AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 15 September 2025

R (Cth) v Sayyaketh

[2025] NSWDC 555

Drugs
CRIME SENTENCE PRIOR GOOD CHARACTER LAOTIAN NATIONAL 10% DISCOUNT FOR LATE PLEA OF GUILTY

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 555
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 September 2025
Judge(s): Neilson DCJ

Background

The offender, a Laotian national residing in Australia, pleaded guilty to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence by a co-offender (Tonh Vongphachanh), who attempted to possess a commercial quantity of heroin that had been unlawfully imported. The heroin, concealed in table runners within a consignment from Thailand, totalled approximately 2.82 kilograms (pure quantity of 2.1 kilograms, well above the 1.5 kilogram commercial threshold).

The offender's role was limited but deliberate: between 23 February and 3 March 2023, she used a mobile phone to access Australia Post's tracking system on at least 21 occasions and relayed delivery status updates to the co-offender (and possibly to a third party, "Phommixay," who appeared to be a principal and who fled to Thailand after the co-offender's arrest). The Australian Federal Police had intercepted the consignment, replaced the heroin, and conducted a controlled delivery. The co-offender was arrested upon collecting the package.

The offender was arrested on 31 May 2023 and spent 27 days in custody before being granted bail. She initially pleaded not guilty but changed her plea on 23 June 2025, the day her trial was scheduled to commence.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for aiding and abetting an attempt to possess a commercial quantity of heroin (sections 11.1(1) and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)), given the offender's limited but knowing role?
  • What discount, if any, should the offender receive for her late guilty plea?
  • How should the court weigh the offender's prior good character, personal circumstances (including her background as a Laotian national), and the absence of any profit motive?
  • What role did the offender's mental state (recklessness as to the nature and quantity of the drug, rather than knowledge) play in assessing moral culpability?
  • What was the appropriate comparison with the sentence imposed on the co-offender, who had a more culpable role?

Decision

Neilson DCJ found the offender's role was subordinate to that of both the co-offender and the absent principal, Phommixay. The Crown accepted the offender did not know the specific nature or quantity of the drug. Rather, she was reckless as to whether the consignment contained a border-controlled substance. The Court acknowledged that while tracking a parcel is something almost anyone could do, someone had to perform that function and the offender chose to do so repeatedly (21 times) over several days.

The Court gave weight to the offender's prior good character. She had no criminal history, had come to Australia from Laos in 2017, worked consistently, and appeared to have become involved through a longstanding friendship with Phommixay. A psychologist's report detailed her background, including growing up in poverty in Laos, and her distress at having been held in custody. There was no evidence she received any financial benefit.

The late guilty plea was acknowledged but attracted only a modest discount of 10%, reflecting its timing on the day of trial. The Court applied the sentencing principles under section 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), weighing general and specific deterrence, the need for denunciation of drug importation offences, and the offender's personal circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation.

Drawing a comparison with the sentence imposed on the co-offender in R (Cth) v Vongphachanh [2024] NSWDC 431, the Court fashioned a sentence that reflected the offender's materially lower culpability. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. While the judgment text provided is truncated before the final sentence is pronounced, the sentencing remarks indicate the Court was inclined toward a sentence significantly below that of the co-offender, recognising the offender's auxiliary role, her recklessness (rather than knowledge), and her otherwise unblemished character.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted following her guilty plea.
  • Credit was given for 27 days of pre-sentence custody.
  • A 10% discount was applied for the utilitarian value of the late guilty plea.
  • The precise term of imprisonment and non-parole period are not available from the truncated text, but the sentencing remarks strongly indicate a custodial sentence was imposed, moderated by the factors outlined above.

Key Takeaways

  • A seemingly minor logistical role, in this case tracking a parcel online 21 times over several days, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting an attempt to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, with the maximum penalty of life imprisonment applying regardless of the secondary nature of the participation.

  • Under section 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the offender received only a 10% discount for a guilty plea entered on the day of trial. The District Court confirmed that the lateness of the plea substantially limited the discount available, and that earlier engagement with the plea process would have yielded a greater reduction.

  • Recklessness as to the nature of the substance, rather than actual knowledge, was accepted as the offender's mental state. The Court treated this distinction as relevant to moral culpability, and it had a meaningful effect on the sentencing outcome, though it did not eliminate culpability for the offence.

  • In assessing proportionality, Neilson DCJ explicitly referenced the co-offender's sentence in Vongphachanh, confirming that parity principles applied in this multi-party drug importation matter and that the relative roles and circumstances of co-offenders were relevant to achieving a just outcome.

  • Genuine weight was given to the offender's personal background, including her upbringing in poverty in Laos, her migration experience, her consistent employment history, and her absence of prior offending. A psychological report detailing these circumstances was treated as materially relevant to the sentencing assessment, even given the seriousness of the offence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), sections 16A(2) and 17A
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), sections 11.1(1) and 307.5(1)

Cases:
- R (Cth) v Vongphachanh [2024] NSWDC 431