R v Spadina - [2015] NSWSC 933

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Spadina [2015] NSWSC 933
Hearing dates: 3 June 2015, 2 July 2015
Date of orders: 03 July 2015
Decision date: 03 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Blackmore AJ
Decision:
Total term: 10 years 6 months imprisonment; Non-parole period 6 years 6 months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to import a precursor
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth)
Crimes Act 1916 (Commonwealth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Spadina [2013] NSWSC 4
Olbrich v R (1999) 199 CLR 270
Damoun v R [2015] NSWCCA 109
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Radoslav Spadina
Representation:
Counsel:
Stephen Rushton SC – Crown
Sophia Beckett – Crown

Avni Djemal – Offender
Rhys Graham – Offender
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Parisi Lawyers - Offender

File Number(s): 2008/250866

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Radoslav Spadina, the offender, pleaded not guilty to the offence of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of a border patrol precursor, namely pseudoephedrine, contrary to s 307.11(1) and 11.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $550,000.
On 10 February 2015 the jury returned a verdict of guilty in relation to the offence.
The facts as found by the jury will be summarised below. The jury have resolved most of the disputes with regard to the facts in finding the offender guilty. Some of the matters referred to in the facts are still in dispute and will require a finding by me. I should note that in most respects the facts are not in dispute.

FACTS

The Crown provided me with an outline of their submissions as to the factual findings during the sentence proceedings for which I was grateful. The offender's counsel also provided me with extensive written submissions and those submissions together with further oral submissions are referred to in the summary of the facts and more generally in this judgment.

BACKGROUND

The offender is an Australian resident who resided in Manly with his wife and children during the period of the conspiracy. The offender was involved in a company called Capital Access Pty Ltd which was apparently involved in lending money. Whilst it is apparent that the offender was an officer of that company, his precise role in that company remains largely unexplained. Whilst there was some effort during the trial to imply that some of the evidence relied on by the Crown, which mainly consisted of evidence provided by legally obtained listening devices, was somehow related to the offender's business interests, the jury by their verdict clearly rejected that characterisation of the evidence.
The offender was a close friend and an associate of Adam Watt (Watt), a prominent identity in the Manly area and a previous champion kick boxer. Watt was also the managing director of a business called Satellite Newspapers and later a business known as Global News Express which was located at a business warehouse at…

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 Spadina

Details

AGLC: R v Spadina [2015] NSWSC 933
Case: [2015] NSWSC 933
Decision Date: 03 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Spadina, involving the sentencing of an individual for conspiracy to import a precursor. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Spadina, was convicted of conspiring with others to import a precursor chemical into Australia. The appeal was specifically against the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed on Spadina was excessive, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case. The appeal hinged on the severity of the crime, Spadina’s role in the conspiracy, and the extent of his culpability. The defence argued that the sentence was too harsh given Spadina’s limited involvement and the presence of substantial mitigating factors, such as his early guilty plea and genuine remorse. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the potential harm that could have resulted from the importation of the precursor chemical.

The court meticulously reviewed the circumstances of the case, considering both the mitigating and aggravating factors. It acknowledged the severity of the crime and the potential societal harm. However, the court also recognised Spadina's early guilty plea, which led to a significant discount in the sentence. The court found that while the crime was serious, the sentence imposed was commensurate with the offence and the role Spadina played in it. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of deterring such activities while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders