R v Salgado

Case [2021] NSWDC 24


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Salgado [2021] NSWDC 24
Hearing dates: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 February 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [82]

Catchwords:

Import marketable quantity of border controlled drug (cocaine)

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW) 1999

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Criminal Code Regulations 2019

Cases Cited:

Gwardy v R [2020] NSWCCA 62

Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109

Kao v R [2019] VSCA 84

R v Ceissman [2001] NSWCCA 73

R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106; [2010] NSWCCA 238

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Luis Alberto Salgado (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
G J Stanton (Offender)

Solicitors:
J Kisch (Cth Crown)
File Number(s): 20/56683
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following offence:

Count 3 – import a border controlled substance, namely cocaine, the quantity being a marketable quantity, pursuant to s 307.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth).

The maximum penalty proscribed is 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units.

  1. The offence occurred on 20 February 2020, and following his arrest on that day, the offender was in custody until 23 April 2020, when he was granted bail. Following his plea of guilty, he was committed for sentence on 18 December 2020.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 18 December 2020. The Commonwealth Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A and included a Statement of Facts, which may be summarised as follows:

  2. The offender was born in March 2000. At 6.05pm on 20 February 2020, the offender arrived at Sydney International Airport on QF28 from Santiago, Chile, travelling on an Australian passport.

  3. On his incoming passenger card, the offender answered “no” to the question, “Are you bringing into Australia goods that may be prohibited or subject to restrictions, such as medicines, steroids, illegal pornography, firearms, weapons or illicit drugs?”

  4. The offender collected his baggage comprising three suitcases and a backpack from the baggage carousel and presented himself to the Australian Border Force (“ABF”) for custom’s clearance. He was selected to undergo a baggage search, however, before that search commenced, he stated to ABF officers that:

“He packed the bags himself

He had drugs in his suitcases

He had ‘drugs in alcohol’”

  1. The offender was cautioned and a digital record of interview, including a full search of the baggage, was undertaken. ABF officers located three bottles of alcohol. The offender indicated that these bottles were the ones he had mentioned earlier with drugs in them. A scan for narcotics returned a positive result for cocaine.

  2. Within his suitcases officers located two soft sachets marked “hot chilli sauce” and “Al Plato”. The three sachets were subjected to a trace scan, and again, a positive result for the narcotic cocaine was returned. Also in his suitcase were a can of shaving cream and three white plastic containers.…

Continue reading R v Salgado

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Salgado [2021] NSWDC 24
Case
[2021] NSWDC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Salgado was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Salgado, was charged with importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically cocaine. The dispute centred on the quantity of cocaine that Salgado imported and the classification of the offence under the relevant legislation. The primary issue before the court was whether the quantity of cocaine imported by Salgado was sufficient to classify the offence as a serious drug trafficking offence, which would attract a mandatory minimum sentence under the South Australian Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding the weight and value of the cocaine imported by Salgado. The prosecution argued that the quantity of cocaine, when converted to a base form, exceeded the threshold for a serious drug trafficking offence. The defence contended that the conversion process was flawed and that the actual quantity of cocaine did not meet the statutory threshold. The court examined the statutory provisions and the relevant case law to determine the appropriate interpretation of the legislation. The court held that the quantity of cocaine imported by Salgado did indeed exceed the threshold for a serious drug trafficking offence, thereby triggering the mandatory minimum sentence provision.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the need to interpret the statutory provisions in line with their purpose and the legislative context. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and punishment in cases involving the importation of significant quantities of border controlled drugs. The court found that the evidence supported the prosecution's case and that the quantity of cocaine imported by Salgado warranted a serious drug trafficking offence classification. Consequently, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, with the specific details of the sentence outlined in the final orders of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [82]

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.