R v Edo Saputra - [2009] NSWDC 239

CITATION: R v Edo SAPUTRA [2009] NSWDC 239
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 11 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 September 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Knox SC DCJ

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of non-parole imprisonment of 5 years and 2 months and an additional term of 27 months .

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - Criminal Code - drug importation - methamphetamine - role - mixed motivation: personal use and profit - parole conditions - notification of travel plans

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Commonwealth)

CASES CITED: R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 45
R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] 199 CLR 270
N v R; AP v R [2009] NSWCCA 108
R v SC [2008] NSWCCA 29
R v Schluenz [2001] NSWCCA 314
R v Solomons [2000] NSWCCA 215
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465
Wong & Leung v R [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584

PARTIES: Regina
Edo Saputra

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/20503

COUNSEL: Crown: Mr N Adams
Defence: Mr A Parsons

SOLICITORS: Crown: Commonwealth DPP
Defence: Ren Zhou Lawyers

JUDGMENT

1 On 30 June 2009 the offender pleaded guilty to the following count on an indictment:

On or about 20 August 2008 at Mascot, in the Sate of New South Wales, imported into Australia, a substance, the substance being a border controlled drug, namely Methamphetamine, and the quantity imported being a marketable quantity.

2 That count was bought pursuant to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth).

3 The maximum penalty for that offence is one of 25 years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $550,000 or both.

Pleas

4 On 29 June 2009 the offender had pleaded guilty to a count of importation of Methylamphetamine, under s 307.4 of the Criminal Code. The Crown did not accept that plea.

5 The plea to the count under s 307.2(1) was indicated prior to a jury being empanelled. Accordingly the utilitarian value of the plea was limited in terms of the saving to the Court and DPP resources, as well as the fact that various police witnesses did not have to be called.

Facts

6 A statement of agreed facts dated 29 June 2009 was tendered. (Exhibit S1)

7 In summary, on Wednesday 20 August 2008 at 7:47am the offender arrived at the Kingsford Smith Airport International Airport, aboard Garuda Airlines flight GA714. He was searched by customs officers who noticed a bulge on the right inside internal breast pocket of his suit jacket. When asked what it was he said, “food”. Then, giving more specific details, he said that the items included were sugar. The customs officers opened the package and found it to obtain a white crystal substance.

Weight

8 The total weight was 142 grams. Analysis by the Australian Forensic Drug Laboratory revealed a net weight of 113.5…

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.

Continue reading R v Edo Saputra

Details

AGLC: R v Edo Saputra [2009] NSWDC 239
Case: [2009] NSWDC 239
Decision Date: 11 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edo Saputra involved the defendant, Edo Saputra, who was charged with drug importation offences involving methamphetamine. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The crux of the case centred around the defendant's role in the importation of a significant quantity of methamphetamine, with the defence arguing that the defendant had mixed motivations for his involvement, including personal use and potential profit. The prosecution, however, contended that the defendant's actions indicated a more substantial involvement in the drug importation scheme.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering his role in the importation and the mixed motivations attributed to his actions. The court was tasked with balancing the gravity of the offence with the defendant's personal circumstances and the extent of his involvement. Additionally, the court had to consider the conditions of parole, particularly the requirement for the defendant to notify authorities of his travel plans.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's role in facilitating the importation. However, it also considered the mitigating factors, including the defendant's cooperation with authorities and his expressed remorse. The court ultimately determined that the defendant should be sentenced to a term of non-parole imprisonment of 5 years and 2 months, followed by an additional term of 27 months. The court also imposed specific parole conditions, including the requirement for the defendant to notify authorities of his travel plans, to ensure public safety and facilitate any potential future investigations.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to a term of non-parole imprisonment of 5 years and 2 months and an additional term of 27 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.

CITATION:	R v Edo SAPUTRA [2009] NSWDC 239 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	11 September 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	11 September 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Knox SC DCJ
DECISION:	The offender is sentenced to a term of non-parole imprisonment of 5 years and 2 months and an additional term of 27 months .
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - sentence - Criminal Code - drug importation - methamphetamine - role - mixed motivation: personal use and profit - parole conditions - notification of travel plans
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Commonwealth)
CASES CITED:	R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 45 R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234 The Queen v Olbrich [1999] 199 CLR 270 N v R; AP v R [2009] NSWCCA 108 R v SC [2008] NSWCCA 29 R v Schluenz [2001] NSWCCA 314 R v Solomons [2000] NSWCCA 215 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Wong & Leung v R [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
PARTIES:	Regina Edo Saputra
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2008/20503
COUNSEL:	Crown: Mr N Adams Defence: Mr A Parsons
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Commonwealth DPP Defence: Ren Zhou Lawyers