R v Jain - [2004] VSCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 64 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
ANURAG JAIN

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, J.A. and SMITH and COLDREY, A.JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 March 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 30

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Possession of falsified passport – Importation of a commercial quantity of heroin – Manifest Excess – Total effective sentence of ten years within available range – Non-parole period decreased from eight years to seven years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.R. Champion, S.C.	Solicitor to DPP (Cth)
For the Applicant	Mr K.T. Armstrong	C. & H. Lawyers

VINCENT, J.A.:

The applicant, a 28-year-old Indian national, arrived at Melbourne Airport at around 11 p.m. on 7 May 2002 on a Thai Airways flight from Bangkok. He was ticketed to return to that city on 9 May 2002. He proceeded to the baggage hall where he produced to an Australian Customs officer a passport and incoming passenger card in the name of Pasuvathi Chandra Sekaran, a Singaporean citizen. The date of birth was given as 11 September 1966. Subsequent forensic analysis of the passport established that it was a genuine document but that it had been falsified by the insertion of a photograph of the applicant in place of the person to whom the passport had been issued. A search of a suitcase which the applicant identified as his, and which he stated he had personally packed, was conducted. The case was found to contain 95 packages, each with an average weight of 21 grams of heroin and a combined weight of 2,079.98 grams. The average purity of the heroin located was 75 per cent. Accordingly there was a total weight of pure heroin of 1,559.9 grams. Heroin is, of course, a prohibited import. A commercial quantity of that material has been designated at 1.5 kilograms.

The applicant was duly presented before the County Court at Melbourne on one count of possessing a falsified passport contrary to s.9A(1)(f)(i) of the Passports Act 1938, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,000, in addition to one count of importing a commercial quantity of heroin contrary to s.233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901. The latter offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life and/or a fine of $750,000. Depending upon the method of valuation employed, the imported heroin has been valued at between $2,142,000 to $3,600,000 on the market in Australia.

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, on 20 March 2002 the learned sentencing judge convicted the applicant and imposed a sentence of three months' imprisonment in respect of his possession of a falsified passport. He also recorded a conviction in respect of the importation offence and sentenced the applicant to ten years' imprisonment to be served concurrently. His Honour then fixed a minimum term of eight years before the applicant was to become eligible for parole. His Honour…

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 Jain

Details

AGLC: R v Jain [2004] VSCA 30
Case: [2004] VSCA 30
Decision Date: 4 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the appellant in the County Court of Victoria was considered by the Court of Appeal. The appellant was convicted of possessing a falsified passport and importing a commercial quantity of heroin. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, while the appellant contended that the sentence was too lenient. The court had to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the non-parole period was appropriate.

The court found that the primary judge had correctly calculated the total effective sentence of ten years, which was within the available range. The court considered that the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence. However, the court found that the non-parole period of eight years was too high, and it was decreased to seven years. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences committed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in part, reducing the non-parole period from eight years to seven years. The total effective sentence of ten years was confirmed as being within the appropriate range. The court considered that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was not manifestly excessive, but the non-parole period was too high. The court's decision ensures that the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the offences while maintaining proportionality.

Orders