R v Pinyosap, Surachai - [2014] NSWDC 349

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pinyosap, Surachai [2014] NSWDC 349
Hearing dates: Friday 28 February 2014
Date of orders: 28 February 2014
Decision date: 28 February 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Tupman DCJ
Decision:
Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of four and a half years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence for Importing Commercial Quantity of Heroin – 1.939kgs Pure Heroin – Life Imprisonment Maximum Penalty – Courier – Gambling Debt – Early Guilty Plea.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1914 – s16A
Criminal Code Act 1995 – s307.1
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Commonwealth Crown
Surachai Pinyosap
Representation:
Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms. Armstrong (DPP solicitor)
Mr. Marr (Solicitor)

File Number(s): 2013/155003

SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: The offender is before me for sentence following his plea of guilty in the Local Court to one count contrary to s 307.1 of the Criminal Code namely, that on 19 May 2013 he imported a commercial quantity of the drug heroin into Australia. Brought under that section this offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The sentence for this matter must be in accordance with the relevant provision of the Crimes Act, 1900 and, specifically, the provisions of s 16A must be addressed.
The offender is a Thai national who has been a long term resident in Australia, living in Sydney. He is now 26 and was about to turn 26 when he committed this offence. He travelled to Bangkok in early May 2013 and returned on 19 May 2013 on a flight arriving from Bangkok into Sydney Airport. On his incoming passenger card he indicated that he was not carrying any prohibited goods, including illicit drugs. He had two suitcases, which were examined by Customs, who identified an off-white powder concealed inside the inner lining of both which tested presumptively for heroin.
The Australian Federal Police then attended the airport and arrested the offender. They conducted an interview with him shortly afterwards in which he admitted that he was importing illegal drugs into Australia in these two suitcases. Specifically in the record of interview he told police that he was in debt for an amount of about $110,000 to various people as a result of his excessive gambling which had become a problem. He told police that in particular he owed a significant amount to a person he named. He said that in January 2013 he had done a similar trip to Thailand at the request of this person and brought back suitcases which he knew contained drugs and then handed them over to an unknown man at his home. This, he said, was at the request of the person who had loaned him a significant amount of money and he undertook the trip to reduce the debt he had to that person. He said that the same person approached him before May 2013 to do a similar trip.
I accept from his evidence that the suitcases were delivered to him in…

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 Pinyosap, Surachai

Details

AGLC: R v Pinyosap, Surachai [2014] NSWDC 349
Case: [2014] NSWDC 349
Decision Date: 28 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pinyosap, Surachai, the appellant was convicted for the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The heroin, weighing 1.939 kilograms in its pure form, was seized by law enforcement during an investigation into drug trafficking activities. The maximum penalty for such an offence is life imprisonment. The appellant, a courier, claimed that he was acting under duress, owing a significant gambling debt. The case was heard in the relevant court where the central issues were whether the appellant acted under duress and what sentence should be imposed given the nature of the offence and the appellant's plea of guilty.

The court examined the evidence regarding the appellant's claim of duress and assessed whether the plea of guilty warranted a discount in sentencing. The appellant's plea of guilty was considered a significant mitigating factor, but the court also weighed the gravity of the offence and the amount of drugs involved. The court noted that while the appellant's involvement was peripheral, the quantity of heroin was substantial, indicating a significant impact on the community. The court concluded that the plea of guilty did warrant some reduction in the sentence but that the seriousness of the offence necessitated a substantial custodial term.

Taking into account the appellant's early guilty plea, the court sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of four and a half years. The court recognised the appellant's cooperation and acceptance of responsibility but emphasised the need to deter others from engaging in similar criminal activities. The sentence reflects a balance between the appellant's early guilty plea and the serious nature of the offence. The court's decision provides clarity on the sentencing approach for drug importation offences, particularly when an early guilty plea is entered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of four and a half years.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Pinyosap, Surachai [2014] NSWDC 349
Hearing dates:	Friday 28 February 2014
Date of orders:	28 February 2014
Decision date:	28 February 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Tupman DCJ
Decision:	Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of four and a half years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence for Importing Commercial Quantity of Heroin – 1.939kgs Pure Heroin – Life Imprisonment Maximum Penalty – Courier – Gambling Debt – Early Guilty Plea.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1914 – s16A Criminal Code Act 1995 – s307.1
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Commonwealth Crown Surachai Pinyosap
Representation:	Counsel: Solicitors: Ms. Armstrong (DPP solicitor) Mr. Marr (Solicitor)
File Number(s):	2013/155003