AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 December 2025

Fuentes v R

[2025] NSWCCA 230

Drugs

Citation: Fuentes v R [2025] NSWCCA 230
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW)
Date: 19 December 2025
Judge(s): Bell CJ, Free JA, McGuire J

Background

The applicant, a US citizen born in Mexico, pleaded guilty to two serious drug offences: possessing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (4.91 kg of pure methamphetamine) contrary to Commonwealth law, and manufacturing not less than the large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (not less than 10.2 kg of methylamphetamine) contrary to NSW law. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The offending involved the applicant travelling from the United States to Sydney and directly participating in the extraction of methamphetamine from cowhide-printed rugs at properties in Rooty Hill and Blacktown. She recorded multiple videos of the process on her phones, apparently to report back to unknown others. After her first stay of nearly three months, she returned to Australia and was arrested.

The District Court sentenced her to an overall effective term of 11 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months, after applying a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. She sought leave to appeal, arguing the sentencing judge had erred in three respects.

  • Ground 1: Did the sentencing judge err in applying sentencing principles to the finding of the applicant's background of childhood deprivation (the Bugmy principles)?
  • Ground 2: Did the sentencing judge err in applying sentencing principles to the findings concerning the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of reoffending, particularly regarding the weight given to specific deterrence?
  • Ground 3: Did the sentencing judge err in treating the applicant's travel to Australia for the purpose of committing the offences as an aggravating feature?

Decision

On Ground 1 (background of deprivation): The Court held that when sentencing an offender with a background of deprivation or disadvantage, the court must consider whether the offender bears the same moral responsibility as a person without that background. If moral culpability is reduced, that reduction must then be weighed alongside the multiple competing purposes of sentencing, including general deterrence. The sentencing judge gave full weight to the applicant's deprived background and considered it in light of all sentencing purposes. No error was established. The Court applied R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi and cited Bugmy, YZ v R, Dungay v R, Munda, and others.

On Ground 2 (rehabilitation and specific deterrence): The Court acknowledged that strong prospects of rehabilitation can mitigate the need for specific deterrence, but emphasised this does not mean specific deterrence must be given no weight at all. The sentencing judge had properly taken the applicant's strong rehabilitation prospects into account and gave specific deterrence reduced (but not zero) significance. The Court distinguished R v Mauger and found no error in the sentencing judge's approach.

On Ground 3 (travel to Australia to offend): The Court held that travelling to Australia for the purpose of committing drug offences is a matter relevant to sentencing, even though it is not a specified aggravating factor under the Commonwealth or NSW sentencing provisions. Those statutory lists of factors are not exhaustive. Applying Olivares v R, the Court found the sentencing judge did not err in treating the applicant's international travel for the purpose of offending as an aggravating feature.

Leave to appeal was granted on all three grounds, but the appeal was dismissed on each.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • A finding of reduced moral culpability due to childhood deprivation under Bugmy principles does not automatically translate into a lower sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the sentencing judge was entitled to weigh that reduced culpability against other sentencing purposes, particularly general deterrence for serious drug offences, and to consider how each sentencing purpose interacts with the deprivation evidence rather than treating moral culpability in isolation.

  • Strong rehabilitation prospects can reduce the weight given to specific deterrence but do not eliminate it entirely. The Court clarified that specific deterrence remains a relevant sentencing consideration even where rehabilitation evidence is compelling, warranting reduced emphasis rather than complete removal as a factor.

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court treated the offender's international travel to Australia specifically to commit drug offences as an aggravating feature, notwithstanding that it is not a listed factor under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) or s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The statutory catalogues of sentencing considerations were confirmed as not being closed.

  • No error was established in the imposition of an overall sentence of 11 years where the offender, a foreign national, was involved in serious drug quantities, had travelled internationally for the purpose of offending, and played a subordinate but active role in a drug enterprise. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the deliberate nature of international travel to offend adds meaningfully to objective seriousness, even where the offender's role falls short of that of a principal organiser.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)
- Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.8(1)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 24(2)

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
- R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi [2010] NSWCCA 244; (2010) 203 A Crim R 398
- YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165
- NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
- Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
- Olivares v R [2016] NSWCCA 270
- R v Omar [2015] NSWCCA 67
- R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
- Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322