CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Kamarelddin
[2018] VCC 1193
•2 August 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-17-01442
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| V |
| LEBANON KAMARELDDIN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | Trial: 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 April 2018. Plea: 20 April 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 August 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Kamarelddin | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 1193 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the CDPP | Mr R. Barry | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused – | Mr R. Blackwell | Theo Magazis & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 On 3 May 2014, Australia Taxation Office investigators executed search warrants at two farming properties, a factory, and the garage of a house in Tarneit.
2 At one farm, there were signs of recent harvesting of a tobacco crop. Surveillance over the previous months had shown the crop growing, and people involved in cultivating and harvesting it, and loading it onto trucks which removed it from the property.
3 At the other farm, three operational tobacco drying kilns, and a large quantity of drying tobacco was found. Surveillance over the previous months had shown that the trucks which had transported the harvested tobacco from the first farm, had delivered the tobacco to this farm and unloading it by the drying kilns.
4 A large quantity of cut tobacco packaged in large boxes, a quantity of as yet uncut dried tobacco leaves, tobacco cutting machines and flat pack boxes of the same type as those already filled with tobacco were found at the factory. Found in the garage was a large number of boxes full of cut tobacco. The boxes were the same as the boxes found in the factory.
5
The weight of the tobacco found drying in the kilns was 4227.5 kg. The excise duty payable on that tobacco was $2,147,612.27. Just under 1,000 kg, 994.6 kg to be precise, of dried tobacco leaf, and just over 1,000 kg of cut tobacco,
1,228.1 kg to be precise, making a total weight of the tobacco of 2, 222.7 kg was found at the factory. The excise duty payable on the dried and cut tobacco at the factory was $1,129,153.83.
6 Another 2,587.19 kg of cut tobacco was found in the garage. The excise duty payable on that was a further $1,314,318.39.
7 Had those involved in the growing, processing and storing of the tobacco held licences under the Excise Act 1901 (Cth) (as persons growing, processing and storing tobacco are required to do), excise duty in excess of $4 million therefore would have been payable to the Commonwealth on the tobacco found, following the execution of the warrants on that day. However no one involved in the growing and processing of the tobacco held licences, and as a result, no excise duty was paid.
8 A combination of what was found when the search warrants were executed, what was seen and recorded by an Australian Crime Commission surveillance team conducting surveillance on behalf of the ATO, and the review of CCTV footage recovered from the factory, as well as other pieces of evidence, revealed a substantial growing, harvesting and drying operation at the two rural properties, and significant activity at the factory related to the processing, cutting, storing and distribution of the tobacco.
9 The evidence in particular revealed Houssein Saoud, was the lessee of the two rural properties, and was living on the property where the drying kilns were located.
10
It revealed you, Lebanon Kamarelddin travelling frequently to and between the two rural properties, during the time the crop was grown, harvested, and dried, and attending frequently at the factory, including, at times, when it appeared tobacco was delivered or despatched. There was evidence linking you,
Mr Kamarelddin, with the transportation of kilns from Myrtleford to the property where the kilns were found.
11 There was also evidence of you, Mr Kamarelddin, using various vehicles, some hired, some privately owned and registered in names of people associated with you, in connection with attendances at the rural properties and the harvesting and transporting activities. One of the cutting machines found in the factory was a mobile cutting machine, that is, it was bolted to the floor of a truck. The truck was unregistered, but papers found in it revealed that it was you who had purchased it at auction some time earlier.
12
Evidence also revealed Carlos Fernandez was the lessee of the factory, and was also present at the factory, although not as frequently as you,
Mr Kamarelddin. He was, at times, seen there when you were also there, and when it appeared tobacco was being delivered or despatched.
13 Further investigations led to the discovery of signs of recent cultivation of tobacco in an area of approximately 30 acres, and a further two drying kilns at a property at Konagaderra Road, and, in a discarded bundle of hessian and plastic bags at that property, was a copy of the lease in favour of Fernandez in respect of the factory at Glenelg Road. There was evidence linking you, Kamarelddin, to arranging the transportation of the kilns found at the Konnagadera Rd property.
14 So far as the garage was concerned, the owner of the house to which the garage was attached provided investigators with a handwritten lease agreement between himself and Fernandez, leasing the garage to Fernandez for $200 a month. What limited surveillance there was of the garage showed you, Kamarelddin visiting it once, but Mr Fernandez was not seen at the property.
15 Ultimately, charges of dishonestly cause loss to the Commonwealth by non-payment of excise duty on the tobacco were brought against Saoud, Fernandez and you, Mr Kamarelddin, and a charge of possession of the tobacco in the garage was brought against Akel; the owner of the property.
16 You, Mr Kamarelddin were charged jointly with Saoud in respect of the growing, harvesting and drying enterprise at the two rural properties at Davis Road and Troups Road. That is in respect to the forgone excise on tobacco, the subject of the growing, harvesting and drying enterprise at those two properties.
17 A further charge of cause loss in respect of the processing, storage and distribution operation at the factory was brought against you, and Fernandez, and a further charge was brought against Fernandez, in respect of the tobacco stored in the garage.
18 The dishonestly cause loss to the commonwealth charges were heard together. There was no challenge to the Crown contention (which was amply supported by the surveillance and other evidence, which I have briefly summarised) that a large scale tobacco growing, manufacturing and distribution operation was being conducted at the various properties.
19 The defence of you and your two co-accused, Saoud and Fernandez at trial was simply that none of you had any knowledge of or involvement in the operation. You, Mr Kamarelddin, participated in an interview with investigators some months after the execution of the search warrant. You told the investigators when interviewed that you bought and sold machinery and equipment. You admitted to supplying the kilns and all the equipment necessary for cultivation and growing of the crop. You knew what you supplied was used in the growing, harvesting and drying of tobacco. You said you had previously worked on a tobacco farm in the Myrtleford area at a time when lawful licensed tobacco growing activities were being conducted there. You said you had visited the properties, the subject of the matters that brought you before me today, to visit Mr Saoud, who is your brother in law and also your cousin, but you said you were unaware of the use to which the equipment was being put, or the nature of the crop being grown, or dried in the kilns. You said in effect, that what you could see being grown on the properties, and the use to which the kilns and other tobacco cultivation and drying equipment were to be put, was none of your business.
20 Mr Saoud told investigators that he was engaged in growing broccoli, and that others who he declined to name grew something he thought were cabbages. He admitted he had wired up and installed the drying equipment in the kilns, and said others, who again he declined to name, had dried what he believed to be herbal tobacco in the kilns.
21 By their verdicts on Charge 1, and not surprisingly, given the strength of the circumstantial evidence, the explanations advanced by both you and Saoud, and the arguments that your counsel put, did not persuade the jury that there were reasonable alternative hypotheses open on the evidence other than that both of you were criminally were involved in the growing, harvesting and drying of the tobacco at those properties. The jury found both you and Saoud guilty of Charge 1.
22
So far as Charge 2 is concerned you, Mr Kamarelddin, told the investigators in interview that you visited the factory solely to visit and socialise with
Mr Fernandez, who was a friend of yours. You denied having any knowledge of, or involvement in the tobacco processing storage or distribution at the factory. You asserted that you had only ever been in the office at the front, and never entered the large working area, which comprised the bulk of the factory.
23 You, Mr Kamarelddin, like Mr Fernandez and Mr Saoud, did not give evidence at trial and Mr Fernandez, unlike you and Mr Saoud, did not participate in a recorded interview with investigators. Fernandez’s defence was also one of innocent or ignorant association: That is, that the evidence fell short of fixing him with knowledge of or participation in the tobacco processing, storage and distribution activities at the factory.
24 By their verdicts on Charge 2, again, and not surprisingly, given the strength of the circumstantial evidence, your explanation given to investigators and the arguments of counsel for both you and Mr Fernandez, did not persuade the jury that there were reasonable alternative hypotheses – other than that both you and Fernandez were criminally involved in the processing, storing and distribution of the tobacco at the factory – open on the evidence, and the jury found you, as well as Fernandez, guilty of Charge 2.
25 The evidence connecting Mr Fernandez with the contents of the garage was not as strong as the evidence connecting him with involvement in the tobacco processing, storage and distribution activities at the factory. There was no evidence of his physical presence at the garage or involvement in the delivery there of the boxes of tobacco that were found stored there. And apart from the bare terms of the lease document, there was no other evidence of his connection with the tobacco stored in the garage.
26 It is not surprising in my view, and certainly not inconsistent with the verdict of guilty in respect of Mr Fernandez on Charge 2, that he was found not guilty of Charge 3. If anything, the verdict of not guilty for Fernandez on Charge 3 demonstrates a proper application by the jury of the instruction to consider the evidence in respect of each charge and each accused separately.
27 The prosecution decided to proceed separately against Mr Akel on the possession charge, in respect of the tobacco in the garage. And following the guilty verdicts, in respect of you, Mr Saoud and Fernandez, Mr Akel pleaded guilty to that charge of possession. He has been sentenced, as have Saoud and Fernandez.
28 As I said when sentencing your co-accused, Saoud and Fernandez, this was a sophisticated operation, carried out over a considerable period of time, and requiring the investment of considerable sums of time, money and manpower. The activities included:
· Leasing the two rural properties which featured directly in this trial, namely the Davis Road and Troops Road properties, at a combined cost of $5,200 a month.
· Installing irrigation at the Davis Road property.
· Having specialist tobacco spraying and harvesting equipment on-site.
· Sourcing, buying and arranging the heavy haulage transporting of the drying kilns.
· Installing, wiring up and maintaining the drying kilns at Troups Road.
· Bussing in labourers to harvest the crop, transport it to Troups Road, unload it and dry it in the kilns.
· Renting a minibus to transport workers.
· And renting cars for your own use and the use of others seen to be involved in connection with the operation.
· Renting the factory, taking delivery of and unloading multiple loads of dried tobacco there.
· Using cutting machines and dryers at the factory to cut and process the tobacco.
· Providing flat pack boxes into which the processed tobacco could be packed.
· And loading trucks, vans and cars with boxes of processed tobacco.
29 The scale of the operation can also clearly be measured by the amount of excise foregone on the tobacco still in the factory at the time of the execution of the warrant. Although you, Mr Kamarelddin, are not charged with anything relating to the tobacco in the garage, it is clear that the tobacco stored there was part of the overall operation. It gives some sense of the scale of the illicit tobacco operation. What I said regarding this when sentencing Saoud and Fernandez, also applies to you. That is, that is the only way I take the evidence in relation to the tobacco in the garage into account. Foregone excise on that tobacco is not something for which you can be held criminally liable or for which I sentence you.
30 Whilst you are to be punished only for your part in the operation, it is clear you were not the only player in what was, on the evidence, part of a larger scale operation than what is revealed by the evidence of the tobacco actually found at the time of the raids and the calculation of the forgone excise on that tobacco.
31 Amongst the matters that I must take into account in imposing a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances, are the nature and circumstances of the offence, the loss resulting from the offence, deterrence and adequate punishment.
32 I must also take into account your personal circumstances, your character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition, your prospects of rehabilitation and the probable effect of a sentence on your family and dependents.
33 The circumstances of the offences, as I have outlined them, satisfy me that these are serious offences of their type.
34 This was a large scale, continuing and serious criminal enterprise, involving sophistication and planning at execution, the investment of considerable time, money and effort over an extended period.
35 A considerable number of people were involved, some possibly as innocent agents, others perhaps knowing participants in one or more aspects of the enterprise, whether it was tending or harvesting the crop, preparing the harvested leaves for placing in the drying kilns, operating the kilns and removing the dried tobacco, baling and transporting it to the factory, unloading it at the factory, cutting, drying and boxing it there, or loading the finished product into delivery vehicles.
36 That is borne out too by the volume of tobacco found in the drying kilns and the factory, and most significantly, in terms of the actual charges that were brought, the size of the loss to the Commonwealth in foregone or avoided excise that can be calculated from the tobacco found at the time of the raids.
37 It is clear that the penalty for sophisticated, large scale continuing enterprises involving such a loss to the revenue must reflect the need to impose a punishment on offenders, which will mark the unacceptability of such behaviour, and participation in such an enterprise, and serve as a deterrent to you and to others minded to engage in such conduct.
38 In my view, the sentence must not only reflect condemnation of this behaviour of tax or excise avoidance, dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth as a result, and act as a deterrent to you, as well as to others minded to engage in activity such as growing and processing tobacco without an excise licence. It is no less serious a crime because it is the Commissioner of Taxation who suffers the loss rather than an individual citizen or taxpayer. Although this case reveals that tobacco excise is a significant component of the retail cost of tobacco, the gravity of the offending cannot be downplayed by disparaging tobacco excise as a “revenue raiser”, as if that somehow justifies avoiding the excise on the tobacco.
39 Indeed, as the announcement in the budget, made just before I sentenced your co-offenders, Saoud and Fernandez revealed, the cost to the revenue of illegal tobacco by way of excise foregone is considerable. It is clear, therefore, that general deterrence is an important sentencing factor.
40 Regardless of the view one might have about the licensing and marketing of tobacco, given what is known about its health risks, and of governments raising revenue on such a product, the gravamen of this offending must be clearly kept in mind. That is, cheating the revenue, and it is for that that you must be sentenced.
41 The amount of revenue foregone, measured solely by the amount of tobacco found in the kilns and at the factory, was in the vicinity of $3.5 million. Whilst this quantifies the loss to the Commonwealth in respect of the two charges before me for sentencing, it is not the sole measure of the scope or seriousness of the offending. I am satisfied that the tobacco in the garage was also part of the operation, although as I have said, and I repeat, you are not to be treated as criminally liable for the loss caused to the Commonwealth by non-payment of excise on that tobacco. Similarly, although there is some circumstantial evidence linking the cultivation or drying of tobacco at the Konagaderra Road property to the operation, I do not take it into account in sentencing you. I am unable to ascertain on the evidence before me whether that tobacco, in its various forms, and various locations represents the whole of the tobacco grown and processed as part of the venture.
42 What I can safely infer is that what was discovered on the day of execution of the warrants reveals that this was an ongoing venture. The sophisticated, large scale enterprise that I have described covered the whole process of manufacture of tobacco from bare acre to finished product and was interrupted only by the execution of the warrants.
43 I have come to the same view as I have in relation to your co-offender, Saoud and Fernandez, that is, that there is nothing mitigating in the circumstances of the offending and little in your personal circumstances.
44 You are, like them, are a man of adequate intelligence and education, and of mature adult years. You are, like them, as the evidence of the offending reveals, capable of working. There is no physical, intellectual, psychiatric or psychological condition preventing you from working or making rational decisions in relation to whether to engage in this criminal venture or turn your efforts to lawful ways of supporting yourselves and making an income. You, like your two co-offenders, Saoud and Fernandez, are a married man and the father of young children. Like them, you come to be sentenced as a mature man, making conscious choices to engage in wholesale criminal activity. That you did so in the expectation of gain, considerable gain and were prepared to invest substantial amounts of your time and effort to do so is inescapable. Had you put the amount of time and effort into legitimate paid work you too would be seen as honourable and responsibly supporting yourself and your family and contributing to the community. You, as with your co-offenders, have not modelled for your children a responsibility and commitment of supporting your family by lawful activity.
45 You come before the court as a man of 42 years of age. You were brought to Australia from Lebanon by your parents when you were 18 months old, and both as a child and when you were a young adult you lived between the two countries. You and your wife have lived in Australia for the last 15 years. You are an Australian citizen, so do not face the fear of deportation as a result of the jury verdicts.
46 You and your wife you have 7 children, aged between 16, and as at the date of the verdict, a baby only 4 days old. I was told you were experiencing matrimonial difficulties at the time of offending, and had been living apart from your wife. You were apparently living at the home of a relative, in Tudor Court. You were regularly seen by the surveillance teams both at the Tudor Court address and the address of the house where your wife and children lived.
47 I was told you had, since the time of this offending, reconciled with your wife, and have fathered more children with her. And as I have noted your youngest was born only 4 days before verdict. I was told you had seen that child only once since the birth. You were remanded in custody upon verdict. When your personal particulars were taken after verdict, you gave as your address the Tudor Court address. When in the course of the plea I was told that you reconciled with your wife, I inquired about whether your wife and children had moved to that address, I was then told they remained in the same home that they were in, which had featured in surveillance and that the Tudor Court address that you had given, when your personal particulars were request after verdict, was your “postal address”.
.
48 You told police when interviewed that you ran a business, buying and selling machinery and equipment. I was told that you instructed Mr Backwell that you are still engaged in that business up until the time of verdict. That was all the detail given. No tax returns, accountants reports, financial statements, or any other evidence of the conduct of this business or its financial viability was put before me.
49 I have no way of knowing whether what you told the investigators at the time of interview, or instructed your counsel at the time of plea was the situation, is true. I have no way of determining whether you are, or were at the time of the offending, or between the time of the offending and verdict, engaged in gainful employment, or legitimate business activity.
50 Similarly apart from this bare biographical detail, which I have recited, no further information or evidence was presented about your domestic circumstances. I have no way of determining whether you are in fact living with your wife, and family, whether you are a devoted father, actively involved in bringing up the children, or sharing with your wife in the day to day work of bringing up a family of that size, seven children. The only other evidence in relation to your domestic circumstances came from the surveillance footage, when you were seen with a child, taking him into the factory where the tobacco was processed, and late at night, putting him into a car, apparently to sleep whilst you returned to the factory. If this was your child, it doesn’t speak of particularly of good parenting, to expose him to the tobacco processing business being undertaken in the factory.
51 I note it was not put that your wife and family would suffer hardship as a result of your imprisonment, or that the burden of imprisonment would be more onerous for you, because they would suffer financial hardship as a result of your imprisonment. I was told that imprisonment would be more burdensome for you this time, compared to the sentence you had served, when you were a young man, after you had been sentenced for three offences of armed robbery because at the time of serving the previous sentence you were single and childless. It was put that this time you will miss your children. I have no way of knowing if this is true. I have no way of determining whether you support the family, or contribute to the support of the family, or if you do so from legitimate sources of income. I have no way of knowing what sort of contact with and relationship you have with your wife and children.
52 I want to make it clear this is no criticism of Mr Backwell. He is experienced and competent counsel. I am satisfied, not only as a result of his conduct of the trial and plea generally, but as confirmed following specific inquiry during his plea submissions, that he was making considered, informed decisions and acting on instructions in relation to the matters put, and sought to be relied upon in mitigation.
53 You have a criminal history which extends back to 1997, when at the age of 23, you committed the three armed robberies, to which I briefly adverted, and along with them, associated offences of theft of motor vehicles, theft of other property, and receiving stolen goods. I was told that the circumstances of that offending related to three separate occasions, when you held up the owners of the car park where you used to work, stealing the payroll and takings. I was told that this was in retaliation for being dismissed. You were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of just under four years, and were apparently released on parole without further incident.
54 You were next before a court 8 years later, in 2005. In that year, you had two separate appearances, one for possess and use amphetamines, the other, for an overseas transfer of currency offence. That is, transferring an amount in excess of $10,000, the reportable amount. Some of the money you transferred you instructed Mr Backwell came from other people, some from your earnings. The money was transferred to Lebanon without the required Austrac reporting imposed for transfer of amounts of over $10,000.
55 In 2008, three years after those offences were dealt with, you were convicted of a number of offences relating to the use of a false name to open a bank account, and in applying for a passport. I was told that you were originally known as Mohammed El Houli and that you adopted the name of Lebanon Kamarreldin following your release on parole for the armed robbery charges. Your criminal record, which was admitted by you, notes you were dealt with for the false name charges, and it would appear, the amphetamines charges, under the name of Mohammed El Houli, although, on what I was told, you had by then long adopted the name of Lebanon Kamarreldin.
56 It could be said, four separate court appearances over ten years is not an extensive criminal history. But the offences themselves are all serious, and save for the amphetamines offences, all are relevant, in my view, to an assessment of your character and antecedents, and prospects for rehabilitation.
57 Also relevant to your prospects for rehabilitation is your subsequent conviction for a weapons offence. I was told it predated this offending, but you were not dealt with for it before being charged with these offences. I was told it related to carrying a baton, in your hand luggage, as you went through the airport to take a domestic flight. I am told that you instructed Mr Backwell that you were carrying the baton for your own protection. If true, that does not reflect well on you, or speak well of the way you conduct yourself or the company you keep.
58 What all of this shows is a preparedness throughout your adult years to engage in criminal activity: violence, or threats of violence, evidenced by the possession of weapons (including in the armed robberies), dishonesty, and identity and revenue masking activities, such as opening bank accounts in other names, applying for a passport in other names, and sending currency out of the country without the required Austrac reporting.
59 You pleaded not guilty, as was your right, and you cannot be penalised for that. Your demeanour in the interview with ATO officers some months after the execution of the warrants was what I could only describe as brazen and contemptuous. You told blatant lies about your knowledge of, and involvement in the tobacco enterprise, even when confronted with the evidence of your presence at the various properties, your connection with and presence in the various vehicles and your association with your co accused. Again, you cannot be penalised for that. But it demonstrates the view that I have formed of you, namely that you display an amoral, cynical and self-serving attitude to cooperation with law enforcement authorities.
60 You have had the opportunity, since being remanded following verdict, to have reflected about whether the cost of conviction for activity such as this is too high.
61 When sentencing your co offenders, I said, so far as Mr Saoud was concerned, that apart from his more limited criminal history, I saw no basis on which I should distinguish between you and him in relation to role or culpability. On further reflection, I consider your role and culpability to be higher than that of Mr Saoud. The evidence showed Mr Saoud’s involvement to be less than yours. On the evidence, his role is accurately to be characterised as that of a person carrying out a specific task in relation to the growing and drying enterprise. That is, being the front person on the lease of the properties and being physically present at the property where the drying kilns were, in effect, as caretaker; as well as doing some manual labouring work, including installing the wiring for the kilns. And my view about the difference in your role is borne out by the evidence of the extent of your activity and involvement in relation to Charge 2, where again, it appears to me, the evidence reveals you played a more involved role in the observed activities at the factory. And again, your criminal convictions are more significant than those of Fernandez.
62 Taking into account everything put on your behalf on your plea, I have come to the conclusion that these distinctions, in roles or extent of involvement, and by reason of the more limited criminal history of the co offenders justify a disparity in the sentences to be imposed on you, compared to the sentences on Fernandez and Saoud. However, having drawn those distinctions, I must also bear in mind I am sentencing you for participation in a single criminal enterprise, from the cultivation, harvesting and drying, through to the processing and distribution of the cut and boxed tobacco. Therefore, whilst some cumulation is warranted, the fact your role straddled both parts of the enterprise as charged is more a reflection of your overall role. So I have taken care to avoid the risk of double punishment.
63 The maximum penalty for each charge is five years' imprisonment. In my view, the matters that I have identified all point to this offending being at the high end of the range of seriousness for this offence of dishonestly cause loss to the Commonwealth, and the sentences must reflect that.
64 Clearly, as was acknowledged, no sentence other than imprisonment is warranted. I was told that this is the first time that what could be called a black market tobacco manufacturing venture has been dealt with by this charge of dishonestly cause loss to the Commonwealth. There is, therefore, no guidance from other sentences or statements of principle expressed by appellate courts in relation to this charge being employed for this type of offending.
65 In all the circumstances, therefore, the sentences that I have determined are appropriate result in a head sentence in excess - only a little - but in in excess of three years.
66 Whilst I take a dim view of your prospects for rehabilitation, it is for the parole authorities, not me, to determine when you should be released on parole. It may well be that your prospects for rehabilitation will be enhanced if you are subject to supervision on release. But that is a matter better determined by those responsible for supervising you as you serve the minimum custodial component of your sentence. And the manner in which you conduct yourself whilst in custody will also clearly be a relevant factor, not for me, but for the parole authorities to consider in determining whether, and if so when, it is appropriate to release you on parole.
67 I take into account also the fact that four years have elapsed between the execution of the raids and the time of sentence. Two years, it would appear, between the execution of the warrants and the laying of charges. Two years from then until the matter proceeds to finality. That first two years is something outside your control and clearly cannot be counted as a matter caused by you. But the effect of having this hanging over your head for so long is something I take into account in your favour.
68 Could you now please stand.
69 Lebanon Kamarelddin, on Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years. On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years. I direct that the sentence on Charge 2 is to commence three months after the sentence on Charge 1 commences. The sentence on Charge 1 is to commence today. That makes a total effective sentence of three years and three months. I fix the period of two years and three months as the time that you must serve before being eligible for parole.
70 I declare that you have spent 105 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.
71 Have the orders that I pronounced reflected what I am required to say by law in relation to Commonwealth sentencing, Mr Barry?
72 MR BARRY: Yes, Your Honour.
73 HER HONOUR: Arithmetic and calculations correct?
74 MR BARRY: Yes, Your Honour.
75 MR BACKWELL: Yes, I agree.
76 HER HONOUR: Any further orders required to be made?
77 MR BARRY: No, Your Honour.
78 MR BACKWELL: No.
79 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Could you remove Mr Kamarelddin please. All right, I'll just stand down briefly for the interchange. Thank you again - - -
80 MR BACKWELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
81 HER HONOUR: - - - Mr Barry and Mr Backwell for your assistance.
- - -
0
0