## Facts

- Customs officials searched the M.V. *Gdansk II* when it was in an English port and found three concealed packages containing about three kilograms of heroin.
- The heroin was extremely pure and had an estimated street value of about £600,000.
- Edward Bilinski, a crewmember, initially denied any knowledge of the drugs.
- Investigators found Bilinski’s fingerprints on the sticky underside of tape used to secure the packages.
- Bilinski said he acted as a courier and believed the packages contained cannabis rather than heroin.
- A search of Bilinski’s cabin found a book about heroin taken from the ship’s library, casting doubt on his claimed belief.
- Bilinski said he was to be paid about £3,500 for transporting the drugs from Germany to Australia.
- Bilinski pleaded guilty to importing heroin and provided what assistance he could to the authorities, including giving names of the men who supplied the drugs.
- At sentencing, defence counsel relied on mitigation including the claimed belief it was cannabis, the guilty plea and cooperation, Bilinski’s limited role as courier, and his prior good character.
- The sentencing judge treated Bilinski’s claimed lack of knowledge that the drug was heroin as irrelevant and imposed a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
- Bilinski appealed against sentence.

## Issues

1. In sentencing for importation of heroin, must the court treat an offender’s honest belief that the substance was a less serious drug (such as cannabis) as a factor capable of reducing culpability?
2. Was a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment manifestly excessive for a courier involved in importing about three kilograms of very pure heroin, given the guilty plea, cooperation, and limited payment?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the 12-year term.
- The court accepted that an offender’s state of mind about the type of drug can be a sentencing consideration when it is genuinely held and supported by the evidence.
- On the facts, the sentencing judge was entitled to place little or no weight on Bilinski’s claim that he thought the drug was cannabis, given the surrounding evidence.
- The quantity, purity, and value of the heroin meant the offence fell into a very serious category where long custodial sentences for deterrence are to be expected, including for couriers.

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing for drug importation turns substantially on the amount, purity, and likely distribution value of the drug, because these features indicate the scale of the harm.
- A courier role does not prevent a very severe sentence where the importation involves multi‑kilogram quantities of high‑purity heroin; couriers are an essential part of large trafficking operations.
- An offender’s claimed belief about the nature of the substance may reduce culpability if the court accepts it as honest and plausible on the evidence; the court may reject the claim or treat it as carrying minimal weight where contradicted by surrounding circumstances.
- A guilty plea and assistance to authorities mitigate sentence, but for serious heroin importation they may not move the sentence out of a double‑digit range.

## Conclusion

*R. v. Bilinski* is a sentencing decision confirming that an offender’s belief about the drug type can matter to culpability in importation cases, but that for the importation of roughly three kilograms of very pure heroin, a substantial deterrent sentence may still be justified, and on the evidence the Court of Appeal upheld Bilinski’s 12-year sentence despite his courier status, guilty plea, and cooperation.


R. v. Bilinski, 86 Crim. App. R. 146 (1987)