A sentencing judge cannot draw a 'common sense' inference that a person facilitating people smuggling is involved for profit by analogy with drug importation offences; the question of financial motivation must be determined on the evidence in the particular case. Where an agreed statement of facts is inconsistent with the offender's oral evidence at sentencing, the sentencing judge is entitled to prefer the agreed facts. Where distinct groups of people smuggling offences are committed, some cumulation and differentiation of sentences is ordinarily appropriate rather than full concurrency.
The full text is available to signed-in members.