R v Claro

Case [2019] NSWDC 886


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Claro [2019] NSWDC 886
Hearing dates: 25 November 2019
Date of orders: 25 November 2019
Decision date: 25 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence. At [56] – [57]

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – importing commercial quantity of Border Controlled Drugs – cocaine
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 307.1
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gow [2015] NSWCCA 208
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Texts Cited: None
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Carlos Claro (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
K Averre (Offender)

  Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
File Number(s): 2019/00033858
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. The Offender appears before the Court today for sentence in relation to a single charge, pursuant to s307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). That is, on 31 January 2019, he imported a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, namely cocaine, being 4 kilograms gross and 3.26 kilograms pure. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or 7,500 penalty units.

  2. The maximum penalty represents Parliament’s assessment and the community’s regard for the seriousness of the offending. There is no doubt that offending of this type is serious, and brings to this country all types and manner of problems of a social and other nature which calls for deterrence.

  3. The offending occurred on 31 January 2019, and the Offender was arrested the same day. He has been in custody since that time, for a period of 298 days as at today.

  4. There is reference in Exhibit A to a co-Offender who, I assume, has pleaded not guilty and her trial is listed for next April. No issues of parity therefore arise for my consideration today.

  5. In terms of the facts relating to the offending, the Agreed Statement of Facts set out in Exhibit A provides as follows.

  6. The Offender, a Brazilian national, arrived in Australia on 31 January 2019 on a flight from Qatar. The Offender had two suitcases. Secreted in the linings of those suitcases was a total of 3.26 kilograms of cocaine.

  7. He travelled to Australia on a tourist visa. The Offender was travelling with his girlfriend, a Ms Pazzianotto, who is in fact a co-Offender to be tried next April.

  8. At about 6.25am on that day, the Offender presented his Brazilian passport and an Incoming Passenger Card (IPC) to the Australian Border Force (ABF) Officer. On the IPC he declared that he was not bringing into Australia “Goods that may be prohibited or subject to restrictions, such as medicines, steroids, firearms, weapons of any kind, or illicit drugs”.

  9. After passing through immigration the Offender collected two suitcases, one Tourister brand suitcase and one Delsey brand suitcase, from the baggage carousel and walked towards the secondary examination area in the baggage hall, where he was approached by an ABF Officer. He was escorted to the examination area where he…

Continue reading R v Claro

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Claro [2019] NSWDC 886
Case
[2019] NSWDC 886
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Claro, was found guilty of importing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, specifically cocaine. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Claro had been involved in a drug importation scheme where cocaine was concealed in a shipment of frozen fish. The drugs were intercepted by Australian Border Force officers.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case and the specific sentence to be imposed on Claro. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the level of Claro's involvement, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that Claro played a significant role in the importation scheme and that the offence carried a high level of moral blameworthiness. The court also considered the need for general deterrence given the serious harm caused by the illegal drug trade. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court balanced these factors with the need for proportionality and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary. The precise length of the sentence was determined at [56] to [57] of the judgment, reflecting the court's assessment of the case's particular circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. At [56] – [57]

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.