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

R v Dabrowski; R v Zielinski

[2025] NSWDC 332

Drugs

Citation: R v Dabrowski; R v Zielinski [2025] NSWDC 332
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 August 2025
Judge: Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

Two Polish nationals travelled to Sydney on tourist visas in February 2024, their sole purpose being to collect a shipment of illicit drugs from a warehouse at Banksmeadow. Law enforcement had already identified the container. Both offenders were arrested on site carrying large shopping bags and drug paraphernalia.

The drugs involved were substantial: 420.6 kilograms of MDMA and 135.87 kilograms of ketamine, both measured by pure weight. Each offender had been recruited in Poland while in severe financial difficulty and offered AUD$20,000 for the pickup role.

Both men pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity in the Local Court on 7 May 2025 and had each spent 542 days on remand by the time of sentencing. The charge was attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully imported, contrary to the Criminal Code (Cth), carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the offending, given the offenders' limited courier role and the very large quantity of drugs involved?
  • What weight should general and specific deterrence carry, particularly where foreign nationals travel to Australia specifically to commit serious drug offences?
  • How should subjective matters (difficult upbringings, mental health, alcohol issues, financial hardship, family impact, and the harshness of foreign custody) affect the sentence?
  • Was an identical sentence for both offenders appropriate, having regard to parity principles?
  • What discount applied for an early guilty plea to a Commonwealth offence?

Decision

Objective seriousness. Newlinds SC DCJ placed the offending towards the bottom of the range for this type of offence. The offenders played a purely menial role: they had no involvement in the importation itself, no contact with the principals, no expertise, and were entirely dispensable. The Court characterised them as couriers or "dispensable minnows" on the very bottom rung of the criminal hierarchy. Although the drug quantities were very large, the Court accepted that the offenders did not know the precise quantities involved, and noted that quantity, while relevant, is not the controlling factor in assessing seriousness. Some weight was given to the tenuous causal connection between each offender's mental health difficulties and the offending, which modestly reduced their moral culpability.

Deterrence. General deterrence was treated as a prime consideration. The Court emphasised that stern punishment is warranted in virtually all drug importation cases because of detection difficulties and the serious social harm caused by illicit drugs entering Australia. Newlinds SC DCJ made a specific finding directed at people in other countries: those tempted to travel to Australia for the purpose of committing serious crimes should understand clearly that they face substantial imprisonment in a foreign country, far from family and support networks.

Subjective factors. Both offenders had no relevant criminal history, cooperated with police from arrest, and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The Court acknowledged their abusive upbringings in Poland, mental health diagnoses, alcohol difficulties, financial desperation, and the particular harshness of serving a sentence in a foreign country without English language skills. The impact on their families in Poland was also noted with sympathy. These matters were weighed in each offender's favour, though the Court was careful not to overstate the link between those personal circumstances and the decision to offend.

Parity. There was no relevant difference between the two offenders' objective or subjective cases. The Court imposed identical sentences on both, consistent with the parity principle. A 25% discount was applied for the early guilty plea, reducing a starting point of 8 years to a head sentence of 6 years. The non-parole period was set at 3 years and 6 months, slightly below the 75% threshold ordinarily applied in New South Wales, which the Court used as a yardstick even though the standard non-parole period regime does not apply to Commonwealth offences.

Orders Made

Both offenders received identical sentences:

  • Head sentence: 6 years imprisonment, commencing 27 February 2024 and expiring 26 February 2030.
  • Non-parole period: 3 years and 6 months, commencing 27 February 2024 and expiring 26 August 2027.
  • First eligible parole date: 26 August 2027.

Key Takeaways

  • A courier or pickup role at the very bottom of a drug importation hierarchy, with no involvement in importation, distribution, or principal communications, places offending towards the lower end of objective seriousness even where the drug quantities are very large.

  • General deterrence carries particular weight where foreign nationals travel to Australia for the express purpose of committing serious drug offences. The District Court articulated this expressly as a message to persons in other countries who might be tempted by financial offers to participate in Australian drug operations.

  • Under the Criminal Code (Cth), drug quantity is a relevant and sometimes significant sentencing factor, but it is not determinative of objective seriousness. The offender's role, knowledge, and level of participation remain important considerations.

  • A 25% discount for an early guilty plea to a Commonwealth drug offence was applied consistently with New South Wales sentencing practice, and the NSW non-parole period framework was used as a sentencing yardstick even though it does not apply directly to Commonwealth offences.

  • Where two offenders share materially identical objective and subjective circumstances, the parity principle supports the imposition of the same sentence. No difference in the personal histories or roles of the two offenders here warranted any divergence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 17A
- Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.1(1), 307.8(1), 311.1(1)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
- R v Kassir [2020] NSWCCA 88
- R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106