JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21-23, 27-30 June, 26 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 September 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Elias (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 423

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempt to pervert course of justice – Trafficking large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and other offences – Assisted absconding drug trafficker to leave Australia – Commercial enterprise in trafficking – Exemplary prisoner during long period on remand – Prior convictions for trafficking cannabis - Total effective sentence of 11 years with non-parole period of 8 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Kidd and Ms F Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Moen	Michael J Gleeson & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

George Elias, on 4 October 2010 you pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice, one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, one count of dealing with $40,000 knowing it was the proceeds of crime, one count of possession of cannabis, and three counts of possessing unregistered category A longarm firearms.

You were arrested on 6 June 2007. Your committal proceeded by way of hand up brief. You reserved your plea. You were arraigned and pleaded guilty before me on 4 October 2010. Your counsel had foreshadowed the likelihood of guilty pleas at a directions hearing on 20 September 2010. I was told on the plea that unsuccessful negotiations as to the possibility of guilty pleas had occurred in 2008.

The hearing of your plea was delayed for two reasons. The first was that, notwithstanding your guilty pleas, there were substantial factual disputes in relation to the circumstances of your offending which required a contested hearing. The second was that it was thought to be desirable that the contested hearing in relation to your plea be held after proceedings then pending against Antonios Mokbel had concluded.

In June of this year I heard the contested plea hearing and also heard submissions on sentence generally. I delivered a ruling on the contested factual issues on 26 August 2011.[1] I incorporate those findings in my reasons for sentence.
[1][2011] VSC 405. The parties were given the opportunity to make further submissions after considering that ruling. They each advised they did not wish to do so.

The maximum penalty for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is 25 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime is 15 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is 30 penalty units or one year imprisonment,[2] and the maximum penalty for possession of unregistered category A longarm firearms (on a first offence) is 120 penalty…

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 Elias

Details

AGLC: R v Elias [2011] VSC 423
Case: [2011] VSC 423
Decision Date: 5 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant Elias was before the court for sentencing following his conviction for various offences, including attempting to pervert the course of justice and trafficking large quantities of methylamphetamine. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant’s criminal history, and other relevant factors.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the seriousness of Elias’s offending, particularly the attempt to pervert the course of justice by assisting a drug trafficker to leave the country. The court also had to consider the commercial nature of the drug trafficking enterprise and Elias’s conduct during the period on remand, where he behaved as an exemplary prisoner. Additionally, Elias’s prior convictions for trafficking cannabis played a significant role in the sentencing deliberations.

In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the gravity of Elias’s attempt to pervert the course of justice by aiding a drug trafficker to abscond. The commercial scale of the drug trafficking and his role within that enterprise were also heavily weighed. However, the court acknowledged Elias's exemplary behaviour during his time on remand, which was considered a mitigating factor. The court ultimately imposed a total effective sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years, reflecting a balanced approach that considered both the severity of the offences and Elias’s conduct while in custody.

Orders