R v Barber-Battese

Case [2024] NSWDC 627


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Barber-Battese [2024] NSWDC 627
Hearing dates: 12 September 2024
Date of orders: 12 September 2024
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

See par [66].

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – PLEA OF GUILTY

AID IN TRAFFICKING OF MARKETABLE QUANTITY OF CONTROLLED DRUG - 492.7 grams of Cocaine - Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 302.3(1).

Minor criminal history – Contrition and remorse – Limited involvement in trafficking – Low range of objective seriousness – Strong subjective case.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 17A, 20AB, 16A.

Crimes Regulations 1990, r 6.

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 10, 3A, 66.

Criminal Code Act, s 302.3(1).

Cases Cited:

Chan v R [2023] NSWCCA 206

RvCampbell [2024] NSWDC 413, [44]-[45], [93].

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Offender – Josef Barber-Battese
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown – Ms Vella, F.
Offender – Mr Edwards, T. SC.

Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Offender – Krayem & Co Lawyers
File Number(s): 2023/00254411
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Josef Barber‑Battese stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that between 8 September 2022 and 16 September 2022 at St Peters in the State of New South Wales and in the suburbs of Brisbane in the State of Queensland did aid in the trafficking of a substance which was a controlled drug, namely, cocaine, and the quantity trafficked being a marketable quantity, namely, 492.7 grams.

  2. That is an offence contrary to s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code Act of the Commonwealth of Australia. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 25 years and or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period.

  3. The Crown filed an indictment on or about 28 June 2024 and the offender was arraigned on it today and pleaded guilty to the charge on that arraignment. However, it is common ground that the offender pleaded guilty to the charge in the Local Court, as I understand it, at the earliest available opportunity. He is therefore entitled to an appropriate discount for the utilitarian value of his early plea of guilty.

Facts

  1. There are a set of agreed facts between the parties. They comprise some nineteen paragraphs over five pages.

  2. In 2022 the New South Wales Police commenced an investigation into the importation and trafficking of prohibited drugs by a number of individuals. They were investigating a syndicate which was importing and distributing throughout Australia many kilograms of cocaine and methamphetamine. The syndicate was dealing with millions of dollars.

  3. As a result of investigation between September and November 2022, charges were laid against a number of people. They included:

  1. Watcharaphong Aphichotnithithon to whom I shall refer, if necessary, as WA;

  2. Tung Huu Bui, to whom I shall refer as Bui;

  3. Mr Joseph Campbell, to whom I shall refer as Campbell; and

  4. Sutthichai Torthitithan,…

Continue reading R v Barber-Battese

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Barber-Battese [2024] NSWDC 627
Case
[2024] NSWDC 627
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Anthony Michael Barber-Battese, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant following his plea of guilty to aiding and abetting the trafficking of a marketable quantity of cocaine, a crime under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The court had to weigh several factors, including the nature of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, the defendant’s criminal history, his level of involvement in the trafficking operation, and his display of contrition and remorse.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing framework for the offence under section 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), and the application of mitigating factors such as the defendant’s minor criminal history, limited involvement in the trafficking, and the presence of subjective factors that could potentially reduce the severity of the sentence. The court was also required to balance these mitigating factors against the objective seriousness of the offence, which involved a significant quantity of cocaine.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the substantial quantity of cocaine involved, amounting to 492.7 grams, which indicated a serious level of criminal activity. However, it also took into account the defendant’s minimal prior criminal record, his apparent limited role in the trafficking operation, and the evidence of genuine contrition and remorse. The court acknowledged the strong subjective case for mitigation but ultimately determined that the objective seriousness of the offence warranted a sentence towards the higher end of the scale. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, with specific details provided in paragraph 66 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See par [66].

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.