Head sentence of 8 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, at [139 – 141].
Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug — methamphetamine — 17 bottles of liquid labelled ‘exotic oil’ found to contain methamphetamine brought by the offender from Fiji to Sydney.
Counsel: M Santhakumar (Crown) I Lloyd KC (Offender)
Solicitors: Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Olympus Law (Offender)
File Number(s):
2022/00323380
Publication restriction:
Nil
JUDGMENT
Abrar Sohel Abbas appears for sentence having entered a plea of guilty to one count of importing a commercial quantity of a border‑controlled drug, namely, 7.7 kilograms of methamphetamine. The commercial quantity applicable to methamphetamine is 0.75 kilograms. Such an offence contravenes s 307.1(i) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or 7,500 penalty units which equates to a maximum fine of $1.665 million.
FACTS
On 28 October 2022, the offender arrived at Kingsford Smith International Airport in Sydney on his return from a two-day trip to Fiji. At the time he was a lawful non-citizen who was living in Australia on a student visa. He had travelled to Fiji from Sydney on…
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 v Abbas
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Abbas [2023] NSWDC 644
Case
[2023] NSWDC 644
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Abbas involved the accused, Abbas, who was found in possession of a significant amount of methamphetamine, concealed within bottles of liquid labelled ‘exotic oil.’ The methamphetamine was imported from Fiji to Sydney, and the quantity was deemed to be a commercial amount under Commonwealth legislation. The dispute centred on the nature and extent of Abbas’s involvement in the importation, and whether he was acting with the intent to supply the drug. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court had to decide whether Abbas was guilty of importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, specifically methamphetamine, and whether the importation was conducted with the requisite intent to supply. The legal issues involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, assessing the evidence presented, and determining the appropriate sentence if Abbas was found guilty. The court examined the evidence provided, including the contents of the bottles, the circumstances of the importation, and Abbas’s actions and statements following his arrest.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that Abbas was indeed guilty of the offence. The court concluded that the quantity of methamphetamine was sufficient to be considered a commercial amount, and the evidence pointed towards Abbas’s involvement in the importation with the intent to supply. The court considered the severity of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, and the potential harm to the community, before imposing a head sentence of 8 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.
The orders of the court were that Abbas be sentenced to 8 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to deter future similar activities. The court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, resulting in a just outcome for the parties involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
Head sentence of 8 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, at [139 – 141].