R. v. Bilinski
England and Wales Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
86 Crim. App. R. 146 (1987)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Customs officials found three kilos of heroin on board a ship in an English port. Crewmember Edward Bilinski (defendant) initially denied knowledge, but his fingerprints were on the sticky underside of tape on the packages. Bilinski said he was merely a courier who thought the packages contained cannabis, but a search of his room turned up a book about heroin from the ship’s library. The heroin was extremely pure, with a £600,000 street value, but Bilinski said he was to be paid only about £3,500 for taking the drugs from Germany to Australia. Bilinski pleaded guilty and told the authorities what he could, including the names of the men who gave him the drugs. During sentencing, his attorney submitted as mitigating factors that (1) Bilinski thought he was smuggling cannabis not heroin, (2) he pleaded guilty and assisted authorities, (3) he was only a courier who was to be paid a minute fraction of the drugs’ value, and (4) he otherwise had good character. The judge specifically found the claim that Bilinski did not know the packages contained heroin irrelevant and sentenced him to 12 years in prison. Bilinski appealed. His attorney argued that Bilinski’s belief as to the drug’s nature was relevant to sentencing and that 12 years was excessive.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lord Lane, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
