R v P (2023) - Landmark Defence in the ANOM Encrypted Phone Drug Sting

Share This Article

Amongst the first to successfully settle and represent the defence in the infamous ANOM encrypted phone drug sting operation cases in Australia involving the commercial quantity of drug importation.

Negotiations led to a historic outcome for the client creating a pathway for others to use this case as a comparative case in favour of the defence.

This case was amongst the first to settle in the infamous ANOM encrypted phone drug sting operations in Australia.

Our 40 year old client was charged with commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, namely, methamphetamine, which is reasonably suspected of being unlawfully imported contrary to section 307.8(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth); and a further charge of trafficking commercial quantity of controlled drugs contrary to section 302.2 of the Code; as well as a charge of failing to comply with an order obtained under section 3LA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) being a failure by our client to reveal his private encrypted keys and personal ID numbers and passwords.

The sections 307.8(1) and 302.2 offences that our client faced each carry penalties of up to life imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,665,000.

Our client was being watched (under surveillance) by WA police in the lead up to the offences in Western Australia.

Police observed two vehicles who recently picked up a package in the form of a wooden pallet crate wrapped in black plastic from a storage facility.

The vehicles arrived and parked onto our client’s driveway home. Our client exited one of those vehicles and assisted the other co-offenders in handling the crate from the vehicle before our client is seen placing the cardboard box taken from the crate into his next door neighbours bin.

The box ended up containing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs (methamphetamine). It was packaged with 3 plastic containers wrapped in a vacuum sealed bag. It had a purity of 78.2%.

DNA samples from the package matched our client’s DNA including fingerprints.

Police had access to encrypted text messages from the ANOM encrypted messaging platform which was infiltrated by police from inception inculpating our clients involvement in the drugs. The ANOM text messages that police had access to also mentioned many other names and included people from all over the world.

Unfortunately the evidence stacked up against our client was very powerful.

If he were to be convicted for all of these offences, he would be exposed to life imprisonment or at least many years behind bars.

This would have been extremely difficult for his wife who was diagnosed with cancer and who would also be left on her own caring for their four young children on the one hand, and left operating an existing family business to make ends meet on the other hand.

Our Principal Lawyer Jimmy Singh and his team worked tirelessly on negotiating with the commonwealth director of public prosecutions (CDPP).

After months of negotiations, the prosecution eventually agreed to withdraw the Commercial drug trafficking charge upon a plea of guilty to the remainder with heavily amended facts that favoured our client. This saved our client significant time away from gaol.

The next task that our defence team worked tirelessly on was collecting strong subjective evidence including a 20+ page affidavit and medical reports together with comprehensive written submissions.

Significant time and attention was put into the preparation of this case in order for our client to be handed the least possible sentence.

To protect our client, a suppression of publication order was made by the court.

In the result, the Western Australia District Court in Perth, by His Honour Judge Troy who presided over the sentence hearing, after hearing our submissions and all the evidence prepared, imposed a very lenient and historic sentence of 3 years non-parole imprisonment.

Our client was on bail throughout the entire court proceedings. This case has set a precedent for other cases as a comparative case on sentence in favour of others who find themselves in similar circumstances.

Published on 04/09/2025