AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 22 April 2025

R v Naserabadi

[2025] NSWDC 261

Drugs
CRIME SENTENCE 4.618KG PURE METHAMPHETAMINE FOREIGN NATIONAL GOOD PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION.

Citation: R v Naserabadi [2025] NSWDC 261
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 April 2025
Judge(s): Neilson DCJ

Background

The offender, a 45-year-old British citizen, arrived at Sydney International Airport on 23 September 2023 on a flight from London via Singapore. She was travelling with her two young children, aged ten and seven. Australian Border Force officers selected her checked luggage for examination and discovered white crystalline substance concealed beneath the lining and within the frames of two suitcases.

Forensic analysis confirmed the substance was methamphetamine at 80.3% purity, with a total pure weight of 4.618 kilograms. That quantity was more than six times the commercial threshold of 0.75 kilograms. The offender had told Border Force officers she was visiting Sydney on a nine-day holiday and was unaware of any prohibited goods in her luggage.

Examination of her mobile phone revealed messages sent to her husband at the time of arrival and arrest that the court considered significant. The offender pleaded guilty at the Downing Centre Local Court on 18 December 2024. The matter then proceeded to sentence in the District Court.

  • What was the appropriate starting point for sentence given the quantity and purity of methamphetamine imported?
  • What weight should be given to subjective evidence (including accounts provided to a psychologist) where the offender elected not to give evidence and material discrepancies remained unexplained?
  • What effect, if any, should the impact on the offender's children and family have on the sentence?
  • What was the appropriate non-parole period in a Commonwealth sentencing matter where no statutory minimum fraction applies?

Decision

Guilty plea and objective seriousness. His Honour recorded a conviction on the charge under s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The quantity imported, 4.618 kilograms of pure methamphetamine, represented a very serious example of this class of offending. The court set a starting point of seven years and six months' imprisonment before applying a 25% reduction for the guilty plea, arriving at a head sentence of five years and seven months.

Unexplained subjective evidence. The offender elected not to give evidence, despite the court expressly drawing counsel's attention to discrepancies in the material before it. His Honour applied the principle, affirmed in a line of Court of Criminal Appeal authorities, that untested out-of-court statements made to third parties, such as accounts provided to a psychologist, must be treated with caution and given reduced weight. The court drew inferences adverse to the offender where discrepancies remained unexplained.

Family and dependants. His Honour acknowledged that the impact of imprisonment on the offender's children was a relevant consideration under s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The court noted, however, that the offender had chosen to travel to Australia with her children while carrying a large commercial quantity of drugs, and that this circumstance could not operate to significantly moderate the sentence. The court also declined to treat the potential consequences of deportation as a materially mitigating factor, noting that the prohibition on illicit drugs is near-universal.

Non-parole period and rehabilitation. Because Commonwealth sentencing law contains no equivalent to the State statutory minimum of one-quarter of the head sentence, the non-parole period was assessed at large. His Honour considered the offender's prospects of rehabilitation to be good, noting that the experience of arrest, custody, and a conviction she would carry for life provided meaningful grounds for that assessment. The court fixed a non-parole period of three years and nine months.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
  • Sentenced to imprisonment for five years and seven months, commencing 23 September 2023 and expiring 22 April 2029.
  • Ordered to be released on parole on 22 June 2027 (after serving a non-parole period of three years and nine months).

Key Takeaways

  • Where an offender elects not to give evidence at a sentencing hearing, the District Court will draw adverse inferences from unexplained discrepancies in subjective material and treat unverified accounts provided to third parties, such as psychologists, with significant caution.
  • A starting point of seven years and six months was adopted for importing 4.618 kilograms of pure methamphetamine, more than six times the commercial quantity, before a 25% discount for a guilty plea reduced the head sentence to five years and seven months.
  • The impact of imprisonment on dependent children is a relevant sentencing factor under s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), but it carries reduced weight where the offender chose to travel internationally with those children while committing the offence.
  • Under Commonwealth sentencing law, the non-parole period is not constrained by a statutory minimum fraction and is assessed at large, giving the sentencing court flexibility to tailor the period based on rehabilitation prospects and other statutory criteria.
  • Good prospects of rehabilitation can be established on the basis that the experience of arrest, custody, and a lifelong conviction record are likely to deter future offending, even where detailed subjective evidence has not been tested in court.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Code (Cth) s 307.1(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(2) (including paragraphs (m), (ma), and (p))

Cases
- Kemal v R [2022] NSWCCA 83
- R v Abbas [2023] NSWDC 644
- R v Abbas [2024] NSWCCA 228
- R v Agboti [2014] QCA 280
- Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75
- Zaugg v R [2020] NSWCCA 53