AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 March 2025

R v Vescio

[2025] NSWDC 68

Drugs
SENTENCING COMMONWEALTH OFFENCE CONTROLLED DRUG COMMERCIAL QUANTITY OF METHAMPHETAMINE IMPRISONMENT STATE OFFENCE

Citation: R v Vescio [2025] NSWDC 68
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 March 2025
Judge(s): Noman SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to ss 11.1(1) and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). He also faced a State offence of possessing a prohibited drug under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The offending occurred on a single day, 22 March 2023.

The drugs in question were concealed inside an industrial magnet weighing over 600 kg, shipped from Mexico in late December 2022. Australian Border Force officers discovered more than 59 kg of methamphetamine at 80.3% purity (approximately 48 kg pure), well above the 750 g commercial quantity threshold. The drugs were replaced with an inert substance before the consignment was delivered as planned, allowing authorities to observe and arrest all four offenders involved.

The offender was one of four people prosecuted in connection with the operation. His three co-offenders had been sentenced separately: two (Jamal and Naboulsi) sentenced in August 2024, and a third (Waters) sentenced in December 2024. The present judgment dealt with this offender's role alone.

  • What sentence was appropriate for the Commonwealth offence of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported methamphetamine, having regard to all relevant factors under s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)?
  • How should the offender's role and culpability be characterised relative to his three co-offenders?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's personal circumstances, including drug addiction, financial motivation, and claims that he acted on instructions from others higher in the supply chain?
  • What sentence should be imposed for the associated State drug possession offence?

Decision

The District Court assessed the offender's role as more serious objectively than that of any co-offender. Over approximately two hours on the day of the offence, he used the encrypted messaging application Signal to direct Jamal and Naboulsi through the collection and transportation of the consignment, provided ongoing (though unsubstantiated) assurances about countersurveillance measures including claimed drones, purchased scales and bags from a supermarket, drove his own vehicle in close proximity to the truck, and directed the group to his grandfather's industrial property in Ingleside.

The court declined to accept, in the absence of direct sworn evidence, the offender's unsworn account (conveyed through letters and reports to a psychologist) that he was acting under verbatim instructions from persons higher in the supply chain. The court also noted that directing the group to his grandfather's property reflected the offender's own initiative rather than mere compliance. The court accepted, however, that others further up the chain were likely involved, and that the offender's motivation was to repay a $40,000 drug debt rather than to profit directly from the drugs' value.

Several subjective factors were considered in mitigation, including the guilty plea, evidence of genuine remorse, a difficult personal history and background, the offender's drug addiction, and his motivation from financial need rather than greed. The court also noted that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending, which was an aggravating factor. A psychological report and character references were taken into account. The court applied the totality principle and had regard to the sentences imposed on co-offenders to avoid any justifiable sense of disparity.

For the State offence, the court issued a conditional release order rather than a further custodial term. For the Commonwealth offence, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, commencing from the date of arrest.

Orders Made

Commonwealth offence (attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug):
- Convicted
- Imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, commencing 22 March 2023
- Eligible for release to parole on 21 September 2025; sentence expires 21 September 2027

State offence (possess prohibited drug):
- Convicted
- Conditional release order for 18 months, with conditions including:
- Must not commit any offence
- Must appear before the court if called upon
- Must abstain from illegal drugs
- Must submit to supervision by Community Corrections
- Must participate in any rehabilitation program or treatment as directed by Community Corrections

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court found that a coordinating role in a drug importation operation, including directing co-offenders, providing live operational guidance, and using the offender's own resources and connections, placed this offender at a higher level of objective seriousness than any of the three co-offenders sentenced for the same operation.

  • Unsworn assertions, advanced only through hearsay accounts to a psychologist and in a letter to the court, that the offender was acting on instructions from those higher in the supply chain, were given no weight in the absence of direct evidence or sworn testimony.

  • Motivation arising from financial need (here, repayment of a drug debt) rather than anticipated profit from the drug supply was treated as a relevant, though not determinative, mitigating consideration.

  • Committing the offence while on conditional liberty was treated as a statutory aggravating factor under the Commonwealth sentencing framework, distinct from the position of co-offenders who were not subject to such conditions.

  • Where multiple co-offenders are sentenced at different times by the same judge, the sentencing court will examine each prior sentence to avoid an unjustifiable sense of grievance from disparate outcomes, even where the objective and subjective circumstances of each offender differ.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.1(1) and 307.5(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(1) and 16A(2) (Part 1B generally)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10(1)

Cases: No specific cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.