Case Law Database

Crimes that affect the environment

Offences

• Wildlife crime
• Fisheries crime

Prohibited Act

• Acquisition/Possession/Ownership
• Transfer/Transportation
• International trade (import, export, re-export)

Subject

• CITES / International protected species
• Domestic protected species

Details

• Undocumented/unlicensed conduct
• CITES protected species

Other Details

• Unlicensed conduct

Keywords

• Acquisition/Possession/Ownership
• Transfer/Transportation
• International trade (import, export, re-export)
• International protected species (e.g. CITIES)
• Domestic protected species

R v Kennedy

Fact Summary

Summary
During 2016 and 2017, Martin Kennedy attempted to import and export protected wildlife into and out of Australia, including shingleback lizards, native turtles, Chinese soft-shell turtles, alligator snapping turtles, snake head fish, freshwater neotropical stingrays, sugar gliders, veiled chameleons and non-venomous pythons. His mail packages were intercepted following anomalies during x-ray examinations. In 2019, M. Kennedy plead guilty.

In October 2019, the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales (Australia) sentenced M. Kennedy to 4 years imprisonment for the illegal importation, exportation and possession of wildlife and dealing with property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. A non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months has been applied. With its decision, the court set aside a sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales earlier the same year. In the previous ruling, M. Kennedy was sentenced to three years imprisonment served by way of an intensive correction, including the commitment to 700 hours of community service work. The Court of Appeal overruled the previous sentence, calling it “manifestly inadequate” as it “did not reflect the overall gravity of the offending or satisfy the principles of sentencing”. Emphasizing the general deterrence as especially important in the case at hand, the court put aside the previous ruling and removed the option of intensive correction through community service work.

Investigation overview
In July 2016, M. Kennedy hired a third-party person to post packages on his behalf at post offices in Toongabbie and Greystanes. The four international mail items bound for export to Sweden were intercepted at the Sydney Mail Gateway Facility. Officers of the Australian Border Force and the Australia Post discovered anomalies in an ex-ray examination of the packages. Each package had false sender details. Upon opening the items, the officers encountered native specimens: 24 live shingleback lizards (tiliqua rugosa or shingleback / bobtail lizard) and 10 live native turtles (chelodina steindachneri or dinner-plate turtles). The specimens had been put in cloth bags inside plastic containers, labelled “Sistema Klip It”.

Three months later, the defendant hired another third-party person to post two international mail items bound for export to Sweden at two separate post offices. The packages showed anomalies in the x-ray examination and were intercepted at the Sydney Mail Gateway Facility. Again, each package contained false sender details. The packages revealed 9 live shingleback lizards (tiliqua rugosa or shingleback / bobtail lizard). In the same month, M. Kennedy flew to Bangkok. A scanning of his mobile phone would later reveal that he was making notes about quantities of reptiles and fish, including prices and freight. Furthermore, he used his phone to search the internet for FedEx locations in Thailand and hotels in Sydney. He then posted several packages from Bangkok bound to Australia. The packages included reptiles, fish and stingrays. Again, he used false sender details and had the packages sent to hotels in Sydney, Australia. M. Kennedy completed Air Waybills for each package, claiming that they contained water filters. He also completed and supplied commercial invoices stating that the export filters were a gift and sent both packages from different FedEx offices in Thailand. Later, a note on his mobile phone would reveal a note marking the false names of recipients and the names of hotels he used for his shipments.

On 18 October, the respondent returned to Australia and, upon his arrival, was subjected to an examination by the Australian Border Force. It included a digital examination and download of his mobile phone, which took place after he initially refused to unlock it and deleted material from it.

One day later, officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources intercepted 16 of the parcels M. Kennedy sent from Bangkok. In total, the packages included: 23 live Chinese soft-shelled turtles, 15 live alligator snapping turtles, 68 snakehead fish (10 alive, 58 dead), 11 neo-tropical stingrays, 20 sugar gliders (2 alive, 18 dead) and 15 dead veiled chameleons. The specimens were packaged in plastic tubs, breather bags, cages and calico bags, all of which were placed inside black plastic aquarium filters. All live specimens were destroyed.

A search warrant for the residence of M. Kennedy was executed in March 2017. During the search, two live non-venomous pythons (python molurus) were located on the premises. Shortly after the seizure of both snakes, one died and the other was destroyed. Moreover, during the execution of the search warrant, $43,550 in cash were found and seized.

With the ruling of July 2019 being overruled, M. Kennedy’s imprisonment and non-parole period began on the day of the ruling, on 18 October 2019.

Commentary and Significant Features

The case attracted wide media attention and received thorough coverage due to the background of perpetrator Martin Kennedy, who used to be a National Rugby League player for the Sydney Roosters and Brisbane Broncos prop. His NRL career was put to an end with a doping ban in 2016. Another outstanding feature in this case is the fact that the Court of Appeal overruled the District Court’s decision in order to rule a stricter and longer period of imprisonment. The justices found that the offences are “some of the most serious offending of its kind” and that general deterrence is “a highly significant factor in the present case”.

Sentence Date:
2019-10-18
Author:
Payne JA and Fullerton J at [1]; Adamson J at [100]

Cross-Cutting Issues

Liability

... for

• completed offence
• attempt

... based on

• criminal intention

... as involves

• organiser/director
• participant, facilitator, accessory

Offending

Details

• occurred across one (or more) international borders (transnationally)

Involved Countries

Australia

Sweden

Thailand

Investigation Procedure

Confiscation and Seizure

Seized Money:
43550 AUD (Australian Dollars)

Seized Property

33 live shingleback lizards
10 live native turtles
23 live Chinese soft-shelled turtles
15 live alligator snapping turtles
10 live snakehead fish
58 dead snakehead fish
11 neo-tropical stingrays
2 live sugar gliders
18 dead sugar gliders
15 dead veiled chameleons
2 live non-venomous pythons
 

Computer specific investigative measures

• Seizure/Confiscation of hardware and/or software

Electronic Evidence

• Electronic Evidence/Digital Evidence

Procedural Information

Legal System:
Common Law
Latest Court Ruling:
Appellate Court
Type of Proceeding:
Criminal

On 7 June 2019, the District Court of New South Wales sentenced the defendant to 3 years imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order through 700 hours of community service work.

On 18 October 2019, the decision was set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeal and in its place decided for: (1) an aggregated sentence of imprisonment of 4 years; (2) a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months; (3) the sentence and non-parole period to date from 18 October 2019. Appeal allowed.

Reason for the Court of Criminal Appeal to overrule the sentence was the judge's assessment that the aggregated sentence imposed failed to reflect the objective seriousness of the offences. With that, the sentence of 3 years imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order was deemed manifestly inadequate. It was ruled that the earlier sentence did not reflect the overall gravity of the offending, nor did it satisfy the principles of general deterrence and accountability over and above the sentencing objective of rehabilitation.

 
 

Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

Number of other accused:
1
Respondent:
Martin Brian Kennedy
Gender:
Male
Nationality:
Australian
Age:
30
Born:
1989

Court

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal