Our client was one of four people charged over the importation of 400kg of methamphetamine, an offence carrying life imprisonment, and was acquitted by a jury on all charges.
Result at a glance
- Charge: Importation of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (methamphetamine), Division 307 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
- Quantity: 400kg of methylamphetamine concealed in 768 bottles of hot sauce, shipped by freight from the United States to Sydney. Estimated street value over $300 million.
- Bail: Supreme Court bail granted with surety under $10,000.
- Court: Sydney District Court of New South Wales.
- Trial: Weeks-long jury trial, 2021.
- Outcome: Not guilty. Jury acquittal on all charges.
The charge
In October 2019, Australian Border Force officers intercepted a freight shipment from the United States containing 768 bottles of hot sauce. Inside the bottles was 400kg of methylamphetamine. Four people were arrested, and our client was one of them. The charge was importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug under Division 307 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
The exposure
The commercial quantity threshold for methamphetamine as a border-controlled drug is 750 grams. This shipment was more than 500 times that threshold. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. A charge at this scale, with this quantity and this level of alleged organisation, sat at the most serious end of Commonwealth drug law.
The prosecution case
The case was a joint operation between NSW Police and the Australian Border Force. The drugs were alleged to be destined for a clandestine laboratory in Sydney for extraction, and those arrested were described as members of a network. The quantity, the concealment method, the international logistics and the alleged network structure were assembled to show organised, large-scale importation. The prosecution does not need to prove a person physically carried the drugs across the border; it needs to prove the person was knowingly concerned in the importation. With 400kg and multiple co-accused, the Crown had a clear theory about who was involved and how. Acquittals in importation cases at this scale are rare.
What we argued
Before any trial strategy, our client needed to be out of custody. Drug importation is a show-cause offence under s16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW): the accused must show why detention is not justified, and for a charge of this magnitude bail is routinely refused. When other courts will not grant bail, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the application. We applied to the Supreme Court and secured bail with a surety of under $10,000, where importation cases at this level commonly see surety demands of $500,000 or more. That allowed our client to prepare for trial from the community, with full access to lawyers and documents.
At trial, the critical element was knowledge and involvement. The drugs existed and they crossed the border. The question for the jury was whether the prosecution had proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that our client was knowingly concerned in the importation. In a multi-accused case the Crown presents a mass of evidence: phone records, surveillance, freight documentation, forensic analysis and co-accused connections. The defence has to test every link the prosecution draws to our client specifically, because the prosecution bears the burden of proving each element to the criminal standard.
The result
The trial ran for weeks in the Sydney District Court in 2021. After the evidence, cross-examination and legal argument, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges. A jury acquittal means the prosecution failed to prove its case to the required standard: twelve members of the community heard the evidence and were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. In importation cases at this scale, that outcome is exceptionally uncommon.
Why the result mattered
Two things shaped the case. Supreme Court bail meant the defence was prepared from the community over the years before trial, not from a cell. And at trial the case turned on the element the prosecution has to prove in every importation matter: that this particular accused was knowingly concerned in the importation. Testing that link, rather than the existence of the drugs, was the focus of the defence.
What this case shows
In large importation cases, the existence of the drugs is rarely in dispute. The contest is over knowledge and involvement, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt for each accused. Bail is also a live issue: a show-cause charge does not make bail impossible, and the Supreme Court can grant it where lower courts will not. The way we defend importation and bail matters is set out on our drug charges and bail applications pages.
Facing drug importation or serious drug charges?
Importation cases move quickly after arrest, but the trial can take years to reach court, and what happens in between matters: bail, evidence review, forensic analysis and defence preparation all start early. If you or someone close to you has been charged with drug importation, supply, or any serious drug offence under Commonwealth or NSW law, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and NSW.
This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.
Charged? Find out where you stand
Confidential. No obligation. Same day response.
