Rade Ljuboja v The Queen

[2011] HCASL 209

RADE LJUBOJA
v
THE QUEEN
[2011] HCASL 209
P32/2011

1. The applicant pleaded guilty, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, to one count of conspiring with others to traffic in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug (MDMA) contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 302.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) and to one count of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug (MDMA) contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code.  Approximately 60 kg of impure MDMA was imported.  The applicant was sentenced by Jenkins J to 25 years' imprisonment on each count and a single non‑parole period of 16 years was set.

2. Two of those charged with conspiring with the applicant to traffic in the drugs in question pleaded not guilty, but, after a trial, each was convicted of the offence charged.  Each was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment and a non‑parole period was fixed, in each case, as 10 years 6 months.  Another conspirator, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment and a non‑parole period of 8 years 6 months was fixed.

3. The sentencing judge found that the applicant was the "Australian principal" in the enterprise of importing and trafficking in the drugs.  At the time of sentencing the applicant was 60 years of age and the sentencing judge said that in his case she fixed a non‑parole period that was "lower than [she] would have otherwise set due to [the applicant's] age".

4. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the sentence imposed upon him, alleging that the sentence was manifestly excessive.  The Court of Appeal (Pullin and Buss JJA and Hall J) refused leave to appeal.

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court to allege that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the sentencing judge's discretion did not miscarry and in finding that the sentence imposed "was not a manifestly excessive sentence taking into account all of the circumstances of the matter, including the applicant's plea of guilty and his age".

6. The application raises no point of general principle suitable to a grant of special leave.  No error is shown in the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the sentence imposed on the applicant was not manifestly excessive.

7. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
9 December 2011 S.M. Kiefel