Kaurasi v R (Cth)

1. [1]

   FULLERTON J: I agree with Wilson J that the error contended for by the applicant has been made out. I also agree with her Honour’s reasons for so finding.

2. [2]

   However, after exercising the sentencing discretion in accordance with the approach in KentwelI v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37, I have come to a different conclusion on the question of resentence. I would allow a 25% discount for the applicant’s early plea of guilty which, together with the 5% the sentencing judge allowed for assistance to the authorities, amounts to a combined discount of 30%.

3. [3]

   In the authorities to which I referred at some length in Betka v R; Ghazaoui v R; Hawchar v R [2020] NSWCCA 191, and to which Wilson J also referred in concluding that error had been made out in this case, it is accepted that the timing of a plea of guilty for both Commonwealth and State offences is largely determinative of its objective or utilitarian value. It is also accepted that it is that feature of an offender’s plea of guilty which attracts an arithmetical sentencing discount. While the same authorities note that in the assessment of the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty for a Commonwealth offence under s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) there is a need to guard against the application of the fixed or normative sentencing discount that applies to State offences, it is generally accepted that an early plea of guilty for a Commonwealth offence will attract a discount of 25%.

4. [4]

   The applicant entered a plea of guilty at the Local Court on 8 May 2019. It was accepted by the parties before the primary judge, and not put in contest on the appeal, that it was a plea entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

5. [5]

   The enquiry into the applicant’s current attitude to his offending as part of the resentencing exercise comprehends considerations of contrition and remorse as provided for in s 16A(2)(g). They are subjective factors. Their assessment does not attract an arithmetical discount. Rather, they are factors which favour an offender in the process of arriving at a sentence. While I accept that a demonstrated lack of remorse or contrition may be a most material factor influencing the ultimate sentence to be imposed, it is important, in my view, to ensure that such weight, or the lack of it, that those considerations might attract in the sentencing exercise are not treated in a way that either increases or diminishes the utilitarian value of the plea by some arithmetical measure.

6. [6]

   In my view, the applicant’s affidavit of 25 June 2020, relied upon in the event of resentence without demur from the Crown, evidences a marked level of insight into his offending, including what I accept is his genuine remorse and contrition. That evidence, coupled with the affidavit from the applicant’s solicitor to which the applicant’s custodial records are annexed, when read together with the materials relied upon by the applicant before the primary judge, also allows for a finding that the applicant has sound prospects of rehabilitation and that he has made, and continues to make, progress to that end in the custodial setting.

7. [7]

   After allowing a combined discount of 30% for the applicant’s plea of guilty and his assistance to the authorities, I propose the following orders:

   1. (1)

      The sentence imposed in the District Court on 16 August 2019 is quashed.

   2. (2)

      In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years and 3 months commencing on 17 August 2018 and expiring on 16 November 2029 with a non-parole period of 8 years and 5 months expiring on 16 January 2027.

8. [8]

   WILSON J: John Kaurasi (“the applicant”) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him on 16 August 2019 in the District Court of New South Wales for an offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). He advances a single ground, complaining that the sentencing judge erred in assessing the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.

The Proceedings in the District Court

1. [9]

   The matter came before his Honour Judge Weber on 2 August 2019 for hearing of the proceedings on sentence. The evidence tendered by the Crown and the applicant was received, and his Honour heard submissions on sentence. Since the only issue for this Court to resolve is the question of the correctness of the discount awarded to the applicant to reflect the utilitarian value of his early plea, I do not propose to set out the material in any detail.

2. [10]

   The Crown tendered an “Agreed Statement of Facts” which gave the circumstances of the commission of the offence.

3. [11]

   The applicant is a Fijian national who imported 42.941 kilograms of pure cocaine concealed within boxes of “Fiji Water”, the latter being a product produced by a Fijian company by which he was employed. The amount of cocaine that constitutes a commercial quantity is two kilograms.

4. [12]

   In April and May 2018, the applicant travelled between Fiji and Sydney. When in Sydney he opened two bank accounts, and deposited large sums of cash into a bank account held by Justin Ho. In late May 2018, he took steps to arrange for a pallet of Fiji Water to be shipped from Fiji to Sydney, ostensibly for a wedding that was to take place there. In early June 2018, he purchased 72 boxes, each containing 24 bottles of Fiji Water, which were sent to Sydney.

5. [13]

   The applicant monitored the progress of the shipment of Fiji Water, which shipped via Auckland in New Zealand. Some of his communications with the dispatching agent queried the date of the arrival of the cargo into Sydney, and whether it would arrive in time for the wedding on 28 July 2018.

6. [14]

   The consignment arrived in Sydney aboard ship on 7 August 2018. The applicant travelled to Sydney two days later, arriving on 9 August 2018. Over the following days the applicant made a number of inquiries about the cargo, which was to be delivered to the home address of a family member in Sydney.

7. [15]

   On 10 August 2018, authorities inspected the cargo and detected a number of anomalies. On examination the boxes were found to contain 50.071.5 kilograms of cocaine, the purity of which was in the range of 84% to 86%, yielding the pure weight of 42.941 kilograms.

8. [16]

   On 15 August 2018, Australian Federal Police officers executed a search warrant at the home of the family member who was given as the consignee of the Fiji Water cargo. A number of relevant items were located, including mobile devices with encryption software, and evidence of encrypted communications between the applicant and “Bulla”. Among the communications were messages about the handover of the drug cargo.

9. [17]

   When interviewed by police on 17 August 2018, the applicant acknowledged having been responsible for packing and shipping the Fiji Water to Sydney, he said with the intention of selling the water. Officers calculated that he would have made a net loss on the transaction if that were the true purpose of shipping the water to Sydney.

10. [18]

    It was conceded by the Crown that the applicant had not been the source of the cocaine; the date upon which he acquired knowledge of the importation of cocaine was said to be a matter to be determined by the sentencing judge.

11. [19]

    The applicant did not give evidence. He wrote a letter to the sentencing judge, and otherwise relied upon a psychological report, some references from family members and others, certificates of attainment, and notes relevant to his conduct in custody. A press article concerning criminal proceedings in Fiji of Justin Ho was also tendered.

12. [20]

    In his letter, the applicant expressed his shame and remorse for his actions and apologised to his family and others he had hurt. He said he intended to use his time in custody to better his education and skills, so that he could make a positive contribution to society on release. He characterised himself as a “young man who made a very foolish mistake in life”.

13. [21]

    Ms Kris North, forensic psychologist, reported (on the basis of information supplied by the applicant) that he had a stable upbringing and generally positive lifestyle, with no criminal antecedents and continuous employment. After taking up employment that involved international travel and “partying,” his alcohol consumption increased and his marriage ended. His use of alcohol thereafter escalated further, and Ms North considered the applicant to have an alcohol use disorder. On the basis of the applicant’s account to her, Ms North concluded that his drinking may have had an impact on his decision-making skills and led to his involvement in the offence.

14. [22]

    The applicant’s account of his involvement in the importation differed from that given in the agreed facts, with the applicant claiming to have had no knowledge of the presence of cocaine in the Fiji Water shipment. He said he had involved himself in a “good business proposition” involving the importation of Fiji Water.

15. [23]

    The applicant displayed no mental health issues, and had good family support. Ms North thought that he posed a low risk of reoffending.

16. [24]

    A number of certificates of training in heavy vehicle mechanics, and awards made to the applicant by his employer, evidenced his good employment record. Notes made by staff of Corrective Services NSW (“CSNSW”) stated that the applicant had a good work ethic and was a reliable, polite, and respectful inmate.

17. [25]

    Testimonials from family members also spoke of his good character, and of his remorse. The applicant had employment to go to in Fiji upon his release.

18. [26]

    The newspaper article relating to Justin Ho described criminal proceedings in Fiji against the man the applicant asserted was “Bulla”, for facilitating the export of more than two kilograms of cocaine from Nadi.

19. [27]

    Sentence was imposed upon the applicant on 16 August 2019. He was then 30 years old.

20. [28]

    The sentencing judge set out the facts of the offence as agreed between the parties, and concluded that it was an objectively serious offence, reflected by the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a substantial fine. Although accepting that the applicant was “unlikely to have been the principal behind the importation,” his Honour sentenced the applicant on the basis that he “played an important role in the logistics of the importation”, with knowledge of the quantity of cocaine imported, which he had himself packed. His Honour concluded that the offence was committed for financial gain.

21. [29]

    Of the early plea, and the issue of contrition, the sentencing judge said:

22. [30]

    His Honour found that the applicant had good prospects of rehabilitation. He had no prior criminal record, a strong employment history, and sound family support. The applicant’s expressions of remorse, given in a letter rather than by way of evidence before the sentencing court, were afforded no weight.

23. [31]

    Returning to the issue of the early plea, his Honour said:

24. [32]

    A sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period (“NPP”) of 9 years was imposed. The sentence commenced on 17 August 2018 and will expire on 16 August 2030. The NPP will expire on 16 August 2027.

25. [33]

    The applicant’s complaint is that, although sentence was imposed after the delivery by this Court of the judgment in Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 2; [2018] NSWCCA 4 (“Xiao”), and his Honour was referred to the decision by the Crown, he determined sentence on the basis of an amalgamation of the principles that applied prior to Xiao and those established by it. This approach was contrary to the common position of the Crown and applicant in submissions, in which both accepted that a discount of 25% was appropriate. It is argued that his Honour’s approach in allowing a discount on sentence of 20% to reflect the utilitarian value of the early plea constitutes error.

26. [34]

    The Crown contends that the sentencing judge did not err in the assessment made of the objective and subjective matters relevant to the plea of guilty for the purposes of s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Pointing to the decisions of Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79, Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35 and Huang aka Liu v R (2018) 332 FLR 158; [2018] NSWCCA 70, the Crown submits that, whilst the timing of a guilty plea determines to a large extent the level of the utilitarian discount to be applied, s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 provides some limitation to that general principle. Ultimately, the extent of any discount is a discretionary matter for the sentencing judge, here reduced because of the rejection by the sentencing court of the applicant’s untested claims of remorse.

Determination

1. [35]

   The applicant had to be sentenced in accordance with Commonwealth sentencing law, as given in Division 2 of Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914. Section 16A has particular relevance. It is in these terms:

2. [36]

   The provisions of the New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) have no direct application to sentence proceedings for Federal offences.

3. [37]

   What has come to be known as “Xiao error” frequently arises where State sentencing provisions are incorporated to some degree in a Commonwealth sentencing exercise. Such error has been considered on a number of occasions by this Court since the decision itself was handed down on 5 February 2018 by a bench constituted by Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, Hoeben CJ at CL, McCallum J (as her Honour then was), and Bellew J. In Xiao, the principle that had previously been accepted in this State, that the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty could not be taken into account in mitigation of sentence when determining the penalty to be imposed for a Commonwealth offence, was held to be incorrect. The Court said, at [278]:

4. [38]

   Whilst it is desirable for the extent of the discount to be specifically stated, there is no obligation on the sentencing judge to do so.

5. [39]

   The background to Xiao, and the context of its resolution, has been helpfully considered in Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23 (per Bell P with whom Walton and Johnson JJ agreed) and in Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35 (per Johnson J, with whom Bell P and Walton J agreed). The explication of the issues in Bae v R in particular brings clarity to what can be an opaque area of sentencing principle, where the objective value of the utilitarian benefit of a plea of guilty can become confused with the subjective value of an offender’s willingness to facilitate the course of justice, as the plea may evidence.

6. [40]

   Johnson J’s analysis of the authorities in Bae v R at [49]–[57] is particularly helpful, and justifies quotation in full:

7. [41]

   With those principles in mind, what the sentencing judge said in this matter as to the early plea of guilty, extracted at [29] and [31] above, can be considered.

8. [42]

   His Honour correctly noted that the sentencing judge is entitled to take the utilitarian value of a plea into account in sentencing for federal offences. That statement is in accordance with what was said by this Court in Xiao at [278].

9. [43]

   His Honour next observed, that a “discount for a guilty plea” could be obtained if it were established on balance that the plea “demonstrated an objective mitigation of genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and / or willingness to facilitate the course of justice”. Soon after, the sentencing judge remarked that the strength of the Crown case could be taken into account in assessing the “objective value of the guilty plea”, and whether it reflected a willingness to facilitate the course of justice or simply recognition of the inevitability of conviction where the Crown case was strong (emphasis added in both quoted extracts).

10. [44]

    In determining the discount that was to be allowed to the applicant in recognition for his plea of guilty on the sentence that would otherwise be imposed, his Honour said that a discount of 20% was an adequate acknowledgement of that aspect of the matter. That the discount was not the 25% that might ordinarily be allowed to reflect a plea of guilty entered prior to committal is explained by his Honour’s conclusion that the plea could not be accepted as indicative of remorse or a wish to facilitate the course of justice.

11. [45]

    Although I think it is at least possible that the sentencing judge simply misspoke when he set out the principles that applied with respect to the early plea, perhaps intending in each instance to refer to the subjective matter of remorse evidenced by the plea rather than the converse, as his Honour stated them the principles are not in accordance with Xiao. There is confusion between the objective value of the plea of guilty, and the question of its possible subjective value as evidence of remorse or willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Thus, there is error.

12. [46]

    Error having been established, it falls to this Court to re-sentence the applicant, in accordance with Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37.

13. [47]

    Against the prospect that his appeal may be upheld, the applicant read an affidavit from his solicitor, Mr Dowe, affirmed on 29 June 2020, and his own affidavit, affirmed on 25 June 2020.

14. [48]

    Mr Dowe produced extracts from the records held by CSNSW which demonstrate that the applicant has maintained regular employment in custody, and is considered to have a good work ethic. He has participated in educational and vocational courses “with enthusiasm and respectfully”.

15. [49]

    The applicant deposed that he has been employed in custody as “a 3D designer” in a design and innovation team. He is enrolled in a product design course at the University of Technology Sydney with Corrective Services Industries facilitating the applicant’s admission to the course because of the high quality of the work done by him and his team.

16. [50]

    He has regular contact with his father and other locally based family, although via audio-visual link since the advent of the COVID-19 virus and the measures taken to prevent its spread. The only contact with family in Fiji is by telephone.

17. [51]

    The applicant says that, in custody, he has seen the consequences of drug use, and the destruction drugs cause, and is “deeply sorry” for what he did.

18. [52]

    In accordance with s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914, it is necessary to impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. The maximum sentence is imprisonment for life or a fine, or both. The applicant does not suggest that a sentence other than one of imprisonment is available.

19. [53]

    As the sentencing judge concluded, this was an objectively grave offence concerning an amount of cocaine which was in excess of 20 times the commercial quantity specified for that drug. Whilst the applicant was not the source of the cocaine imported into Australia, he was responsible for all aspects of the logistics connected with its shipment, including the packing of the illicit cargo, monitoring its progress towards Australia, and its intended receipt on arrival in Sydney. It is clear from the evidence of calculations he made concerning the weight of the consignment that the applicant was well aware of the amount of cocaine he shipped to Sydney. His involvement extended for a number of weeks prior to the shipment, and was current for the whole of the period particularised by the charge, between about 24 May 2018 and about 15 August 2018. His role was an international one, with the applicant despatching the drug from Fiji and travelling to Sydney to facilitate its receipt and distribution to “Bulla”. The only reasonable inference is that the applicant, who had no criminal record and a well-paid job, involved himself in criminality of such high order because of the significant profit to be made.

20. [54]

    Consistent with the conclusions of the sentencing judge, there is no reason to accept that the applicant was subservient to Bulla. He had a very significant role in the importation, and took a number of critical steps to effect the importation of in excess of 42 kilograms of pure cocaine. A quantity of cocaine of that order could do very significant harm to the Australian community.

21. [55]

    The early guilty plea should be recognised by a discount of 25% on the sentence that would otherwise be imposed, to reflect the significant utilitarian value of the plea, entered prior to committal.

22. [56]

    In common with the sentencing judge, I am not persuaded that the applicant is remorseful for his crime, as opposed to regretful at being apprehended for committing it. To Ms North, the applicant maintained that he had had no knowledge of the cocaine cargo, and had simply been reckless in taking up too quickly what seemed to be a good business proposition. Since these claims were not supported by any evidence, I would give them no weight; in any event, the agreed facts establish the falsity of the applicant’s contentions in this regard. To his family, the applicant claimed to have little understanding of the seriousness of his conduct, a claim that also cannot be accepted from a man of (then) 29 years, who was employed in a role which required him to regularly travel internationally on business.

23. [57]

    Whilst the applicant in his June 2020 affidavit asserts that he now understands the terrible consequences that illegal drugs can have, his remorse is still framed by reference to the harm caused to his loved ones. He does not acknowledge his role in the commission of this crime. I would give his assertion of remorse limited weight.

24. [58]

    Although the absence of genuine and complete remorse can be inconsistent with an offender having good future prospects, the applicant’s prior good character and his history of solid employment as, among other things, a skilled mechanic, point to his sound prospects of rehabilitation. The strong support of family in Australia and in Fiji, and the applicant’s good conduct in custody and his efforts to work and educate himself contribute powerfully to that conclusion.

25. [59]

    Although the requirement for specific deterrence is ameliorated to some extent by that conclusion, there remains a requirement that the applicant be punished for his crime. There is also a very important role for general deterrence to play in the determination of sentence. The necessity to impose sentences of unequivocal severity in relation to offences of this nature as the most efficient means available to the courts to enforce the law and deter others has been regularly stressed by superior courts: R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473; (1979) 46 FLR 386 at 399.

26. [60]

    The applicant enjoys good health and he was not found to have any mental illness or disorder when assessed by Ms North. He has no dependents who might be adversely affected by the sentence to be imposed.

27. [61]

    I have had regard to the aspect of the matter which led the sentencing judge to allow a small reduction on sentence, and treated it in the same way.

28. [62]

    Having considered all of these matters, the sentence that I would impose upon the applicant is not one which is less than that imposed by the sentencing judge. In accordance with s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) I would dismiss the appeal.

29. [63]

    IERACE J: I also agree with Wilson J’s finding that the error contended for by the applicant has been made out, and with her Honour’s reasons for so finding. On the question of resentence, I agree with Fullerton J’s reasons and conclusion.

30. [64]

    Fullerton J noted that it is generally accepted that an early plea of guilty for a Commonwealth offence will attract a discount of 25 per cent. In my view, this is particularly appropriate since the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Act”) were amended by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (NSW) and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017 (NSW). These cognate Acts introduced a radically different procedure to committals in this state, which applies to both state and Commonwealth offences in which the court attendance notice was issued on or after 30 April 2018. If a plea of guilty is entered in the Local Court at any time prior to committal by a defendant, subject to certain age exceptions (s 25A(1)(b) of the Act), there is an assured reduction of 25 per cent in any sentence that would otherwise have been imposed for the utilitarian benefit of the plea, subject to two exceptions. The first is if the level of culpability “is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can be met only by imposition of a penalty with no allowance for, or a reduction of, that discount”: s 25F(2) of the Act. The second is if the sentencing court determines that the discount should not be applied, or should be reduced, because the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty has been eroded by a dispute as to facts that was not determined in favour of the offender: s 25F(4) of the Act.

31. [65]

    The policy objective was identified by the New South Wales Attorney General at the time, Mark Speakman, in his Second Reading Speech when introducing both amendment Bills: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 11 October 2017 at 281. The Attorney stated:

32. [66]

    Although the revised scheme has a significant advantage for those defendants who plead guilty while the matter is in the Local Court, it involves the loss to them of certain advantages that were enjoyed under the previous procedure. Pursuant to Ch 3, Pt 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the magistrate’s role is supervisory; it no longer involves a determination of the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to proceed to trial. Rather than receiving a full brief of evidence, a defendant is now served with a limited brief, not all of which is necessarily in admissible form, but deemed sufficient to enable meaningful negotiations between the parties, which are facilitated by a legislated sequence of steps and obligatory conferences to refine and explore the feasibility of alternative charges and pleas.

33. [67]

    An integral consequence of the scheme is that a plea of guilty that is entered in the closing stage of the committal process attracts the same 25 per cent sentence discount as if it had been entered on the first appearance in the Local Court. However, although the committal procedure applies to both state and Commonwealth charges, a defendant who is charged with a Commonwealth offence is expressly excluded from the benefit of the assured 25 per cent sentence discount: s 25A(1)(a) of the Act.

34. [68]

    In my opinion, when sentencing a Commonwealth offender who is committed pursuant to the current legislative scheme and who enters their plea at or towards the end of that process, it is appropriate to take into account the sequenced nature of the scheme and the participatory role expected of defendants during that process when determining the appropriate discount for the plea’s utilitarian benefit. This would likely deliver a result on par with the statutory discount for state offences.