STATE OF TASMANIA v CANDICE TAPATUETOA and MEAFOU LEON SIPILI 27 APRIL 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Candice Tapatuetoa and Meafou Sipili, you plead guilty to dealing in proceeds of crime and trafficking in a controlled substance. You are both originally from New Zealand and have been together for 16 years. You moved to Queensland in about 2016. In early 2021 you were recruited as couriers by high level drug traffickers. The trafficking became the subject of an investigation called Operation Carnegie conducted by Tasmania Police, with the assistance of the Australian Federal Police. The primary focus of the investigation was a woman in Queensland to whom I will refer as Ms B. It was through Mr Sipili’s acquaintance with Ms B that your involvement began. At first, the association was innocent. Mr Sipili met Ms B through his brother and worked for her performing home and garden maintenance. In around 2019, you began to experience financial difficulties as a combined result of the effect of the pandemic on your business, and your mutual fondness for gambling. In or leading up to January 2021, Ms B, having become aware of your situation, extended what you thought was generosity. She lent you about $3,000 and offered to pay for a holiday to Tasmania. You drove a Mazda utility registered to Mr Sipili from Queensland to Hobart, crossing Bass Strait on the Spirit of Tasmania on 16 January 2021. Ms B was already in Hobart and you met her at the apartments she had booked for you. When you left Tasmania about a week later you took with you two tubs which at her request you delivered to her home in Queensland. Those tubs contained the cash proceeds of drug sales made by Ms B in Tasmania. The transport of those tubs does not form part of the criminal conduct with which you are charged because the State accepts that you did not know what the contents were. However, that journey established the context for what then followed.
Two weeks later you drove to Tasmania again, this time in a car belonging to a family member. You travelled on the Spirit of Tasmania on 7 February 2021 and stayed in the same apartments in Hobart. You departed for Queensland in the same car about 10 days later. This time you knowingly took with you about $250,000 in cash which you again delivered to Ms B’s home in Queensland. You knew that the cash was the proceeds of crime. You did not yet know that the money was from drug trafficking, but it would have been obvious to any reasonable person that it was a substantial possibility, and the amount involved suggested serious criminality. Your involvement was not limited to the transport of the cash. The investigation revealed photos of you at the Hobart apartment with Ms B, counting and packaging the cash. Your dealing with that cash is the basis of the first count on the indictment, dealing with the proceeds of crime.
You made two further trips to Tasmania in 2021 which form the basis of the trafficking charge. The first was at the beginning of April and the second towards the end of May. On 2 April you travelled on the Spirit having driven from Queensland. By this time the police were covertly observing your movements. Your vehicle was searched while it was on board. The police found five cryovac bags containing a total of 1.99 kilograms of crystalline methylamphetamine. There was other drug paraphernalia including a cryovac machine, cryovac bag refills, a tub of petroleum jelly, snap lock bags, disposable gloves, pens and rubber bands. To preserve the integrity of the investigation the items were photographed but not seized. After your arrival in Tasmania, listening and tracking devices recorded you as having conducted drug sales for cash from your accommodation at a town near Hobart, while communicating with Ms B by means of an encrypted phone application. During the course of those communications there was mention of a Tasmanian man, who I will call TF, who was referred to as “the boss”, implying that he was another principal of the drug trafficking operation. You left Tasmania on the Spirit on 9 April 2021. On the vessel your vehicle was searched again. During this search the police found 13 cryovac bags containing a total of $594,000, mostly in $50,000 lots. Once more, to protect the integrity of the investigation, the money was not seized. You subsequently delivered $75,000 to an address in an industrial estate in Melbourne. The recipient of that money is not stated. You then delivered the rest of the money to Ms B, either when you met her in Sydney, or in Queensland. The terms of phone messages which were later examined suggest that the balance of the money was to be divided between Ms B and TF.
The next trip occurred in May 2021. A vehicle being driven by Mr Sipili in which Ms Tapatuetoa was the only passenger was intercepted as a result of drug detector dog screening as it left the Spirit on 22 May. The vehicle was searched. Four packages of drugs were found. The drugs had been given to you by Ms B in Queensland already packaged so as to attempt to prevent detection. They were inside cryovac bags, other additional bags, petroleum jelly and covered by multiple layers of tape but you knew what was inside. Three bags contained cocaine, 642 grams in all. The other contained 18 smaller bags each containing about 1 gram of ketamine except for one which contained about 2 grams. As well as the drugs, you were carrying other paraphernalia including disposable gloves, petroleum jelly, clear film, duct tape, a cryovac machine, electronic scales, a diary and mobile phones, including an encrypted phone. You were arrested and you have been in custody ever since.
Methylamphetamine is commonly sold in quantities varying between 0.1 grams, called a point, worth $100, to an ounce worth around $9,000. The 1.99 kilograms of methylamphetamine you brought to Tasmania in April was therefore worth, depending on the how it was sold, between $639,000 and almost $2m. Cocaine is sold in equivalent quantities. A point usually sells for $50, and an ounce for between $7,000 and $9,000. The 642 grams of cocaine you had with you on 22 May was worth somewhere between $160,000 and $320,000. Ketamine is commonly sold for between $50 and $360 per gram. The amount you had with you was worth between about $1,000 and $6,500.
As to your personal circumstances, I will address Mr Sipili first. You are now aged 43. You have no prior convictions of any nature and, until your involvement in this matter, you led an apparently law abiding and industrious life. You were born in New Zealand into a large family of Samoan heritage. I have been given numerous references from family members and acquaintances which attest to the high regard in which you have been held, your industriousness and willingness to help others in your family and in the community. When your relationship with Ms Tapatuetoa began you assumed a parental role for her four children. The youngest was then a baby. They are now aged between 15 and 20. The State does not dispute that you were incrementally drawn into Ms B’s criminal activities. Your involvement was not as a result of use of or addiction to drugs. Initially, it was the financial hardship caused by the pandemic exacerbated by gambling which made you vulnerable for exploitation. The gambling problem explains your initial involvement, but is not mitigating. Your participation in early February 2021 in the transport of money which you knew to be the proceeds of crime was in return for payment. How much that payment was does not clearly emerge from the facts I have been given, but it was likely thousands of dollars. You knowingly agreed to participate for financial reward. Having engaged in that way, Ms B then threatened that you or your family may be harmed by people associated with her if you stepped away. The threats were used to secure your ongoing compliance and continued participation as a courier. Nevertheless, you were paid somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 for the journey in April 2021 and associated activities and a further $5,000, for the journey in May. The very active nature of your participation, particularly in April, does not have the flavour of being motivated solely by fear. Following your arrest both you and Ms Tapatuetoa made phone calls to Ms B. You are to be sentenced on the basis that on each occasion of criminal conduct you were acting on the instructions of Ms B, that you were not a principal in the trafficking operation, and that you were paid a fixed sum rather than being entitled to a proportion of the profits of the business. I would also sentence you on the basis that the drug deliveries you made were not in the nature of retail sales, but to persons likely to further distribute the drugs within the community.
Ms Tapatuetoa, you are now aged 38. Like Mr Sipili you have no prior convictions and until this enterprise you led a blameless life. Your involvement came about through Mr Sipili’s involvement. You believed that the trip to Tasmania in January was a genuine holiday and did not realise until later that it was part of the set up. However you shared the knowledge that the money you carried in February was proceeds of crime. You benefitted from the payments to which I have already referred, but your continued participation was secured by the same threats to you and your children to which I have also already referred. You were told by Ms B that the “big boss” knew where you lived and you were genuinely fearful of the consequences if you did not agree. You had less detailed knowledge of the type and amount of drugs but you knew it was a very significant quantity.
You moved to Queensland with Mr Sipili and your children in 2016 in search of an improved life. Your youngest children are still in school. You have been in custody since your arrest and they now live with your sister. I also have references from your family and acquaintances attesting that you are otherwise hardworking, caring and generous, and that your life has been strongly motivated by a desire to do the best for your children. You have worked both as an employee and in your own business as a beautician. When that business became impossible as a result of the pandemic you also turned to gambling on poker machines, thereby adding to the difficulties you and Mr Sipili experienced and to the financial motivation which prompted your initial involvement.
You both correctly recognise that a substantial term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence for criminal conduct of this nature. Imprisonment is difficult at the moment by reason of the pandemic. Your imprisonment will no doubt be difficult for your family but that is part of the price to be paid for serious crime. You face the risk of deportation on your release, but that is also the result of your criminal conduct.
As has been pointed out on many occasions by courts in this State and elsewhere, those who participate in drug trafficking should expect harsh punishment. Abuse of illicit drugs, methylamphetamine being a particularly concerning example, causes terrible harm in the community. Drug abuse is extremely harmful to the health of users. The use of and trade in drugs generates a great deal of other criminal activity, including dishonesty and violence. Couriers play a vital role in the drug trade and must be punished accordingly. The ability of high level drug dealers to make substantial profits depends upon the availability of couriers prepared to take the risks involved in return for the associated benefit. There is a clear need for courts to impose sentences which will, as far as can be achieved, operate to effectively discourage others to agree to act as couriers and to resist the temptation of the financial or other rewards which might be offered to them. I take into account that your participation was partly secured by threat. That is relevant to the level of your criminality, but it was your duty to respond in other ways by notifying the authorities.
The quantities of drugs and cash involved in your case are very significant. There were three separate occasions of criminal conduct.
It is in your favour that you have pleaded guilty. It is apparent from what I have said in these comments that there was already very strong evidence of your involvement. However the pleas of guilty indicate some remorse, assumption of responsibility for your criminal conduct and a willingness to facilitate justice. Although, when first arrested, both of you declined to be interviewed, you subsequently approached the police and made detailed admissions and disclosures. Mr Sipili, you claim that you realised the opportunity to break from the control of Ms B and those associated with her and to protect the safety of your family. Ms Tapatuetoa, you also gave the authorities details of attempts made by Ms B to enlist other women to her trafficking enterprise.
You have both indicated a willingness to co-operate with the authorities by giving evidence in proceedings against others involved in the trafficking operation, Ms B in particular. She has been charged with crimes in Tasmania. I am informed that the identity of TF has been established but there are currently no proceedings against him. It is the policy of the criminal law to allow discounts in sentence in return for co-operation with the police and for giving evidence in relation to co-offenders. It encourages guilty persons to disclose and provide evidence to the police with the aim of bringing other offenders to justice. That is particularly so in the case of high level drug traffickers where evidence of involvement is otherwise often difficult to obtain. The State is not able to explain whether the evidence will be required or, if it is, how valuable it will be, but it seems to me that it must be of potential value. Perhaps your evidence will not be required. No doubt there is other evidence. But even if Ms B pleads guilty it may be that information already given contributed to that outcome. By expressing a willingness to give evidence you may expose yourself and your family to danger. I am informed that some threats have already been made, even while you are in prison. It may make prison more difficult for you. If you fail to co-operate as you have promised, then the sentence may be reviewed and increased on appeal. For that reason I should specify the discount. This case warrants a discount of something around 20% in the sentence which would otherwise be imposed.
As between the two of you I regard the culpability of Mr Sipili as marginally greater.
An issue of parity arises. You were not the only couriers recruited by Ms B. One of the others, Kylie Durban, was sentenced by Porter AJ on 17 December 2021 to imprisonment for two years and ten months with eligibility for parole after having served half of that sentence. She pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking and one count of dealing with proceeds of crime. With another woman she made one trip to Tasmania for which she was to be paid $20,000. She bought drugs to Tasmania. While here she engaged with Ms B and became involved in drug drop offs, money collections and money packaging. She was observed on surveillance with Ms B involved in conversations about drugs and counting cash and intercepted in Tasmania on the way back to the Spirit with cryovac bags containing a total of more than $760,000 and almost 1.3 kilograms of methylamphetamine. She had a criminal record but not for drug offences. She was also motivated by financial hardship and not addiction. She also pleaded guilty and made a promise to co-operate with the authorities including by giving evidence. The obvious point of disparity is that her sentence was imposed for a single trip, which was of a similar nature to that in which you participated in April 2021, but her crimes were less extensive than yours. You are to be sentenced for repeated offending.
Pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act, s 36B, I assess the reasonable expense of and attending the analysis or examination of the controlled substance as $7,473 and award that sum against you as part of the costs of the prosecutor. I may only permit 28 days to pay.
Meafou Sipili, you are convicted on both counts on the indictment. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for four years and seven months from 22 May 2021. But for the promise to co-operate with the authorities and give evidence I would have imposed a sentence of five years and nine months. I order that you not be eligible for parole until having served half of the term just imposed.
Candice Tapatuetoa, you are convicted on both counts on the indictment and sentenced to imprisonment for four years from 22 May 2021. But for the promise to co-operate with the authorities and give evidence I would have imposed a term of five years. I order that you not be eligible for parole until having served half of the term just imposed.