SIEV 125 was an Indonesian vessel that was intercepted by Australian authorities on 2 April 2010 near Ashmore Reef. The vessel was carrying four Indonesian crew and 78 smuggled migrants of Afghan background, who came to Australia to seek asylum. Three crew members were later charged and convicted for their involvement in this venture. The fourth person was a juvenile who was returned to Indonesia.
The captain of SIEV 125 was offered IDR 15 million for his role in this venture. The two crew members were to receive IDR 13 and 12 million respectively.
Australia
IndonesiaSupreme Court of the Northern Territory
All three accused pleaded guilty to chargers relating to migrant smuggling. They were sentenced on 18 January 2011.
Mr Pot was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment.
In sentencing the accused, Riley CJ noted that they had cooperated with the authorities and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He also remarked that 'the actions of the offenders were not covert. They were transporting the non-citizens to Australia for presentation to Australian authorities. There was no attempt to hide from the authorities or disguise what they had done.' While the accused were 'employees' of other, principal organisers, their role was vital to the success of migrant smuggling. Chief Justice Riley also emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
Yusak Wetangky was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
In sentencing the accused, Riley CJ noted that they had cooperated with the authorities and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He also remarked that 'the actions of the offenders were not covert. They were transporting the non-citizens to Australia for presentation to Australian authorities. There was no attempt to hide from the authorities or disguise what they had done.' While the accused were 'employees' of other, principal organisers, their role was vital to the success of migrant smuggling. Chief Justice Riley also emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. In the case of Mr Wetangky, Riley CJ also took into account the need for personal deterrence given that he had been convicted for similar offences twice before.
Mr Lande was sentenced to 65 months imprisonment.
In sentencing the accused, Riley CJ noted that they had cooperated with the authorities and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He also remarked that 'the actions of the offenders were not covert. They were transporting the non-citizens to Australia for presentation to Australian authorities. There was no attempt to hide from the authorities or disguise what they had done.' While the accused were 'employees' of other, principal organisers, their role was vital to the success of migrant smuggling. Chief Justice Riley also emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
The sentences for the offences under the Migration Act and the Crimes Act were to be served concurrently.
The smuggled migrants were transferred to Christmas Island and placed in immigration detention.
Mr Pot was married and had a child from a previous relationship when he became involved in this venture. He left school in grade 3 to assist his family and later moved to Java for work. He had no prior criminal record.
Mr Wetangky had two prior convictions from 1998 and 2000 for involvement in migrant smuggling ventures from Indonesia to Australia, including SIEV Bogabilla that was intercepted near Ashmore Reef on 5 November 1999 (AUS-S-Bogabilla on this database).
At the time he became involved in SIEV 125 he was married with six children. He came for a poor farming background and his parents died when he was very young, causing him to leave school in second grade. He then worked as a labourer and fisherman. He became involved in this venture to pay for his childrens' schooling.
Mr Lande is the eldest of seven children and left school in grade 5 to support his family. The captain of SIEV 125, Mr Wetangky was a friend of the family and offered Mr Lande work when he was recruited for this venture. Mr Wetangky did warn Mr Lande about the risk of going to jail if they are apprehended in Australia.
The fourth crew member was a juvenile and was returned to Indonesia.
Mr Pot was one of the crew on board SIEV 125. He was the second in charge and responsible for the engine.
Mr Wetangky faced the same charges as the other accuseds. He was the captain of SIEV 125.
Mr Lande was one of the crew on board SIEV 125. He was responsible for the food preparation.
Whilst in immigration detention in Darwin, Mr Lande became involved in some protests and disturbances on 29 and 30 August 2010, which resulted in the additional charges relating to damage of Commonwealth property being brought against him.
Transcript of Proceedings (Sentence), R v Pot et al (Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, 21037929, Riley CJ, 18 January 2011)
This entry was copied from The Migrant Smuggling Case Database, launched by the University of Queensland Migrant Smuggling Working Group in August 2013.
(1) The case, like many migrant smuggling ventures by sea from Australia to Indonesia, illustrates the poor and often dire circumstances that lead many young Indonesian male from southern coastal villages to become involved in this sort of offending. In sentencing the crew of SIEV 125, Chief Justice Riley also noted that 'each came from very impoverished backgrounds and suffer under substantial financial burdens.'
(2) In sentencing the three accused, Chief Justice Riley of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory reflected on the proper approach to determine the relevant sentence, taking into account the mandatory minimum penalties set for the offence under s 232A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the changes to these offences that came into effect on 1 June 2010 (substituting s 232A with a new s 233C). He concluded that the correct approach to sentencing was to determine the appropriate penalty in accordance with general sentencing principles and, if that produced a sentence which was less severe than the minimum mandatory penalty, to impose the mandatory minimum. This approach was subsequently followed for some time in 'people smuggling' trials in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia, but was later questioned by McLure P in Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249 at [53]-[58] (AUS-S-0045 on this database).
(3) SIEV 125 was the 35th migrant smuggling vessel to be intercepted in Australia in 2010. The subsequent transfer of the 79 smuggled migrants to the Christmas Island immigration detention centre created concerns about the capacity of the centre to house further asylum-seekers.
In response to this arrival, the then opposition spokesperson for immigration, Mr Scott Morrison suggested that Australia's 'soft borders and rapid processing' of asylum-seekers would encourage greater levels of migrant smuggling. He saw the arrival of SIEV 125 and the 'flood of asylum-seekers arriving in Australia' as evidence that the Australian Government's policy had failed. The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, later echoed this criticism, saying that 'all records are likely to be broken this year when it comes to unauthorised arrivals'.