REGINA v SPITERI [1999] NSWCCA 3

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal CITATION : REGINA v SPITERI [1999] NSWCCA 3 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60504 of 1997 HEARING DATE(S) : 22 May 1998 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 February 1999

PARTIES : Appellant - Regina Respondent - Michael John SPITERI JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1; Hidden J at 94; Greg James J at 127

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shadbolt DCJ

COUNSEL : Appellant - B Martin QC/R Mayne Respondent - P Byrne SC SOLICITORS : Appellant - Commonwealth DPP Respondent - Arden Associates CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law; Drugs; Importation of Cocaine; 8.3kg; Principal; Sentence Customs Act S233B ACTS CITED : S235 Crimes Act S16G DECISION : By majority appeal dismissed

97

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 60504 of 1997

HULME J HIDDEN J GREG JAMES J

Wednesday, 24 February 1999. REGINA -v- Michael John SPITERI JUDGMENT

1 HULME J : This is an appeal by the Crown, contending that a sentence of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 8 years imposed by Judge Shadbolt on 6 June 1997 was manifestly inadequate. The offence of which the Respondent, before his Honour and a jury, had been found guilty was that on or about 22 April 1996 he imported into Australia narcotic goods, being not less than a commercial quantity of cocaine. The quantity was 11.8kg gross, or 8.347kg pure with an estimated street value of $4.7M.

2 The circumstances of the offence were as follows. The drugs were contained in an over-engineered platform or ramp which was exported from Nicaragua in a container with an open landau or coach. The Respondent dispatched the goods and eventually met them after they had been delivered to premises outside Sydney. The operation required cunning, time and planning, and was "entirely wilful and utterly without mitigation". So far as His Honour could see the Respondent was not driven by need, association or duress. The operation "was done solely for the money; a mere criminal commercial enterprise". If the Respondent was not the sole financier, he was some sort of partner in the enterprise. He showed no contrition.