IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
Case No. CR-24-00545

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
SUNPREET CHADHA		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DEMPSEY	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	Sentence indication (SIH) 9 December 2024
Plea 3 March 2025 	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 March 2025 	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Chadha 	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 222		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW  – sentencing 
Catchwords: 	Commonwealth offending, import commercial quantity of a controlled drug (ketamine, pseudoephedrine, ephedrine), trafficking commercial quantity of a controlled drug (ketamine). Remorse, early admissions, plea of guilty, first-time mature offender, history of deprivation, foreign national, isolation in custody.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) Criminal Code (Cth) 1995, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Drugs Poisons Controlled Substances Act (Vic) 1986. Sentencing Act (Vic) 1991. 
Cases Cited:	R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68, R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen [2011] VSCA 32, The Queen v Nguyen & Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; (2010) 205 A Crim R 106, DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50; (2010) 228 A Crim R 218, The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550, Gregory (a pseudonym) v R [2017] VSCA 151; (2017) 268 A Crim R 1, R v Nguyen [2008] VSCA 235, DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1, Hili v R (2010) 242 CLR 520, DPP (Cth) v Brown [2017] VSCA 162, R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243, DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237, Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288, Lane v The Queen [2017] VSCA 289, Hickling v Western Australia [2016] WASCA 124, Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59, Scerri v R [2010] VSCA 287, R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212, R v McMillan [2005] QCA 93, Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Sentence:	TES of 10 years 9 months with non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months.
	PSD: 542 days
	S. 6AAA: 13 years 6 months with non-parole period of 9 years 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Mr A. Albert (SIH)	OPP 	
	Mr J. O'Toole 
(plea and sentence) 
		
For the Accused	Mr G. James KC (SIH)
Mr M. Bejjaoui
(plea and sentence)	Abbas Jacobs lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

OVERVIEW 
1	Mr Chadha, on 9 December 2024 you sought a sentence indication pursuant to s.207 Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 2009 on the following charges on Indictment P11930554.1:
No.	Charge	Maximum Penalty	
1	Importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug (Ketamine)
13 July 2023 to 6 September 2023	Life imprisonment or 7,500 p.u. or both
[Criminal Code Act 1995, s. 307.1(1)]	
2 	Importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor (Pseudoephedrine and Ephedrine) 13 July 2023 to 6 September 2023	25 years imprisonment or 5,000 p.u. or both
[Criminal Code Act 1995, s. 307.11(1)]	
3	Trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled drug (Ketamine) 
19 May 2023 to 8 September 2023.	Life imprisonment or 7,500 p.u. or both
[Criminal Code Act 1995, s. 302.2(1)]	
2	Having considered the matter, on 11 December 2024, I indicated that if you were to plead guilty to the charges on that indictment, based on the Summary of Prosecution Opening (SPO) provided (and plea material furnished), I would impose a total effective sentence of not more than 10 years and 9 months. I noted that all of your pre-sentence detention (PSD) at the time of any sentence would be credited towards such a term. The CPA did not allow me to state what non parole period I would set, but I indicated that I would impose one that I considered meaningful. 
3	You were given to the 18 March 2024 to discuss the matter with your family and legal representatives, so that you make an informed decision about whether or not you would accept the sentencing indication. On that date you accepted the indication, were arraigned, and pleaded guilty. The matter was then adjourned to today being 3 March 2025 for the formal plea and sentence process to be conducted. 
4	I sentence you now. My reasons follow. 
OFFENDING 
Introduction 
5	At the time of the alleged offending, you Mr Chadha were 51 years of age (D.O.B. 19 September 1971) and were visiting Australia from the UK on a tourist visa. You were residing in room 308B of the Quest Apartments, Epping.
6	Your personal circumstances at the time were somewhat dire. 
Background
7	In August 2023, investigators from the Organised Crime Intelligence Unit commenced an investigation into you. Investigators established that you used a mobile phone number ending in 363 and further established that you leased storage units 058, 065 and 073 at Kennards Self Storage Preston in your name on 17 July 2023.
8	Investigators determined that your access code had been utilised on 30 occasions between 17 July 2023 and 4 September 2023 to access the storage lockers. CCTV obtained from Kennards Self Storage depicted you and associates, Abhinav Rana (Rana) and Ibrahim Ibrahim (Ibrahim), moving boxes into, out of, and between, lockers.
Offending
9	On 8 September 2023, police investigators attended Kennards Self Storage Preston and executed search warrants at storage units 058, 065 and 073.
10	The following items were located and seized:
(a)	Inside storage unit 058 –
(i)	Cardboard box 'A' with Air Way Bill (AWB) label 5519470;
(ii)	Inside cardboard box 'A' and concealed in a foil packet, 20 clear plastic bags, each containing approximately one kilogram of a white crystal substance, later analysed and confirmed to contain, in total, 19.86 kilograms of ephedrine (86% pure) [charge 2: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor (rolled-up)]; and
(iii)	19 red coloured food packets alleged to have been utilised to conceal the ephedrine;
(b)	Inside storage unit 065 –
(i)	Cardboard box 'B';
(ii)	Inside cardboard box 'B', 21 clear plastic bags (15 of which were concealed in a foil packet), each containing approximately one kilogram of a white crystal rock substance, later analysed and confirmed to contain, in total, 18.7 kilograms of ketamine (with individual bags ranging from 86 – 90% pure) [charge 1: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug];
(iii)	Cardboard box 'C' with AWB label 5505117;
(iv)	Inside cardboard box 'C', eight clear plastic bags, each containing approximately one kilogram of white compressed powder, later analysed and confirmed to contain, in total, 7.99 kilograms of pseudoephedrine [charge 2: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor (rolled-up)]; and
(v)	Kitchen scales, disposable gloves and wipes in assorted plastic containers;
(c)	Inside storage unit 073 –
(i)	A blue coloured suitcase;
(ii)	Inside the blue coloured suitcase, seven clear plastic bags, each containing approximately one kilogram of a white crystal rock substance, later analysed and confirmed to contain, in total, 7.0 kilograms of ketamine [charge 1: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug];
(iii)	Cardboard box 'D';
(iv)	Inside cardboard box 'D', 11 clear plastic bags, each containing approximately one kilogram of a white powder substance, later analysed and confirmed to contain, in total, 10.96 kilograms of pseudoephedrine [charge 2: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor (rolled-up)];
(v)	Cardboard box 'E' with AWB label 5505117; and
(vi)	Inside cardboard box 'E', 14 clear plastic bags, each containing approximately one kilogram of a white powder substance, later analysed and confirmed to contain, in total, 14.02 kilograms of pseudoephedrine [charge 2: importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor (rolled-up)].
11	At approximately 10.38am, you attended the front entry of Kennards Self Storage where you were arrested. You drove a blue 2022 MG wagon with registration 1WS 5UX to the location. This vehicle was searched by investigators pursuant to s. 82 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and located were two mobile phones (an Apple iPhone and a Vivo mobile phone). You were then transported to the Melbourne West Police Station for processing and interview
Importation of border controlled drugs and precursors
12	You had utilised the services of freight forwarder and customs broker C2C Logistics Pty Ltd to import packages into Australia. C2C Logistics are based in Sydney, and move both air and sea cargo both locally and internationally, and facilitates the cargo being cleared via customs.
13	You first contacted C2C Logistics in February 2023, and sent three payments to cover outstanding invoices from the previous operators, Home Décor and Frames.
14	You communicated with C2C Logistics via WhatsApp, and introduced Rana to C2C Logistics to undertake the pick-up and delivery aspect of his operations in Melbourne. They used a business name of Delta Argo Logistics to facilitate this, which was set-up by you, Rana and another unknown individual in 2023.
15	You, through C2C Logistics, imported boxes with AWB 5509812, 5510000, 5509832, 5519470, 5519377, 5505117 and 5505127. These boxes were located at Kennards Self Storage in Preston on 8 September 2023, having been imported between 13 July 2023 – 6 September 2023.
16	Your methodology for importing the boxes involved the following:
(a)	Your associate in India concealed the drugs inside the cardboard boxes and using confectionary, clothing or décor items to conceal the drugs;
(b)	Your associate would then label the cardboard boxes with consignee names/addresses and consignor names/addresses;
(c)	The packages were then sent to Australia from India via air freight;
(d)	C2C Logistics was utilised to clear the AWB packages held at the air fright wholesaler, located in Tullamarine;
(e)	Either you, or an associate would travel to Tullamarine and collect the AWB packages and then take the packages to a warehouse in Keilor Park to separate the drugs packages from the other packages;
(f)	You or an associate would then take the drug packages to Kennards Self Storage, Preston.
Total quantities of importation 
17	In the present case, you were involved in bringing the substances into Australia, and that you dealt with the substances in connection with their importation.
18	The conduct relevant to the importations of the substances comprised the following:
(a)	Travelling to Australia for the purpose of receiving and safeguarding the consignments (including earlier 'dry runs').
(b)	Utilising the services of freight forwarder C2C Logistics to import the packages.
(c)	Transferring money to C2C Logistics.
(d)	Communicating with C2C Logistics about incoming consignments.
(e)	Introducing an associate to C2C Logistics for the purposes of collection and delivery.
(f)	Establishing Delta Argo Logistics with two associates in 2023.
(g)	Collecting packages from AMI Tullamarine and transporting them to storage.
(h)	Unpacking and sorting the contents of packages, including the substances the subject of this indictment.
(i)	Reporting back on the contents of packages; transporting the contents to lockers or Australia Post; delivering the contents to persons in Melbourne; and reporting back on the deliveries.
19	The total quantities in relation to the importing offences are as follows:
(a)	Charge 1, 25.7 kilos of ketamine. The commercial quantity is 1 kilo. This is therefore 25 times the commercial quantity applicable.
(b)	Charge 2, 32.97 kilograms of pseudoephedrine (of which 27 kilograms was pure) and 19.86 kilograms of ephedrine (of which 17.8 kilos was pure). The commercial quantity of each precursor is 1.2 kilograms. Combined, this represents close to 30 times the commercial quantity applicable. 
Trafficking 
20	Charge 3 relates to you trafficking in a commercial quantity of ketamine (the commercial quantity of which is 1 kilo) between dates, on the basis of entering into an agreement, that is, joint commission within the meaning of s11.2A of the Code, with Khanna and Ibrahim to traffic same. 
21	Your Apple iPhone was downloaded. Located were a series of messages, photographs and videos supporting the proposition that you were involved in both the importation and the trafficking of drugs.
22	It appears you were directing Ibrahim to traffic drugs at the direction of Khanna.
23	The total amount of ketamine trafficked by you is not able to be determined accurately, but it significantly exceeded the commercial quantity of 1 kilo. This amount relates not to the substances seized, above, but rather the trafficking of substances suspected of being earlier imported which is neither proven, nor charged.
24	Phone records revealed you would often direct Ibrahim to traffic kilo amounts of ketamine.
25	For example, based on the contents of the mobile phone download, the following is said:
(a)	On 19 May 2023, you directed Ibrahim to deliver three x 1 kilogram packets of ketamine to a vehicle in Poplar Street, Thomastown using the token method.  Ibrahim later confirmed that this was undertaken;
(b)	On 28 June 2023, you directed Ibrahim to collect 4 kilos of ketamine 'from Louis' and that messages for collection would be sent on a separate phone;
(c)	That evening, you directed Ibrahim to an address in Epping and directed him to leave the package on the back seat of a vehicle;
(d)	On 23 August 2023, you delivered an unknown quantity of ketamine at the direction of Khanna to a vehicle, which you later confirmed was completed;
(e)	On 4 September 2023, you delivered 1 kilogram of ketamine at the direction of Khanna to a vehicle, and was further directed to collect a further kilogram of ketamine for another delivery;
(f)	On 8 September 2023, before your arrest, you delivered a 2 gram sample of ketamine to another vehicle. 
Record of interview
26	You participated in a record of interview (ROI) on 8 and 9 September 2023. 
27	You made complete admissions, including that 'pseudo' and 'keta' were contained in the storage units, and admitting that the bags each contained '1 kilo each'. 
28	You made admissions to trafficking drugs, as directed by your 'boss', Khanna, using the 'token' method. You also stated they used the code 'Garden Rock' for 'keta'.
29	You stated as early as your interview that you offended to clear a £115,000 debt in the United Kingdom, which is approximately AUD$230,000, and stated if you worked for Khanna for four months, this debt would be 'sorted out'. There is no evidence anything was 'sorted out'. There is no evidence you ever saw the financial rewards of this enterprise at all. 
30	You provided a signed statement at the conclusion of the record of interview. That statement largely conforms with the confessional record of interview.  You explain to the best of your ability what happened, when and why, as well as the methods and codes used. 
31	I will foreshadow now what I regard as an important biographical matter that plays a role in this offending. You are a middle aged first offender. You have endured a life of hardship and adversity and had apparently overcome much of this disadvantage until COVID cruelled your business and livelihood in 2020.  You were approached, as the desperate often are, to engage in criminal behaviour to reclaim some sense of financial security. I will elaborate on these matters in due course when coming to your personal circumstances. 
Case history 
32	The matter has proceeded through the criminal justice system in the following way 

Date	 Event	
19 May 2023	Trafficking ketamine commences 	
13 July 2023	Importations commence 	
8 September 2023	End of offending  
Accused arrested, charged and remanded in custody	
9 September 2023	Filing Hearing	
27 September 2023	Special Mention	
15 January 2024	Committal Mention	
23 February 2024	Committal Mention	
25 March 2024	Committal Mention	
10 April 2024	Committal Mention
SHUB, Accused pleaded not guilty	
8 May 2024	Initial Directions Hearing	
24 July 2024	Case Assessment Hearing	
9 December 2024	Application for Sentence Indication Hearing	
11 December 2024 	SIH announced 	
18 December 2024	SIH accepted 	
3 March 2025 	Plea and sentence  	

MATTERS OF SENTENCING PRINCIPLE
Introduction
33	The fundamental principle in sentencing a Federal offender is that the court must impose a sentence 'that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances to the offence'. The general sentencing principles that apply to Commonwealth offenders are outlined in Division 2 of Part IB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 
34	A number of particular factors for consideration of a sentencing court are set out in s16A(2). That list is not exhaustive:  
35	In particular, although not referred to specifically in s16A(2) of the Act, key common law principles of parity, proportionality and totality also apply since they are relevant to fixing a sentence of a severity that is appropriate in all the circumstances. Subject to the limited statutory exceptions in s16A of the Act, sentencing requires the 'instinctive synthesis' of relevant considerations.

Importation and trafficking 
36	Higher courts in Australia have emphasised often enough that those who engage in offending involving commercial quantities of unlawfully imported border-controlled drugs, must expect to receive significant punishment.
37	I have had regard to the principles summarised in the Victorian Court of Appeal decisions in Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen previously distilled in the New South Wales case of The Queen v Nguyen & Pham. 
38	These principles included that the quantity of the illegal drug involved is a highly relevant factor in determining the objective seriousness of the offence and is often the main factor available to assess comparative seriousness of criminality. In this case the quantity of drugs and precursors here is close to 50 times the relevant commercial quantities, makes the offending, on a whole, very serious. 
39	This was a large and valuable operation. The estimated street value of the ketamine alone was significant. I accept however you did not know the precise amount of the drugs to ultimately be imported, other than that it was a substantial amount.
40	Trafficking in drugs is an inherently pernicious trade. Drug offences are a substantial societal evil that cause significant societal harm and affect its most vulnerable members. Judicial officers have a responsibility to fix sentences that are designed not only to punish but to serve as an effective deterrent. General deterrence, as the dominant purpose for which sentence is to be imposed, has been emphasised by many Australian courts in all jurisdictions. That much is inarguable.  
41	The community has a justifiable expectation that such offending will be treated very seriously. The consequences for engaging in such serious criminality must be such that any like-minded members of the community who are contemplating behaving like this (for whatever reason, be it greed, or in cases such as yours, perceived need or desperation), or in any similar fashion, will pause to consider whether the potential rewards are worth the risk of being caught and punished. 
42	General deterrence and denunciation assume substantial prominence in sentencing for serious drug offences including trafficking.  Specific deterrence and protection of the community also assume particular importance in sentencing for this type of offences.
43	The respective maximum penalties for trafficking offences (and importation) vary according to the quantity of the trafficking involved.  Quantity is therefore a significant and relevant factor to the sentencing task.  All other things being equal, the greater the quantity trafficked or imported, the more serious the offence. 
44	Other relevant factors in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending include the duration, intensity, volume and frequency of the trafficking, and the offender's role or motivation.  You, Mr Chadha, played an important role in this enterprise.  Your involvement spanned a considerable amount of time. You visited this country to oversee aspects of the offending, as the man on the ground actively and regularly co-ordinating the offending here.  You were something akin to the regional operational manager. The amount of the substances imported and distributed is substantial and with that comes the inevitable inference that the value of the same was substantial. To that end, I do not find that you were at the lower end of involvement in this organisation. 

Current sentencing practices
45	I have had regard to current sentencing practices.  However, this is one factor and not the controlling factor in fixing a just sentence. As the High Court set out in The Queen v Pham, when sentencing for a Commonwealth offence, I must have regard to the sentences imposed in other States and Territories.
46	Appellate authorities provide authoritative guidance on the appropriate range of sentences for a given offence.  They yield discernible patterns against which a proposed sentence ought to be examined. French CJ, Keane and Nettle JJ observed in Pham:
it should now be accepted that intermediate appellate courts must have regard to the sentencing decisions of other intermediate appellate courts in comparable cases as 'yardsticks' that may serve to illustrate (although not define) the possible range of sentences available. A court must have regard to such a decision in this way unless there is a compelling reason not to do so, which might include whether the objective circumstances of the crime or subjective circumstances of the offender are so distinguishable as to render the decision irrelevant…
47	A table was tendered by the prosecution which summarised cases involving sentences for similar Federal drug offending concerning commercial quantities of border-controlled drugs in Victoria.  
48	The prosecution submitted that these cases provide guidance as to the application of relevant sentencing principle, and illustrate, but do not define, a sentencing pattern for drug offending of this kind. The table also includes some cases in which an offender attempted to possess ketamine in instances that were quite different from this. 
49	I have had regard to the table and the cases contained therein. The cases reflect that quite substantial sentences have been imposed for offending involving similar quantities of other drugs.   I have had regard to comparable cases provided to the extent that they assist.
50	Given the seriousness of the offending, general deterrence assumes a real prominence.  This is prescribed by s16A(2)(j) of the Crimes Act 1914.  Offences of this nature are often difficult to detect and the great harm that such drugs can cause within the community is well known.  As the Court of Appeal said in Nguyen & Phommalysack v The Queen:
General deterrence is to be given chief weight in sentence and that stern punishment will be warranted in almost every case.  
The sentence I impose to would-be traffickers that the potential financial rewards to be gained from such activities are neutralised by the risk of severe punishment.
51	The chart that I referred to earlier contains 17 cases between 2012 and 2023, not all of them were Court of Appeal authorities and all of them were Victorian.
52	It covered a broad spectrum of offences, an offender's role, personal circumstances of the accused, type of plea, timing of plea and of course penalties.
53	The sentences ranged from 20 years with a non-parole of 15 years in the case of DPP (Cth) v Brown to 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years in DPP v Le. 
54	I was not taken to these cases as a de-facto exercise in parity, where I would add or subtract aggravating or mitigating features when measured up against the facts of this case, in an attempt to somehow reconcile them.  
55	One can simply discern, consistent with the application of principle is that the higher the quantum of the drug, the value of the drug, the offender's role, sophistication and the offender's culpability, the higher the sentence was.
56	I have assessed this case in the spectrum of cases of this kind. 
57	Turning then to s16A(2) factors.  Section 16A(2)(a), the nature and circumstances of the offence.
58	I have dealt with in some detail already the nature and the circumstances of this offending, and do not propose to elaborate any further here. 
59	I have articulated your activities and place within the enterprise in order to ascertain the position you held in the criminal enterprise. I have done so to determine your culpability and the appropriate sentence. 
60	There are no other offences to be taken into account consistent with s16A(2)(b).
61	It was conceded by your counsel that this offence was part of a course of conduct under s16A(2)(c).
62	Genuine contrition has been demonstrated in my view.  It commenced at the moment you engaged in a full and frank confession in your interview, followed by the provision of a statement.
63	This matter could not have run as a trial, so complete were your admissions to your role, knowledge and both the precise nature of the substance and weight. 
64	Section 16A2(g), you are entitled to a discount for your plea of guilty, made at an early (but not earliest) opportunity.  You pleaded not guilty at the committal, although no-one was cross examined.  From there the matter proceeded through the case assessment hearing and sentencing indication process. 
65	You are entitled to a discount on sentence for at least the utilitarian value of the plea. The timing of the plea is relevant to the weight to be given to the value of it, as the benefits to the criminal justice system flow particularly from early pleas. 
66	The administration of justice has been facilitated by your plea.  The Crown were not put to the expense of proving the case against you, nor were the court's precious resources tied up. 
67	The value ascribed to this plea will be reflected in the sentence I impose and will be evident in the s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration.
68	Merely entering a plea of course does not establish remorse and proper evidence will be required.  Genuine remorse is an important element of sentencing in that it enhances an offender's prospect of rehabilitation and reduces the need for specific deterrence and community protection. Even genuine remorse, however, does not displace the need for the gravity of the offending to be reflected in sentence. 
69	Your remorse, Mr Chadha, is apparent not only through your plea of guilty, but from the supporting material relied on, especially your moving letter to the court where you express your profound regret having been involved in this offence.  It is evident in the affidavit of your cousin and the reference of your wife. 

Section 16A(2)(j) – deterrent effect on the person
70	I take into account this factor.  You have spent in excess of 18 months in custody on remand and have made some headway towards rehabilitating yourself.  This extended period of remand, in addition to the further time that you will spend, would act as a sufficient deterrent in my view if it was required.
71	The effect of the period of custody already served, so far from friends and family, can clearly be seen in the documents tendered on your behalf on the plea.
72	That you made a statement, speaks of your lack of criminal pedigree, your remorse and means, one would think, that you would not be utilised by others as a tool for offending in the future.  I find that you are specifically deterred. 
Section 16A(2)(m): character, antecedents, cultural background, age, means, physical or mental condition
73	You were born in New Deli, India and moved to England in 2004 at the age of 33. 
74	You are now 53.  You have no prior criminal history of any kind. You endured a childhood of profound abuse, deprivation and exploitation, from which you had largely, but not completely, recovered from. 
75	You are married with two daughters, presently aged 17 and 12.  All of your family live in England.  You have been married since 2006.  Your family is a loving and close one. They will struggle to visit you. 
76	You were born into extreme poverty. You were put to work as early as 12 years of age to help your family survive. There you were subjected to all manner of abuse and exploitation in the workplace. This involved, but was not limited to, sexual abuse.  This trauma is spoken about by those who know you well and who are close to you.  It has left a mark on you. You continually suffered from low mood and had a bleak outlook on the world at times. 
77	Nevertheless, you worked hard for the rest of your life, usually in grocery stores or restaurants. 
78	You went to England where you made good in business and in life. You worked yourself up from lesser roles to being a chef at a high-end restaurant. 
79	You are uniformly described as a decent, caring, family-oriented man. 
80	You ran your own catering business until 2023, when the business had to close.  It had haemorrhaged money for years since the pandemic and was no longer sustainable or viable. 
81	Your outlook on the world was bleak once again.  You were plunged into depression, anxiety and worry.  I accept that this is so.  This much was not contested by the Crown either I add.  They also very fairly conceded that this position you found yourself in made you vulnerable.  Based on the report of 
Mr Chafic Awit, who cannot detect the existence of any serious psychiatric illness save for the elevated depression and anxiety that I have referred to.
82	I do not consider any of the limbs of Verdins engaged (nor were their application seriously pressed), but this is important contextual information. I am pleased that you are seeking out and receiving some help in custody. 
83	You were approached to join this criminal enterprise and succumbed to temptation. Your culpability must be seen in light of your previous adversity, industriousness and law-abiding nature. Put simply, your moral view was compromised out of desperation; you acted aberrantly. 
84	You have proven to be both resilient and resourceful, but that does not mean the way you were made in your formative years has not shaped the way you are now, and why you made poor decisions when the stability you worked so hard for was taken away.  I will reduce your culpability accordingly for this reason.
85	I have given your previous good character the weight it deserves in this process, noting that criminal enterprises often prey on the vulnerable and otherwise good character to help them operate and offend undetected. 

Section 16A(2)(n) – prospect of rehabilitation
86	Your prospects can be categorised as better than reasonable for the following reasons:
(a)	You have never offended before; 
(b)	You have shown genuine contrition in the psychologist's report as well as all of the other material provided to the court;
(c)	You have not received any reprimands or sanctions whilst in custody (rather to the contrary you have been industrious and attained a number of certificates); 
(d)	You have the support of a network of family and friends who are able to support you upon your release.
87	It is submitted that you will almost inevitably be deported to India or England at the conclusion of any sentence.  The prospect of deportation is not put as a mitigating factor here, and nor is it a reason for me to decline to set a non-parole period. 

Section 16A(2)(p) – Probable effect on your family
88	It is conceded that in the ordinary matter there will almost inevitably be hardship to any offender's family and that the hardship needs to extend beyond the usual and be sufficiently extreme to operate as a mitigating factor.
89	You have no family here in Australia and limited social support and due to the seriousness of the offence it is almost certain you will never be granted access to Australia again. 
90	It was submitted that given the contents of Mr Awit's report discussing the lack of visitation, I can accept that your family will continue to be unable to visit you, and so it is submitted the impact to your family is greater than that of the ordinary prisoner.  Your wife speaks eloquently of the way your absence leaves a void in the lives of your children. 
91	 In this matter, the effect of the lack of familial support and contact you are able to have, should be taken into account, although it is conceded that the lack of familial support by your family might not constitute hardship beyond the usual.
92	I do take into account that you are isolated here, but in some ways that is the price you pay when you travel to a foreign country for the purposes of offending. One can hardly complain if arrested abroad, having travelled solely for the purpose of importing and trafficking drugs, that you are detained far away from loved ones. 
93	I accept that you will suffer knowing that you have made the situation much worse for your family by this offending, but that is taken into account as your burden to bear, not theirs, for the purposes of sentencing.
Totality 
94	I am mindful of the principle of totality. The Act accommodates the application of this common law principle of totality.  That is, the requirement in sentencing, a judge to impose an appropriate sentence for each offence and structure the sentences such that the overall sentence is just and appropriate to the totality of the offending behaviour.
95	I am mindful that this offending deals with one serious incursion into criminal activity, that is, the importation and trafficking of more than one substance, but has a number of facets to it over time. 
DISPOSITION CONTENDED FOR 
96	Mr James KC conceded the only penalty available to me was a head sentence and a non-parole period. 
97	Having regard to all of the matters raised in his submissions, the circumstances of the offence, and your subjective circumstances, having regard to the uncommon circumstances and features of the matter, he says it distinguishes it significantly from other matters of this kind such to attract special consideration and leniency.
98	It is submitted, having regard to the totality of circumstances of you and the offence, that this is a matter where you should be considered to be an organiser, but at a lower level of the organisation, involved in the importation of drugs and your culpability should be considered on the lower end of the spectrum.  I note I have made different findings in regard to this already. 
99	I also, it was submitted, ought to mitigate the sentence based on your character, confession and plea, which I have done.
FORMULATION OF SENTENCE 
100	For any sentence of imprisonment imposed for a Federal offence, the court must state the date upon which the sentence is to commence. 
101	Where a Federal offender is convicted of a Federal offence and the court imposes a sentence that exceeds three years, which will be the case here, the court must fix a single non-parole period.  That will be, I repeat, the case here. 
102	 There are no specific prescriptive provisions for the setting of a non-parole period, nor is there such a thing as a normal or 'usual' parole period.  I said that I would impose a meaningful period on parole and that is what I have hoped to achieve. 

103	In fixing the appropriate sentence for you and allowing for the parole eligibility component, I have had regard to the principle of parsimony.  That is, the requirement not to impose a sentence more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purposes for which sentence is imposed.
104	The purpose of parole is to provide for mitigation of punishment in favour of reform through conditional release when appropriate.  A non-parole period is the minimum time that I determine justice requires you must serve, having regard to all of the circumstances.  Due to the constellation of matters raised in mitigation in your case, I have concluded it is appropriate to allow a meaningful period of parole for you.  That is, the non-parole period, the period of imprisonment to be served before you become eligible for parole, might be somewhat shorter than what is considered 'usual', to take into account the mitigatory factors in your case and to facilitate rehabilitation.
105	I have taken note of His Honour King CJ remarks in R v Osenkowski as I was invited to
There must always be a place for the exercise of mercy where a Judge's sympathies are reasonably excited by circumstances of the case. There must always be a place for the leniency which has traditionally been extended, even to offenders with bad records, almost intuitively in the case of experienced Judges, that leniency at the particular stage of the offender's life might lead to reform.
106	There will be a degree of leniency shown to you in this case. 
SENTENCE 
107	I come to the portion of these reasons where I formally indicate what the individual sentences will be and how they interact with each other. Having considered and balanced the necessary matters, I sentence you as follows: 
108	Charge 1, importing commercial quantity of drug, seven years eight months.
109	Charge 2, importing commercial quantity of border controlled precursor, five years and eight months.
110	Charge 3, trafficking a commercial quantity of controlled drug, four years four months.
(a)	The sentence on Charge 1 commences today. That is seven years eight months.  That is the base.
(b)	The sentence on Charge 2 will commence four years and eight months after the sentence imposed on Charge 1 starts.  Thus, adding two years' cumulation.
(c)	The sentence imposed on Charge 3 will commence two years and five months after the commencement of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, bringing about 13 months' cumulation on that count.
(d)	This brings a total effective sentence about of 10 years and nine months.  
(e)	I order that you serve six years and nine months before you are eligible for parole.   This represents 64 per cent of the head sentence.
Pre-sentence Detention
111	You have been in custody continuously since 8 September 2023.  I declare that you have served 542 days in custody as being reckoned as served of the sentence I have just imposed. 
OTHER MATTERS 
112	Assuming the principles in Scerri are of application under s6AAA of the Sentencing Act (Vic) 1991, I will indicate the following.  But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 13 years and six months and set a non-parole period of nine years and six months.
- - -