R v Dabrowski; R v Zielinski - [2025] NSWDC 332

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dabrowski; R v Zielinski [2025] NSWDC 332
Hearing dates: 18 August 2025
Date of orders: 22 August 2025
Decision date: 22 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
As to both Offenders:
(1)   A term of imprisonment of 6 years to commence on 27 February 2024 and expire on 26 February 2030.
(2)   There will be a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, to commence on 27 February 2024 and expire on 26 August 2027.
(3)   The first date the Offenders will be eligible for parole is 26 August 2027.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug — Commercial quantity
SENTENCING — Objective seriousness — Offenders came to Australia for the purpose of picking up some drugs in exchange for AUD$20,000 — Objective seriousness towards bottom end of range
SENTENCING — General deterrence important factor to be understood by people in other countries tempted to come to Australia to commit serious crimes
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Difficult upbringing — Alcohol abuse — Financial difficulties — Mental health — Prospects of rehabilitation — Effect on Offenders’ families — Time in custody — Custody more onerous than usual
SENTENCING — Parity — No relevant difference between objective and subjective cases — Same penalty appropriate

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A
Criminal Code (Cth) s 11.1(1); s 307.8(1); s 311.1(1)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Hili v The Queen [2010] 242 CLR 520
R v Kassir [2020] NSWCCA 88
R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Pawel Dabrowski (First Offender)
Adrian Zielinski (Second Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Love (Crown)
N Hanna (Solicitor) (First Offender)
O Samin (Solicitor) (Second Offender)
Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Hanna Legal (First Offender)
Australian Criminal and Family Lawyers (Second Offender)

File Number(s): 2024/76069; 76073
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

Overview

The Co-offenders – Adrian Zielinski (“Mr Zielinski”) and Pawel Dabrowski (“Mr Dabrowski”) – each stand to be sentenced for one offence, to which they pleaded guilty in the Local Court of New South Wales on 7 May 2025, being the first available opportunity.
The offence is attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully imported contrary to s 11.1(1), s 307.8(1), and s 311.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment.

Pre-sentence custody

Both Offenders were arrested on 27 February 2024, and have been in custody since that time, being a period of 542 days.
It is accepted by the Crown that any period of imprisonment I impose ought be backdated to take into account that time.

The facts

As to the offending, the facts relating to each Offender are the same.
They are both Polish citizens who flew into Sydney, via Melbourne, from Dubai on 27 February 2024. They were on tourist…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dabrowski; R v Zielinski and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWDC 332
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Dabrowski and Zielinski, were convicted of importing a commercial quantity of a prohibited plant or drug into Australia. Their appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary judge sentenced each of the appellants to six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The main legal issues the court had to address were the objective seriousness of the offence, the general deterrence factor, subjective considerations pertinent to the appellants, and the principle of parity. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, taking into account that the appellants came to Australia specifically to pick up drugs in exchange for AUD$20,000. The court deemed the objective seriousness to be towards the lower end of the range. The court also highlighted the importance of general deterrence, which was a significant factor to be understood by individuals in other countries who might be tempted to come to Australia to commit serious crimes. When considering subjective factors, the court took into account the difficult upbringing of the appellants, their alcohol abuse, financial difficulties, mental health issues, prospects of rehabilitation, the effect on their families, time already spent in custody, and the increased hardship of custody. The court found no relevant differences between the objective and subjective cases, and thus deemed the same penalty to be appropriate. As a result, the appellants’ appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

As to both Offenders:

(1) A term of imprisonment of 6 years to commence on 27 February 2024 and expire on 26 February 2030.

(2) There will be a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, to commence on 27 February 2024 and expire on 26 August 2027.

(3) The first date the Offenders will be eligible for parole is 26 August 2027.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dabrowski; R v Zielinski [2025] NSWDC 332
Hearing dates:	18 August 2025
Date of orders:	22 August 2025
Decision date:	22 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	As to both Offenders: (1) A term of imprisonment of 6 years to commence on 27 February 2024 and expire on 26 February 2030. (2) There will be a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, to commence on 27 February 2024 and expire on 26 August 2027. (3) The first date the Offenders will be eligible for parole is 26 August 2027.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug — Commercial quantity SENTENCING — Objective seriousness — Offenders came to Australia for the purpose of picking up some drugs in exchange for AUD$20,000 — Objective seriousness towards bottom end of range SENTENCING — General deterrence important factor to be understood by people in other countries tempted to come to Australia to commit serious crimes SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Difficult upbringing — Alcohol abuse — Financial difficulties — Mental health — Prospects of rehabilitation — Effect on Offenders’ families — Time in custody — Custody more onerous than usual SENTENCING — Parity — No relevant difference between objective and subjective cases — Same penalty appropriate
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A Criminal Code (Cth) s 11.1(1); s 307.8(1); s 311.1(1)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Hili v The Queen [2010] 242 CLR 520 R v Kassir [2020] NSWCCA 88 R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Pawel Dabrowski (First Offender) Adrian Zielinski (Second Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: S Love (Crown) N Hanna (Solicitor) (First Offender) O Samin (Solicitor) (Second Offender) Solicitors: CDPP (Crown) Hanna Legal (First Offender) Australian Criminal and Family Lawyers (Second Offender)
File Number(s):	2024/76069; 76073
Publication restriction:	Nil