Regina v Millerat - [2005] NSWCCA 142

CITATION:
Regina v Millerat [2005] NSWCCA 142

HEARING DATE(S): 30 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

18 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Howie J at 46; Hall J at 47

DECISION:
CROWN APPEAL ALLOWED; RESPONDENT RESENTENCED

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - IMPORTATION OF PROHIBITED DRUG (MDMA) - IN EXCESS OF FOUR TIMES MINIMUM COMMERCIAL QUANTITY - YOUNG FEMALE COURIER - NO PRIOR CONVICTIONS - FOREIGN NATIONAL - OFFENDER ADDICTED TO DRUGS - MANIFEST INADEQUACY OF FIRST INSTANCE SENTENCE

LEGISLATION CITED:

s 16G Crimes Act 1914
s 233B(1)(b) Customs Act 1901

CASES CITED:
R. Benais [1999] NSWCCA 236
R v Bowers 1997 97 A Crim R 461
R v Klein 2001 121 A Crim R 90
R v Schofield [2003] NSWCCA 3
R v Simon [2003] NSWCCA 147
R v Spillane [1999] NSWCCA 280

PARTIES:
Regina v Sarah Millerat

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/31

COUNSEL:
D. Staehli (Crown/Applicant)
P. Hamill SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Commonwealth DPP (Crown/Applicant)
Hillman Laxon Tobias (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/1063

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Dodd DCJ

2005/31

GROVE J
HOWIE J
HALL J

18 April 2005

REGINA v SARAH MILLERAT

Judgment

1 GROVE J: This is an appeal by the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth asserting that sentence imposed by Dodd DCJ on the respondent at Sydney District Court was inadequate, and seeking increase thereof.

2 The respondent is a French citizen, born 21 January 1979. She entered Australia at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport on Sunday 13 June 2004, arriving aboard an Austrian Airlines flight which had originated in Vienna. She was travelling on her own French passport. In accordance with routine, she completed an incoming passenger card which included her denial that she was bringing illicit drugs into Australia. At a customs barrier point her baggage was selected for examination.

3 Part of the examination included an ion scan swab being run over her suitcase and this produced a positive result for the prohibited drug cocaine. The respondent initially told customs officers that there was nothing in her suitcase but when the question was repeated she said “cocaine”.

4 The respondent’s suitcase was deconstructed by Federal police. Cocaine was not found but three packages were discovered secreted in the lining of the suitcase. The content of these packages consisted of approximately 28,750 tablets weighing 4,786.8 grams. Testing established that these tablets were methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and laboratory analysis established the nett weight of pure MDMA as 2,025.9 grams.

5 The respondent was charged with a single count of importing a commercial quantity of prohibited drug (MDMA) contrary to s 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901. Such an offence carries a prescribed maximum penalty of life imprisonment, together with a fine. Upon being supplied with the appropriate prosecution brief the respondent pleaded guilty and adhered to that plea. She was before the District Court for the purpose of sentence and her arraignment upon indictment was a procedural step and did not operate to devalue her early plea…

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 Regina v Millerat

Details

AGLC: Regina v Millerat [2005] NSWCCA 142
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 142
Decision Date: 18 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on Millerat concerned the importation of a prohibited drug, MDMA, in an amount exceeding four times the minimum commercial quantity. Millerat, a foreign national with no prior convictions, was apprehended while acting as a drug courier. The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The appellant argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the offence or the potential deterrence value it could provide.

The central legal issue was whether the original sentence imposed on Millerat was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court examined whether the sentence appropriately balanced the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, particularly given the substantial quantity of the drug imported and the offender's role as a courier. The court also considered the offender's personal circumstances, including the absence of prior convictions and her status as a drug addict.

The court found that the original sentence did not adequately address the gravity of the offence or its potential impact on the community. The quantity of the drug imported was significant, exceeding four times the minimum commercial quantity, and the offender's role as a courier highlighted the risk she posed. While the court recognised Millerat's personal circumstances, including her status as a first-time offender and her addiction, it determined that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The sentence imposed was deemed manifestly inadequate to serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to reflect a more appropriate punishment.

Orders