R v Beqiri&Ors
[2016] VCC 401
•8 April 2016
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No.CR-15-00793,
CR-15-00794,
CR-15-00792
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| BESIM BEQIRI JACINTO RORDIGUEZ-CONEJO BRUNO HAJKO |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | Trial: 10–12, 15–18, 22–26, 29 February 2016; 1–4, 7–8 March 2016 Plea: 30 March 2016 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 April 2016 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Beqiri&Ors | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VCC 401 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms T. Tran for Mr R. Pirrie | CDPP |
For Accused Beqiri | Mr M. Tovey QC | Melasecca Kelly & Zayler |
For Accused Rodriguez-Conejo | Ms A. Haben-Beer | Balmer & Associates |
| For Accused Hajko | Mr L. Gwynn | Melasecca Kelly & Zayler |
HER HONOUR:
1 On 4 September 2014, Customs detected methamphetamine concealed in the rear quarter panels of a Chevrolet Impala, which had been imported into Australia. The total quantity was 29,252.2 grams of methamphetamine, which on analysis, yielded 23,040.4 grams of pure methamphetamine. That is an amount well in excess of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine.
2
The methamphetamine was removed and replaced with an inert substance, and an investigation involving surveillance, telephone intercepts, and tracking and listening devices, was launched. The car was ultimately delivered to the consignee, Besim Beqiri, an Australian resident at his home in Hillside on
11 September.
3 Meanwhile, Jacinto Rodriguez-Conejo, a Spanish National who had arrived in Sydney on a flight from Madrid, flew to Melbourne. He was eventually met and taken to an apartment at the Guilfoyle apartment building in South Melbourne.
4 On 25 September, Mr Rodriguez was arrested outside Mr Beqiri’s home. The car was in the garage. The inert substance which had been substituted for the methamphetamine, had been removed from the rear quarter panels of the car. It was in a backpack which Mr Rodriguez had been seen taking into the house an hour earlier, and right beside him as he was on the telephone, arranging to be collected from the house.
5 Mr Beqiri was arrested at short time later, not far from his house. Surveillance had shown him circling the house, while Rodriguez was inside.
6 The following day, Bruno Hajko, a Spanish-speaking Italian citizen who had been working in Melbourne on a 457 Visa for some time, purchased a one-way ticket on a flight to Rome leaving that night. His employers, who had regarded him as a reliable and responsible worker, were unaware of his sudden plan to depart. He was arrested at the airport, just before boarding his flight.
7 Surveillance evidence and telephone intercepts revealed that he had been in regular contact with Mr Rodriguez between the time of his arrival and his arrest. Amongst other things, he had taken him to a Bunnings store, where items later found in the garage of Mr Beqiri’s home and which had been used to remove the substitute material from the car, had been purchased. He had also provided him with a note on which he had written Mr Beqiri’s address, immediately before Mr Rodriguez went there on 25 September.
8 Following the arrest of Mr Rodriguez, his apartment at the Guilfoyle was searched and two boxes containing clothing, impregnated with cocaine, were found there. Further testing revealed a minimum amount of 374 grams of pure cocaine was present. That is well in excess of a marketable quantity of cocaine.
9 All three men were charged with attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, namely the methamphetamine, and Mr Rodriguez was charged with possession of a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely the cocaine. Each of you pleaded not guilty to the charge or charges brought against you.
10
It was the prosecution case that the three accused were parties to an agreement with others to possess the methamphetamine. Mr Beqiri’s role was to import the car in which the drug was concealed and provide safe storage for it in his garage until the contents were extracted. Mr Rodriguez' role was to extract the drugs from the car and the clothing, and Mr Hajko’s role was to act as a
go-between in respect of the drugs concealed in the car, conveying instructions to Mr Rodriguez from others involved, and assisting him as required. The telephone intercepts revealed many conversations between Mr Rodriguez and Mr Hajko and Mr Rodriguez and third parties overseas, discussing in coded language, the tasks he was to perform.
11 At trial, the accused Beqiri’s defence was that he was an innocent dupe who had imported the car in good faith for his own use and was unaware that drugs were concealed in it. The accused, Rodriguez' defence was essentially a denial of the charges and a putting the prosecution to proof. Similarly, the defence of the accused, Hajko, was essentially a denial of the charge and a putting the prosecution to proof. None of the accused gave evidence at trial.
12 The jury found the three accused guilty of the methamphetamine charge and Mr Rodriguez was also found guilty of the cocaine charge.
13 The maximum penalty for the charge attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the charge of possession of a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully imported, is 25 years. These penalties are clearly a measure of the seriousness with which Parliament regards these offences.
14 The evidence in the trial revealed that this was a sophisticated, highly organised, and well planned scheme. A considerable amount of money was invested in the scheme. In addition to the cost of the drugs, moneys were spent on importing the car and bringing Mr Rodriguez to Australia and putting him up here. Some of the intercepts reveal him asking for and receiving transfers of money to him in Australia, and to his wife in Spain. The cost of purchasing and importing the car alone exceeded $50,000. There were elaborate attempts to distance each participant from the other and to engage in counter-surveillance measures. There were many exchanges in the intercepted telephone calls when Mr Rodriguez was warned by the overseas third parties to use separate telephones for talking to different people and to change phones regularly.
15
Code, although not particularly sophisticated, was used in the telephone calls so as to avoid the attribution of the correct names to the drugs involved.
Mr Rodriguez was not given Mr Beqiri’s address where the car was stored and he was to perform the extraction, until the day he was directed to attend there and extract the substance from it. There is no evidence he knew Mr Beqiri or even knew his name. In fact, names were not used in any of the intercepted conversations. Terms such as "daddy" and "cousin" were used instead.
16 The quantity of drugs involved was significant. A commercial quantity of methamphetamine is 750 grams pure. This means the just over 23 kilograms of pure methamphetamine imported in the car is over 30 times the minimum for a commercial quantity. On the evidence presented at the trial, the wholesale value of that was between $5.8 and $6.4m. The estimated street value was between $21.9 and $29.2m.
17 A marketable quantity of cocaine is two grams pure. At a minimum of 374 grams of pure cocaine, that is at least 187 times the threshold. On the evidence at the trial, the wholesale value of that was in excess of $200,000. The street value was just a little under $450,000.
18 Each of you played different role in facilitating the attempt to retrieve the drug from the car. The involvement of each of you was over an extended period of time. For the accused, Beqiri, the evidence reveals that he was arranging the importation of the car as early as May 2014. The accused, Rodriguez, came to Australia from Spain at the start of September and as the surveillance reveals, did nothing other than wait for instructions to perform his extraction task or tasks. The surveillance and telephone intercept evidence reveals that the accused, Hajko’s, involvement in providing assistance to and transmitting messages to Rodriguez, occurred from the time of Mr Rodriguez' arrival in Melbourne, until the time of arrests.
19 I accept the prosecution characterisation that each role was not only different but, in its own way, critical. You may not have been the masterminds or the financiers, and you were clearly not the only ones involved. However that does not diminish the importance of the role played by each of you in facilitating this enterprise.
20 Having regard to the jury verdicts, the quantity of drug involved, and the sophistication of the financial and other investment in the operation, and absent any evidence as to your reason for involvement, the inescapable inference is that each of you was involved in the expectation of substantial financial gain. However I can make no assessment of what that actual gain was contemplated to be for any of you.
21 Sentencing each of you is governed by the matters I am required to take into account, by reason of s.16A of the Crimes Act 1914, and of the statements of principle and guidance in cases such as Nguyen and Phommalysack v The Queen [2011] 31 VR 673 , Nguyen and Pham v The Queen [2010] 205 A Crim R 106 and Wong v The Queen [2001] 207 CLR 584. There is nothing in your individual circumstances or the circumstances of the offending to diminish the weight that must ordinarily be given to general deterrence in a case such as this.
22 As Winneke P said in R v Carey [1998] 4 VR 13 at 17:
"Those who engage in the illicit drug trade, no matter what their status in the enterprise, must expect heavy sentences in which general deterrence will be the principal purpose of punishment."
23 Having regard to your denials of your involvement, it is clear that specific deterrence is also a significant sentencing factor here.
24 Analysis of the comparative sentences relied on, both by prosecution and defence, reveals that the most significant mitigating factors in cases of commercial quantity drug charges are generally a guilty plea, and evidence of genuine remorse, whether demonstrated by co-operation with law enforcement authorities, or in some other way. None of you can call those factors in aid. The materials presented to me on the pleas, and in particular the psychological reports tendered on behalf of each of you, demonstrate no more than an understandable reaction or response to the situation you now find yourselves in. Each of you took a gamble in choosing to participate in this operation for gain. Each of you took a gamble in exercising your undoubted right to plead not guilty and put the prosecution to proof. But they were high stakes gambles and the absence of guilty pleas, evidence of remorse or co-operation with the authority, removes from consideration in sentencing you, the significant reduction in the sentences which the authorities make clear are to be imposed following a guilty plea or evidence of remorse or co-operation.
25 Turning then to your personal circumstances:
26 You, Mr Beqiri, are 43 years old. You were born in Kosovo of Albanian parents and escaped from war and the discrimination exacted upon Albanians as an ethnic minority in Kosovo, to Norway, as a young man. There you were granted Norwegian citizenship. Your family, your parents and siblings, are spread over Europe and you remain in regular contact with them.
27 You came to Australia six years ago with your son, now a young adult. He is one of three children born of a relationship you formed in Norway. I was told that one other child of that relationship died as a baby in terrible circumstances, circumstances that here we would call "infanticide".
28 You fought long and hard, I was told, before securing custody of the two surviving children. Your son, Dani, who accompanied you to Australia, has provided a moving account of the life he led before and after you regained custody of him, and of his devotion to you. You are lucky to have such devotion, but you should be deeply ashamed of the example you have now set him. The third child of the relationship, a daughter, has remained in Norway and you have apparently had little contact with her since your arrival in Australia. You remarried in Australia and stand as step-father to your wife’s two children, themselves now young adults, and also, as step-grandfather to her grandchild.
29 Although war and disadvantage interrupted your education and opportunities in Kosovo, you are clearly an intelligent man and have worked variously as an interpreter, the founder and operator of an Albanian language newspaper, a producer of Albanian language radio programs, and as a chef. You have commenced high level university courses, which you have discontinued by reason of economic or other difficult circumstances, rather than lack of intellectual capacity. Since your arrival in Australia, I am told your predominant employment has been operating a cleaning and maintenance business.
30 You have some health issues. A brief report from your general practitioner lists the following: Hypertension, non-insulin-dependent type II diabetes, gastritis, high cholesterol, gout, and excess weight, as well as stress, anxiety, and depression. In addition I was told you underwent an angioplasty at the Alfred Hospital for symptoms of tachycardia and you have also been treated for a pericardial viral condition. As I understand it, that was a single episode with no residual effects or complications. It is not suggested that any of the conditions from which you have or from when you currently suffer, are not able to be appropriately treated in custody. Nor was it suggested that they would make your time in custody more onerous, so as to invoke the operation of any of the principles in Verdins.
31 Your grant of permanent residence in Australia is an indicator of your previous good character. In addition to the testimonial from your son, to which I have referred, testimonials from your wife, your sister on behalf of your family in Europe, and two men who have become friends of yours since your arrival in Australia, Mr Cheung and Mr Nuredini, all speak to a man held in high regard. They stands in stark contrast to the light cast on your character by the conduct which brings you to be sentenced today.
32 In 2014, between the time that you arranged for the importation of the car and its arrival, you were charged with offences relating to the possession of firearms, and ammunition, and possession of a substantial amount of money, $155,000, which was unable to be accounted for by lawful earnings.
33 After you were charged with this offence for which I am sentencing you today, you pleaded guilty to one charge of dealing in property suspected of being proceeds of crime. That related to the possession of the $155,000, and possession of two handguns and cartridge ammunition without a licence or permit. You were convicted and placed on a 12 month community correction order with conditions including the performance of 200 hours of unpaid community work. Although not a previous conviction, it means that this matter for which I sentence you, cannot be described as a single aberration in your life.
34 You had planned to make your life and future here. Your wife, you son and your step-children remain supportive of you. They have been present in throughout the trial and are present here again today. Although you are a permanent resident in Australia, your right to stay following conviction and once you have served the sentence which inevitably flows from conviction, having regard to recent changes to the Migration Act, is now uncertain. That will, I accept, add to the burden of imprisonment.
35 You have consented to the forfeiture of the car in which the drugs were concealed. Nothing has been put to indicate that any financial hardship is caused to you as a result of that.
36 It is difficult to make any prediction about your prospects for rehabilitation, given the fact that you maintained your innocence throughout the trial and have advanced no explanation for your behaviour. On the one hand, you had no convictions before coming to Australia and none for the first five years of your time here. On the other hand, this is a very serious example of a very serious offence and the proceeds of crime and firearms offences indicate involvement in a criminal milieu. Again, no explanation was advanced for that offending before me which could mitigate the objective seriousness of it. What can be said on the materials provided to me, including the report from the psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins, is that there is no evidence of any substance abuse, psychiatric illness, personality disorder, or psychological condition which could either account for your wrongdoing or negatively affect your prospects for rehabilitation, should you choose to live a law-abiding life from now on.
37
Mr Tovey QC submitted that your case was on all fours with, or at least that you should not be treated more harshly than Cini, who was sentenced by
Croucher J to a term of imprisonment of ten years, with a non-parole period of six years for attempted possession of 161.5 kilograms of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug. However, in my view, Cini is distinguishable for a number of reasons. Most significantly first, he pleaded guilty, and second, he did not have the convictions that you now have for unexplained possession of a substantial amount of money, and handguns and ammunition. The s.6AAA declaration for Cini, which of course must also be considered, in light of the absence of relevant convictions, was a term of imprisonment of 14 years, with a non-parole period of ten.
38 You, Jacinto Rodriguez Conejo, are 49 years old. You come from the south of Spain, you had limited formal education, and have worked, as I understand it, as a chef for most of your life. You are the father of four adult children, and four grandchildren under the age of ten. Your marriage was apparently in some difficulty at the time you came to Australia in September 2014, and your wife has since instituted proceedings to divorce you. Your parents are elderly and you fear that you will not see them again. Your children and your parents remain supportive of you, but they are all in Spain. I am told you have no family and no friends here. This was a very high-stakes gamble for you to come to Australia for the purpose the jury found you did. The consequences of arrest and charge have meant that you face, not only a substantial term of imprisonment in a foreign country, but one which is made more onerous by reason of the absence of family and friends. As you came to Australia on a tourist visa, which has now expired, you face certain deportation upon the expiration of your sentence.
39 As you had not planned to make a future for yourself in Australia, the prospect of deportation is not one productive of hardship which would operate to reduce the sentence otherwise appropriate to be imposed.
40 You have been in custody since your arrest and isolated, not only by the absence of any family or friends here, but also by language. It was clear from the telephone intercepts that you had no functional English during the time you were waiting to perform the task of extraction of the drugs in September 2014. I am told that you have not learned any English during your time in custody, and have had no or almost no contact with any Spanish speakers, and you have had only very limited contact with one Portuguese speaker with whom you can communicate, given the similarities in those two languages.
41 Whilst I accept that you are and will continue to be isolated, by reason of language, it surprises me to be told that you have learnt no English during your time in custody. Nothing has been put to me to suggest that you suffer from any intellectual disability or learning disability or difficulty which would preclude you from learning some functional English and being able to communicate, at least at a basic level, with those around you.
42 I have been provided with testimonials from one of your daughters and from a friend of yours. They attest to your good character and to a belief in your innocence. They sit in contrast to the behaviour of which the jury has found you guilty.
43
On your behalf, I was provided with a report from the psychologist, Ms Carla Lechner. It is based on a single consultation with you, conducted one week after conviction. You maintained to her your innocence and gave an account which sits at variance with the objective evidence before me, gleaned from the telephone intercepts and surveillance. Unfortunately it does not appear that
Ms Lechner asked you about the difference between the account you gave and what that objective evidence presented at the trial revealed. In those circumstances, I place no weight on the version of events you gave Ms Lechner, or any opinion of hers, based on that.
44 Ms Lechner reports that she administered the Beck Depression Inventory. As she noted, that is a self-report questionnaire which canvasses a range of psychological and physiological symptoms of depression, experienced, over the two weeks before the administration of the test. It is not surprising that you fell within the moderate range of symptoms, given the timing of the administration of the test, only one week after the jury had convicted you of one drug-related charge, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and another carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years imprisonment. You were, at the time that you undertook the test, facing the reality of a substantial sentence, in a country other than your own, and without any family or other support here.
45 Ms Lechner diagnosed you as suffering symptoms of sufficient severity to warrant a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depression, as defined in DSM. It would appear from Ms Lechner’s report, that diagnosis is based on your self-report and the result of the Beck Depression Inventory test. This is a most unsatisfactory position. The Beck Depression Inventory is not designed to be and should not be used as a diagnostic tool for depression. It is no more than a screening tool. Although contemporaneous records of any report by you of your symptoms whilst in custody, any diagnosis, and any treatment would, if requested, have been provided by Justice Health, they were not sought nor provided to Ms Lechner.
46 Although you have been in custody since your arrest, and I was told that you had been diagnosed with depression and prescribed anti-depressant medication, no report had been sought from Justice Health at the time of the plea.
47 A report from a psychologist, conducted post-conviction, based solely on after the event self-report, without reference to a prosecution summary which reflects the jury verdict, or contemporaneous records of diagnosis and treatment whilst in custody, is of limited value if there is divergence between the self-report and the objective facts which the jury verdict must reflect, or contemporaneous records of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment.
48 On the hearing of the plea, I made my concerns about the basis upon which the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depression had been made and the absence of reference to Justice Health records, given that such records could easily have since been subpoenaed. Since then those records have been subpoenaed. They reveal four entries between November 2014 and February 2015, made by a psychiatric nurse practitioner. The first three contain what is said to be her “impression” of a presentation of moderate depression, in the context of social isolation, situational and external stressors. The last entry refers to a diagnosis of reactive depression. It is unclear whether that diagnosis was made by the psychiatric nurse practitioner, or by somebody else. Although the notes referred to Mirtrazepine having been prescribed, initially on 26 November 2014 and then in increased dosages between then and 24 February 2015, they do not reveal who prescribed it, or the basis upon which it was prescribed.
49
In an email provided yesterday after the Justice Health records had been released to your legal advisers, Ms Haban-Beer confirmed that those documents were not available to Ms Lechner. No further report has been provided from her, and in her submissions contained in the email,
Ms Haban-Beer indicated she did not seek to elevate the notes recording the impression of reactive or situational depression to a clinical diagnosis.
50 In those circumstances, I am not prepared to accept or act upon the opinion of Ms Lechner, that you suffer from adjustment disorder with depression. I do not consider that any Verdins considerations are enlivened.
51 Having said that, as I said to Ms Haban-Beer on the hearing of the plea, I accept and take into account that imprisonment will be more onerous for you than it would be for a person for whom English is a first language, for a person who had family and friends in the jurisdiction, and who could visit them during their term of imprisonment. I accept that isolation from family and friends, cultural isolation, and inability or limited ability to speak English, all make imprisonment more onerous for a person and I take all of that into account.
52 I am told that you have no previous convictions. Some support for that is obviously provided by the fact that you are permitted entry into Australia, not once but three times over a 12 month period leading up to the time of your arrest, on a tourist visa. For you too, given that you continue to maintain your innocence, it is difficult to make an accurate prediction about your prospects for rehabilitation. For you too, there is no evidence before me of any substance abuse, psychiatric illness, personality disorder, or psychological condition which could either account for your wrongdoing or negatively affect your prospects for rehabilitation, should you choose to lead a law-abiding life from now on.
53 I see no reason to distinguish between the head sentence for the charge relating to the methamphetamine between you and Mr Beqiri. You are both men of mature years who, on the jury verdicts, must have made conscious choices to undertake this activity in the hope of significant financial gain.
54
You have also been found guilty of a second charge relating to the cocaine.
I accept that for you, I should treat this as part of a course of conduct or continuing criminal enterprise in which you were involved, and that there should be substantial, although not complete concurrency with the sentence, in respect to the methamphetamine.
55 You, Bruno Hajko, are significantly younger than your two co-offenders. You were just 22 at the time of your arrest, and are now 23. Your role I take to be a lesser one than that of your co-offenders. You were indeed a go-between, passing on messages and providing assistance, as directed.
56 You are Albanian by birth and ethnicity, and your family moved to Italy when you were five. You have trained as a chef in Italy and have worked in hotel kitchens and restaurants in Italy and here. In fact I was told you had worked for some time at a Michelin star restaurant in Livorno before coming to Australia. You are an Italian citizen. You had come to Australia initially, as I understand it, on a youth tourist working visa, and after some time working here, you obtained sponsorship for a 457 visa. You had been working for some time in the kitchen at a restaurant in Windsor.
57 Your employer gave evidence at the trial and it is clear that you were regarded as hard-working, reliable and good at your job.
58 Given your visa status, you too were remanded in custody upon your arrest and have remained there ever since. You too face certain deportation upon the expiration of your sentence. I am told that you had hoped to obtain residency in Australia. That appears to be a hope of many young Italian citizens, given the economic difficulties faced by young people and the employment difficulties faced by young people in Italy, a country with notoriously high youth unemployment rates. Your opportunity to obtain residence in Australia has clearly been dashed, or you hope of obtaining residency in Australia has clearly been dashed by this. So in addition to conviction and sentence, you face the prospect, the certain prospect of losing that opportunity you hoped would be open to you of remaining in this country and obtaining permanent residency or citizenship.
59 Like Mr Rodriguez, you have been in custody since your arrest and you are, like him, isolated in custody. Your family remains supportive of you, but all of them are all in Italy. I am told you have had no family or friends visit you here. Although you are culturally isolated, you have a good command of English, as indeed it appears you have of a number of other languages. I take into account however, the fact that English is not your first language, or for that matter I think your second or third, and I accept that the cultural and linguistic isolation will add to the burden of imprisonment for you, in addition to the absence of family and friends.
60 Since your remand in custody, I am told that you have used your time fruitfully. You have done what courses were available to you and you have tried to keep yourself occupied. You were made a billet, a clear indicator of good behaviour in custody.
61 Unfortunately, whilst playing indoor soccer, you suffered an injury to your neck and you continue, over 12 months since that injury, to suffer residual symptoms of tingling and numbness in your arms. On medical advice, you are still not permitted by the prison authorities to play soccer or any other sport. I am told that the medical opinions are that this condition will improve and that you will eventually return to full function. However, until you do, your opportunities to keep yourself fit and your mind engaged are significantly curtailed. It has also, as I understand it, limited the opportunities you have to engage in work in prison.
62 I take all of that into account as part of the burden of imprisonment upon you. For you too, a psychological report was commissioned following conviction. No psychiatric or psychological condition predating your remand in custody was reported or diagnosed. Not surprisingly, you too suffer some reactive depression and anxiety. Mr Crewdson, the psychologist, is of the opinion that you would qualify for a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, largely related to your prison experiences, but with relatively low levels of depressive and anxiety related factors. In his opinion, the symptoms are likely to abate within a matter of months after the stress related factors have been removed. That mean you are in no different situation to most people being remanded in custody in respect of serious offences, maintaining their innocence and facing the prospect of a considerable period of imprisonment.
63 Mr Gwynn did not seek to invoke the principles in Verdins, and I take into account that like any person convicted of a serious offence and facing imprisonment for the first time, adjustment to prison life and to facing the consequences of their behaviour is likely to be difficult.
64 You were assaulted whilst in custody in what I was told was a stand over attempt. For your protection, I was told and against your wishes, you have been moved into protection and it is likely you will remain there for some, if not all of your sentence. That, I accept, will also make imprisonment more onerous for you than for your co-offenders, and for any prisoner who is able to spend their time in custody in mainstream and to access the full range of courses and opportunities otherwise available.
65 Although you are much younger than your co-offenders, and I consider you less culpable by reason of your youth, as well as by reason of the much more limited role you played compared to them, you too must be taken to have made a conscious choice to embark upon serious criminal activity, or to lend yourself perhaps better put, to assisting others, and you too must accept the consequences.
66 Again for you, there is no evidence before me of any substance abuse, psychiatric illness, personality disorder or psychological condition which could either account for your wrongdoing or negatively affect your prospects for rehabilitation, should you choose to lead a law-abiding life from now on.
67
Although you are old enough to leave home, to leave your home country and to live independently in another country, you are still a young person whose immaturity, in my view, lessens his moral culpability. In my view, I consider your prospects for rehabilitation, by reason of your youth and your apparent ready acceptance of the jury verdict, is likely to be better than that of your
co-offenders.
68 For these reasons, I consider the sentence to be imposed on you should be less than that to be served or passed on your co-offenders.
69 Could you now all stand please.
70 Besim Beqiri, on the charge of which you have been found guilty, Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 15 years. That sentence is to commence today. I fix a non-parole period of 11 years, and declare that you have spent 260 days in pre-sentence detention.
71 Jacinto Rodriguez-Conejo, on the two charges of which the jury found you guilty, you are convicted. On Charge 1 you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 15 years. That sentence is to commence four years before the expiration of the sentence on Charge 2. On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of five years. That sentence is to commence today. That makes a total effective sentence of 16 years, and I fix a period of 11 years and six months as the time that you must serve before being eligible for parole. I declare that you have spent 561 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
72 Bruno Hajko, on Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 11 years. That sentence is to commence today. I fixe a non-parole period for you of seven years and declare that you have spent 560 days in pre-sentence detention, and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
73 Do those orders I pronounced reflect what I intended to do?
74 COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honour.
75 HER HONOUR: And I make the forfeiture order sought in respect of the car, in relation to Mr Beqiri. Are there any further orders that are required to be made?
76 MS TRAN: No, Your Honour.
77 MR GWYNN: No.
78 HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. Could you please remove the three accused.
- - -
0
0
0