R v Efendi - [2001] NSWCCA 391

Reported Decision:
125 A Crim R 487

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Efendi [2001] NSWCCA 391

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60226/99

HEARING DATE(S): 28 September 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 September 2001

PARTIES :

Amran Efendi (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1, 23; Wood CJ at CL at 21; Carruthers AJ at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0746

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : Ms C A Davenport (Appellant)
Mr M G Allnutt (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Hovan & Co (Appellant)
Commonwealth DPP (Respondent)

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901

CASES CITED:
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Wong & Leung (1999) 108 A Crim R 531
R v Bowers (1997) 97 A Crim R 461
R v Thompson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Hauser (CCA, unreported, 11 December 1997)
R v Schaal (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Wood J, 8 September 1989)

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60226/99

HEYDON JA

WOOD CJ at CL

CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday, 28 September 2001

R v Amran EFENDI

Judgment

“On 23 August 1998 at Sydney New South Wales [the applicant] did import into Australia prohibited imports to which section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applied, to wit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) being not less than the commercial quantity applicable … .”

“On 23 August 1998 at Sydney New South Wales [the applicant] did import into Australia prohibited imports to which section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applied, to wit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of Methylamphetamine being not less than the trafficable quantity applicable … .”

2 On 25 February 1999 the jury convicted the applicant on both counts.

3 On 7 May 1999 he was sentenced. In relation to the conviction on the first count he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. The sentence was to commence on 23 August 1998 and was to expire on 22 August 2008. The sentencing judge fixed a non-parole period of six years. The maximum sentence for the relevant offence is life imprisonment. In relation to the conviction on the second count he was sentenced to a fixed term of five years. It was to commence on 23 August 1998 and was to expire on 22 August 2003. It is to be served concurrently with the first sentence. The maximum sentence for the latter offence is imprisonment not exceeding twenty–five years and a fine not exceeding $100,000.

4 The Notice of Appeal indicated that the appeal was against both conviction and sentence. A notice abandoning the appeal against conviction was filed in court.

5 The submissions advanced in support…

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 Efendi

Details

AGLC: R v Efendi [2001] NSWCCA 391
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 391
Decision Date: 28 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amran Efendi was convicted of importing commercial quantities of MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) and methylamphetamine (commonly known as speed) into Australia in breach of the Customs Act 1901. Efendi was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the MDMA charge and five years for the methylamphetamine charge, with the sentences to run concurrently. Efendi appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was excessive given his role as a courier and his lack of criminal history. The central legal issue was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were outside the range of appropriate punishment for the offences committed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentences were within the appropriate range for the offences. The court noted that Efendi's role as a courier did not diminish the seriousness of his crimes. The court further held that ecstasy, despite being considered a mid-range drug, still posed significant risks and dangers to the community. Therefore, the guidelines for sentencing heroin and cocaine, which are considered high-range drugs, were applicable to ecstasy. The court also found that Efendi's personal circumstances, while considered, did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The sentences reflected the seriousness of the crimes and served to deter future offences.

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentences imposed by the District Court. The court's decision emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of drug importation offences and to act as a deterrent.

Orders