R v Chiagozie

Case [2018] NSWDC 298


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chiagozie [2018] NSWDC 298
Hearing dates: 20 April, 28 May 2018
Date of orders: 29 May 2018
Decision date: 29 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Total sentence 7 years 6 months. NPP 4 years 6 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – Commonwealth offences

 

Criminal Code s307.1(1) – importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine (317.5 grams of pure drug)

Criminal Code s302.3(1) – trafficking a marketable quantity of 2 border-controlled drugs (methamphetamine and cocaine – exact quantity of pure drug unknown)
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Ruben Botero, (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 24 June 1998)
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Fabian Ogochukwu Chiagozie (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr D Barrow (Crown)
Mr P Kondich (Offender)

  Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
George Sten & Co Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2016/164039
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Fabian Ogochukwu Chiagozie stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to two substantive offences against the law of the Commonwealth of Australia. The first crime is one contrary to the provisions of s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence can be shortly described as importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for that crime is life imprisonment and/or a fine of 7,500 penalty units. The second offence is one contrary to s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code and can be described as trafficking a marketable quantity of controlled drugs, namely, methamphetamine and cocaine. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units.

  2. The offender was arrested on 27 May 2016 and has been in custody since that time, a period now of two years and two days.

The first offence

  1. Unfortunately, as is almost invariable these days, the agreed facts comprise 32 pages containing 117 paragraphs. The first part of the agreed facts is an “executive summary”, but in an attempt to be succinct it does not contain all the necessary information upon which I can pass sentence. The importation offence occurred over a period of 23 days between 12 May 2016 and 3 June 2016. The offender was involved in the importation of five consignments from India, each containing methamphetamine.

  2. The first consignment followed upon the offender’s sending an SMS to an Indian telephone number saved in his contacts as “Emeka Bros” giving a name and address for a consignee in New South Wales. On 16 May 2016, four days later, an international consignment was sent from New Delhi in India. The consignee was the same as the details supplied to India by the offender on 12 May 2016 including the address and telephone number. The consignor was said to be Nisha Rani at a complex address in New Delhi. The content of the consignment was described as “Plastic plate”. On 25 May 2016 the Australian Border Force seized…

Continue reading R v Chiagozie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Chiagozie [2018] NSWDC 298
Case
[2018] NSWDC 298
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chiagozie involved the defendant, Chiagozie, who was charged with serious drug-related offences. Chiagozie was found guilty of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine and trafficking a marketable quantity of two border-controlled drugs, methamphetamine and cocaine. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia, where Chiagozie’s sentence was determined.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Chiagozie’s offences, specifically under sections 307.1(1) and 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code. The court needed to consider the severity of the offences, the quantity of drugs involved, and the relevant sentencing principles. The court also had to decide on the non-parole period (NPP) that Chiagozie would need to serve before becoming eligible for parole.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including the gravity of the offences, the quantity of drugs involved, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the offences were of significant seriousness due to the large quantities of drugs involved. The court also took into account the defendant’s criminal history and the need to protect the community. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Chiagozie to a total of 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.

The court made a final order that Chiagozie be sentenced to a total of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. This decision reflects the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offences and the need to balance the interests of justice, deterrence, and community protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence 7 years 6 months. NPP 4 years 6 months.

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.