CRIME – SENTENCE – Found guilty by jury – Attempt to possess border controlled drug – Marketable quantity of heroin – Package containing drug intercepted and substituted – Accepted by offender from UCO posing as delivery man – Whether offender knew drugs in delivery – Inferences to be drawn from electronic evidence (mobile phones and computer tower) – Prior conviction in New Zealand – Claimed need to care for elderly parents – Whether further attempts at education (university degree) realistic.
Counsel: Crown – Mr Tran, C. Offender – Mr Royce, B. Solicitors: Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Offender - Nelson Kurucz Lawyers
File Number(s):
2021/00102584
Publication restriction:
Nil.
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: Dario Alexander Seguel stands for sentence as a result of a finding by a jury that on or about 13 April 2021 at Botany in this State, he did attempt to possess a substance, the substance having been unlawfully imported, the substance being a border controlled drug, namely, heroin, and the quantity being a marketable quantity of that drug.
That is an offence against the law of the Commonwealth; namely, the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“Criminal Code”), s 11.1(1) and s 307.6(1). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 25 years. The offender is also to be sentenced for three State offences. They are known as sequences 2 and 3, and a further offence known as Sequence 4. Sequences 2 and 3 are each a charge of possession of a prohibited weapon without a permit. The maximum penalty for those offences is imprisonment for 14 years each. Parliament has prescribed a standard non‑parole period of five years. However, when the matters are on a s 155 certificate, which is the case here, the maximum penalty is only two years. The Sequence 4 offence was possession of ammunition without holding a licence or permit. That is an offence contrary to s 65(3) of the Firearms Act 1996, and the maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, $5,500.
Agreed Facts
Although the trial was with a jury, there were a number of agreed facts. There were in fact two…
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 Seguel (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Seguel (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 262
Case
[2025] NSWDC 262
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant, Seguel, was found guilty by a jury of attempting to possess a border controlled drug, heroin, in a marketable quantity. The police intercepted the package containing the drugs and substituted it with a package containing the same weight of a non-harmful substance. The defendant accepted the package from an undercover police officer posing as a delivery man. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant knew the contents of the delivery, whether inferences could be drawn from the electronic evidence, and what sentence should be imposed considering the defendant's prior conviction, his claims of needing to care for his elderly parents, and his further attempts at education.
The court considered the evidence presented, including the electronic evidence from mobile phones and a computer tower, to determine the defendant's knowledge of the contents of the package. The court found that the electronic evidence supported the inference that the defendant knew the contents of the delivery. The court also considered the defendant's prior conviction in New Zealand and his claims of needing to care for his elderly parents. However, the court found that the defendant's further attempts at education, such as a university degree, were not realistic. The court found that the appropriate sentence was imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's prior conviction and the need to protect the community.
The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and four months. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to a supervision order for a period of five years after release from prison. The court found that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's prior conviction, and the need to protect the community. The court also found that the sentence should provide an opportunity for the defendant to rehabilitate and address the underlying causes of his offending behaviour.