A genuinely conscious web developer, Jeremy Hammond is accused of using his computer savvy to attack conservative groups and State operators. He is being charged with providing Wikileaks the documents for their latest Stratfor release.
Charges relating to the importation of border-controlled drugs into Australia are among the most serious in the Australian criminal system. They are prosecuted under Commonwealth law by the CDPP following investigation by the AFP, often with cooperation from international agencies, and they can attract the highest penalties available under Australian federal criminal legislation.
This is general information only and not legal advice for any specific matter.
Commonwealth drug importation offences are set out in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offences cover importing or exporting border-controlled drugs, possessing border-controlled drugs reasonably suspected of having been imported, and dealing with the proceeds of importation. The charges are graded by quantity: commercial quantity, marketable quantity, and trafficable quantity, with the most serious charge applying to commercial quantities. Importation includes bringing a substance across the Australian border, and extends to attempts and to conduct preparatory to importation in some circumstances.
Commonwealth importation offences are prosecuted under federal law with significantly higher maximum penalties than equivalent state trafficking charges. The investigating agency is the AFP rather than state police. The CDPP prosecutes rather than the state DPP. Asset restraint under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) applies. The federal bail framework and sentencing regime differ from state equivalents. Both Commonwealth and state charges can apply to the same conduct in some circumstances, though the Commonwealth charge is typically given precedence.
The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) provides for the highest penalties in the Australian criminal system for commercial quantity importation, including the possibility of life imprisonment at the statutory maximum. Marketable quantity importation carries a significant maximum. The actual sentence in any matter depends on the quantity, the substance, the role of the accused, and the presence or absence of cooperation. Sentences in importation matters are typically more severe than for equivalent-quantity state trafficking offences.
Investigations are led by the AFP, often with the involvement of the Australian Border Force, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and foreign law enforcement agencies. Common investigative methods include interception of parcels and containers at the border, controlled deliveries to the intended recipient, telecommunications interception, physical and electronic surveillance, and forensic analysis of seized drugs and packaging. Cooperation with overseas agencies is standard in matters involving international supply networks.
When a parcel, container, or person is intercepted by the Australian Border Force, forensic analysis of the substance follows. The AFP may conduct a controlled delivery to the intended recipient to establish a link between the substance and the recipient. Arrest may occur at the point of delivery rather than at the border. Search warrants on homes, vehicles, and business premises are executed as standard practice following interception. Electronic devices are seized and examined forensically.
Obtain legal representation before making any decision about an AFP interview. The right to silence applies. AFP interviews in importation matters typically occur after the agency has assembled significant evidence, and the purpose of the interview is often to test explanations or confirm elements of the charge. The decision whether to participate should be made on specific legal advice having regard to the evidence already in the AFP's possession.
Bail in Commonwealth importation matters heard in Victoria is governed by the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), with federal provisions also relevant. For commercial quantity importation the bail test is more demanding. Conditions commonly imposed include reporting, residence, surrender of passport, and restrictions on contact with co-accused. The bail hearing requires specific preparation, particularly where the charge is at the commercial or marketable quantity level.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) allows the AFP and CDPP to apply for restraint orders before any charge is laid, immediately freezing bank accounts, property, vehicles, and other assets. Unexplained wealth orders may also apply in some circumstances. The asset proceeding runs alongside the criminal matter and can move on a faster timeline. Exclusion applications and access to restrained funds for legal costs and living expenses each require specific legal steps.
Visa holders and permanent residents convicted of a serious drug importation offence face character cancellation considerations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Sentence length is a key trigger, with sentences reaching a certain threshold activating specific cancellation provisions. The migration consequences need to be considered alongside the criminal defence from the outset, and in some cases with separate migration law advice.
Large-quantity importation matters often attract media attention from the time of arrest. Court proceedings are generally public. Suppression orders are limited and do not provide automatic protection. Active legal management is required where privacy is a concern.
Common defences include lack of knowledge of the nature of what was imported, lack of possession or control, challenges to the chain of custody of the seized substance, challenges to the lawfulness of telecommunications interception or controlled operation authorisations, and challenges to identification evidence. Knowledge is the most frequently contested element, particularly in parcel interception matters where the recipient denies awareness of the contents. The legal framework governing controlled operations and telecommunications interception evidence is technical, and challenges to compliance are a standard feature of serious defence work in this category.
Commonwealth importation matters typically take a year or more from charge through to resolution. Multi-accused matters and those involving international cooperation take considerably longer. The volume of evidence, the time required for forensic analysis, coordination with overseas agencies, and the listing practices of the higher courts all affect the timeline.
Pleading guilty involves accepting the charge and proceeding to sentence, typically with a sentencing discount for early pleas, which can be meaningful given the severity of the potential sentences in this category. Contesting the charge requires the prosecution to prove every element beyond reasonable doubt. In importation matters the decision often turns on the strength of the knowledge evidence, the reliability of identification, and the lawfulness of the investigative methods used to gather the evidence.
Commonwealth drug importation is a specialised area of federal criminal practice. The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) framework, AFP and CDPP practice, telecommunications interception and controlled operation evidence, asset restraint under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), and migration consequences each require specific familiarity. Practitioners with experience specifically in Commonwealth federal criminal matters and in the technical evidentiary issues that arise in importation defences are the relevant referral.
Immediately on arrest or notification of the investigation, and before any AFP interview. Decisions about interview participation, asset preservation, and early bail strategy all arise in the first days and each shapes what follows in a long-running matter.
Selection of counsel in Commonwealth drug importation matters depends on the nature of the charge, the agency involved, the stage of proceedings, and the specific circumstances of the matter. Among Melbourne criminal defence firms, Doogue + George is one of the best practices right now with senior practitioners experienced in this category of work. Early engagement of senior counsel materially affects outcomes, particularly where decisions made before charge shape what options remain available later. So, make sure you get in touch with them right away!
Please comment and share with your friends!