Legal Research
Cases
R v Mokbel

R v Mokbel

Case [2006] VSC 119 31 March 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Revised
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1502 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ANTONIOS SAJIH MOKBEL

---

JUDGE:	GILLARD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 March 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mokbel
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 119

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Knowingly concerned in prohibited import, cocaine, contrary to s.233B(1)(d) of Customs Act 1901 – Principal offender – Financier.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D.A. Parsons SC	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	The prisoner was not present and was not represented by counsel or solicitors.

HIS HONOUR:

The prisoner, Antonios Sajih Mokbel, after a long trial, was found guilty by the jury of being knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia of a prohibited import, a narcotic substance, namely cocaine, which arrived in Australia on 6 November 2000, contrary to paragraph 233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901.

The circumstances of his involvement in the importation were alleged to have taken place between 13 October 2000 and 12 November 2000. It was a Commonwealth offence. It now falls on the Court to sentence the prisoner.

The task of the Court is to determine the facts consistent with the jury's verdict and, applying the relevant principles, to determine in the exercise of the Court's discretion, what is a proportionate and appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances.

The prisoner is not present in Court this day.

On Thursday 16 March 2006, which was the 27th day of the hearing, the defence closed their case and the learned Crown prosecutor, Mr Parsons SC, commenced his address to the jury. On the following day he continued his address.

On the morning of Monday 20 March 2006, the Court was told that the prisoner had not been seen since 5.00pm on the previous Sunday night. The Court issued a warrant for his apprehension. He has not been seen since. At the moment his whereabouts are unknown. The trial proceeded in his absence.

His counsel formed the view that they should withdraw from the trial and they did so prior to the Crown prosecutor continuing his address. The prisoner was convicted by the jury in his absence. His counsel did not attend the plea hearing.

The first question for determination is whether the Court has the power to continue the proceeding, bringing it to its conclusion by sentencing the prisoner in his absence.

The authorities establish that the Court may, in the absence of the accused in appropriate circumstances, continue with a trial, including sentencing. The Court must carefully consider the competing interests of ensuring that a prisoner is given the opportunity to present material relevant on a plea leading to sentence, and the public interest that the administration of justice should not be unnecessarily impeded.

Counsel for the defence did not accept the invitation to attend the plea hearing and accordingly, did not seek to put any submissions.

Where the evidence leads to the…

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 Mokbel

Details

AGLC: R v Mokbel [2006] VSC 119
Case: [2006] VSC 119
Decision Date: 31 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mokbel involved the sentencing of a defendant who had been found guilty of knowingly being involved in a prohibited import, specifically cocaine, in contravention of section 233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901. The defendant, who had acted as a financier in a broader criminal enterprise, was before the court for sentencing. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's role in the importation of cocaine, considering his position as a financier within the criminal organisation.

The court needed to assess the severity of the offence, the defendant's role, and the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to his case. In determining the sentence, the court considered the defendant's degree of involvement, the quantity of drugs involved, and the harm caused by the importation. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the defendant's culpability and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and reflected the seriousness of the crime.

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the defendant's role as a financier significantly contributed to the importation of a substantial amount of cocaine. The court acknowledged the defendant's lack of direct involvement in the physical importation but emphasised the importance of his financial support in enabling the criminal activity. The court found that the appropriate sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the defendant's culpability. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment for the defendant, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's role within the criminal enterprise. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the community in its sentencing decision.

Orders