R v Vakatalesau - [2019] NSWDC 505

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Vakatalesau [2019] NSWDC 505
Hearing dates: 26 April 2019
Decision date: 10 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted.
The offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 18 years comprising of a non-parole period of 12 years to commence on 24/2/2017 and to expire on 23/2/2029, and a balance of term of 6 years to commence on 24/2/2029 and to expire on 23/2/2035. To be released to parole on the expiry of the non-parole period.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentence - attempt to possess commercial quantity of border controlled drug, 81.4 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine – role – co-offenders - parity – subjective matters
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
R v Budiman [1998] 102 A Crim R 411
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Laurentiu [1992] 63 A Crim R 40
R v Le Cerf [1975] 13 SASR 237
R v Muanchukingkan [1990] 52 A Crim R 354
R v Olbrich [2000] 117 A Crim R 326
R v To [2007] 172 A Crim R 121
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen [2001] 270 CLR 584

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Isireli Cabecabe Vakatalesau
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown: Mr D Staehli SC
Mr N Roucek
Defence: Mr J Gaitanis
Solicitors:
Crown: Ms H Sewell
Defence: Mr A Greville
Voros Lawyers

File Number(s): 2017/60282

Judgment

Isireli Vakatalesau appears for sentence in respect of a single offence, being attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, being 81.4 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine, contrary to s 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty provided is life imprisonment and/or 7,500 penalty units.
The offender was arrested on 24 February 2017 and has been in custody since that date until today, and solely in relation to this offence.
He was committed for trial on 14 December 2017 from Central Local Court, and on 24 September 2018, which was the date appointed for the commencement of the trial, he entered a plea of guilty to the count.
The sentence proceedings in respect of Mr Vakatalesau were then joined up to be heard at the same time as the sentence proceedings in respect of his co-offenders, Mr Chan and Mr Kwan, heard on 26 April 2019. Chan and Kwan were sentenced this morning.
I have dealt with the co-offenders separately because there are some distinctions between the agreed facts as expressed, and also some material contained in the material supplied to the Court in relation to Mr Vakatalesau that was not relevant and indeed, at least in one case, prejudicial to one of the co-offenders. For those reasons, I have dealt with them separately.
The facts are as follows:
In October 2016, Maxfill Australia Pty Ltd, a freight forwarding company based in Sydney received an email from G-Harmsperity Co, a company based in China, requesting a quote “for delivery of a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Vakatalesau and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWDC 505
Decision Date: 10 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Vakatalesau, faced a criminal court in Australia on charges related to the attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a controlled substance, specifically 81.4 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine. The dispute involved the assessment of the defendant’s role in the crime, his culpability, and the appropriate sentence in light of his involvement with co-offenders. The case was heard and decided by the relevant Australian court, which had to weigh various factors including the defendant’s participation, the nature of the offence, and the principles of parity in sentencing.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering his role in the attempted possession of a significant quantity of a border-controlled drug. Key issues included the defendant's level of involvement, the extent of his culpability, and how his sentence should align with those of his co-offenders to maintain parity. Additionally, the court had to balance the objective and subjective matters relevant to sentencing, ensuring that the punishment was proportionate and just.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously evaluated the defendant's role in the crime, acknowledging the gravity of the offence and the substantial quantity of drugs involved. It considered the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that the defendant's sentence was commensurate with that of his co-offenders. The court also examined subjective factors pertinent to the defendant's character and circumstances. Ultimately, it decided that the defendant should be sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 18 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution.

The court ordered that the defendant be released to parole upon the expiry of the non-parole period, which is set to conclude on 23 February 2035. The decision underscores the court's approach to sentencing in cases involving serious drug-related offences and the importance of maintaining consistency and fairness in the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

The offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 18 years comprising of a non-parole period of 12 years to commence on 24/2/2017 and to expire on 23/2/2029, and a balance of term of 6 years to commence on 24/2/2029 and to expire on 23/2/2035. To be released to parole on the expiry of the non-parole period.

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 Vakatalesau [2019] NSWDC 505
Hearing dates:	26 April 2019
Decision date:	10 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted. The offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 18 years comprising of a non-parole period of 12 years to commence on 24/2/2017 and to expire on 23/2/2029, and a balance of term of 6 years to commence on 24/2/2029 and to expire on 23/2/2035. To be released to parole on the expiry of the non-parole period.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentence - attempt to possess commercial quantity of border controlled drug, 81.4 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine – role – co-offenders - parity – subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 R v Budiman [1998] 102 A Crim R 411 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Laurentiu [1992] 63 A Crim R 40 R v Le Cerf [1975] 13 SASR 237 R v Muanchukingkan [1990] 52 A Crim R 354 R v Olbrich [2000] 117 A Crim R 326 R v To [2007] 172 A Crim R 121 Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen [2001] 270 CLR 584
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Isireli Cabecabe Vakatalesau
Representation:	Counsel: Crown: Mr D Staehli SC Mr N Roucek Defence: Mr J Gaitanis Solicitors: Crown: Ms H Sewell Defence: Mr A Greville Voros Lawyers
File Number(s):	2017/60282