhouv DPP(Cth) [2021] VSCA 118
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown – R (Cth) Offender – Samir Ohanian
Representation:	Counsel: Crown – Ms Niagos, C. Offender – Mr Hughes, T. Solicitors: Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Offender – Macquarie Law Group
File Number(s):	2023/00302668
Publication restriction:	Nil.