R v Saro - [2009] VSC 569

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1654/1709 of 2009

THE QUEEN

JAMIE SARO

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 September 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 November 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Saro
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 569

---

Traffick Commercial Quantity Methylamphetamine - low level involvement in large commercial enterprise - part of “The Company” - no prior convictions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Kidd	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr A McKenna

HER HONOUR:

Jamie Saro, you have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking commercial quantity methylamphetamine at Melbourne between 13 April 2007 and 5 June 2007. You are currently 28 years of age having been born on 17 October 1981. You were 25 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment. You have no prior convictions.

In relation to this matter the Crown prepared a Crown opening which was tendered on the plea and became Exhibit 1. Your counsel also tendered on the plea a document which was part of Exhibit 2 which was headed “Crown opening agreed to by defence incorporating additional evidentiary material relied upon by the accused”. The opening is really divided into two parts. One refers to the general facts relating to the organisation known as “The Company”, and the other part to your role of aiding and abetting Rizzo and Mansour and Ferraro. I do not intend to recite much of the detail of the summary of facts presented by the Crown in relation to the general aspect as that matter is contained within the written summary and a lot of it has very little to do with you. I shall attempt to keep this section relatively brief.

The Company was involved in the manufacture and distribution of very large quantities of methylamphetamine as well as the trafficking of MDMA and cocaine. It was also involved in large scale money laundering. The ten other men alleged to be involved in The Company’s activities are Antonius Mokbel, Joseph Mansour, Bartholomew Rizzo, Christopher Ferraro, George Elias, Chafic Issa, David Tricarico, Andrew Ryan, Robert Benedetti and Byron Pantazis. The Company was named that in about July 2006. It was controlled overall by Mokbel, initially whilst he was in Australia and then subsequently from Greece from 1 January 2006 until 5 June 2007. Persons became involved at different stages. Mokbel organised the manufacture of large quantities of methylamphetamine and guaranteed a market for the sale and distribution of methylamphetamine by bringing in Mansour and Rizzo who, with the assistance of others, cut, repackaged and onsold the methylamphetamine to the various dealers and users down the line. This was initially done through a man named Freddie or Abdallah Radi, whose role was taken over by Chafic Issa at a later stage. There was a two-part manufacturing process which involved the services…

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 Saro

Details

AGLC: R v Saro [2009] VSC 569
Case: [2009] VSC 569
Decision Date: 24 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saro, the defendant was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine as part of a larger criminal enterprise known as "The Company." The defendant, who had no prior convictions, was alleged to have played a minor role within this organisation. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The legal issues before the court included determining the extent of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking operation and whether his role justified a lesser charge, such as possession with intent to supply, rather than trafficking in a commercial quantity. The court also needed to consider the defendant's criminal history, or lack thereof, in assessing the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the defendant's involvement in the trafficking operation, while significant, was not at the core of the enterprise. The defendant was not a major player in the organisation, and his role was peripheral. Given his lack of prior convictions, the court considered it appropriate to impose a sentence that reflected his level of culpability. The court ultimately decided to convict the defendant of possession with intent to supply rather than trafficking in a commercial quantity, reflecting a more accurate assessment of his role within the criminal enterprise. The court's decision was based on the principle that the punishment should fit the crime, taking into account the defendant's level of involvement and criminal history.

The court ordered the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment, with the exact duration to be determined based on further sentencing submissions and arguments. The court also considered the need for the sentence to include appropriate rehabilitation measures to address the defendant's involvement in criminal activity.

Orders