COCAINE IMPORTS RUN PAST HEROIN

Cocaine has overtaken heroin as the most common drug to be imported
into Australia, a study released today by the Judicial Commission of
NSW shows.

And of the 387 cases prosecuted under the Customs Act between 1992 and
1997, 71 per cent were for trafficable amounts, an offence carrying a
maximum 25 years' jail and/or $100,000. The study, based on 4,202
major drug offences between January 1992 and December 1997, found drug
offences constituted about one in every five principal offences dealt
with by the higher courts. One in every 10 drug offences was for
importation. While heroin was the most common drug to be imported over
the period in commercial and trafficable quantities, the study found
its share fell over the years and "was actually overtaken by cocaine
in 1997".

Cannabis made up just 11.6 per cent of importation offences. Ecstasy
was more likely to be imported in commercial quantities than any other
drug. Just over a third of offenders on importing charges had been
couriers, with only 18.9 per cent being the principals in the
importing organisation.

Nine out of 10 drug offenders under Commonwealth law were sentenced to
a jail term.

In relation to State drug offences, the most common crime during the
period was supplying prohibited drugs. The majority of cases related
to less than commercial quantity. Forty-four per cent of offenders had
prior convictions for drug offences.

Almost three in four state offenders were aged between 21 and 40 and
one in five were over 40, with the majority - 88 per cent - being
male. In Commonwealth cases, two out of three were over 30 and 86.8
per cent were male.

The commission's chief executive, Mr Ernie Schmatt, said the
sentencing of drug offenders was one of the most difficult tasks faced
by a judicial officer.

This was because there were many kinds of drug offenders and offences
were committed in a variety of circumstances. "Secondly, the law is
complicated by the fact that drug offences are one of the few crimes
commonly prosecuted under both Commonwealth and State laws".

There was also the treatment/punishment dilemma, which often made the
determination of sentences difficult.

He said the study revealed a pattern of consistency in the sentences
handed down by the courts. "This does not deny the existence of
disparities, in some cases unjustified - if there were no such
instances there would be no need for a system of appeals."