CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Singh
[2023] VCC 1735
•28 August 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-00071
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) |
| v |
| RAVINDERJEET SINGH |
---
JUDGE: | JUDGE DAWES | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 August 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 August 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CDPP v Singh | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1735 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Regulations 2019
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Cases Cited:Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: 5 years’ and 3 months’ imprisonment
NPP 3 years 3 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr P. Teo | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr L. Cameron | Stary Norton Halphen |
HER HONOUR:
1Ravinderjeet Singh, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor, namely pseudoephedrine, from about 2 September 2021 and 1 March 2022. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment. You have admitted that you conspired with Maria MANALO, ‘Sara’/’Saravanan’ and unknown others.
2At the relevant time of offending, you were 48 years of age. You were in a relationship with your co-accused, Maria MANALO, who was 53 years of age. The circumstances of your offending have been provided in the summary of prosecution opening. It is agreed to be an accurate account of events.
3A general summary of the facts is as follows:
4Your offence of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine involves a total of 18 consignments received from the same consignor. The last two consignments are the only ones that were examined.
5On 3 February 2022, an air cargo consignment arrived in Sydney, Australia ('Consignment One'). The consignment was to be delivered by Fed-Ex to an address in Mount Waverley and the consignee’s phone number was subscribed to your co-accused.
6On 4 February 2022, Consignment One was examined. It contained a metal oven, which concealed a large clear bag that contained a white crystal-like substance that weighed 6.9 kilograms. Subsequent analysis confirmed that the substance consisted of 81.9% pseudoephedrine; in total, 5.6 kilograms.
7The financial value of the pseudoephedrine in Consignment One is ranged between $140,000 - $196,000.
8On 9 February 2022, your co-accused MANALO, contacted Fed-Ex to enquire about the location of the consignment. She left a contact number, which was subscribed to you.
9Analysis of your phone revealed a number of links to the consignment, including several phone calls made to Fed-Ex, contact with the resident of the Mount Waverly address to which the consignment was addressed and that you provided 'Sara' with the consignee details at the Mount Waverley address. The residents of the Mount Waverley address did not expect the delivery of this parcel.
10On 5 February 2022, a further air cargo consignment arrived in Sydney, Australia ('Consignment Two'). This consignment was to be delivered by Fed-Ex to an address in Dandenong and the consignee phone number had one digit that differed from your phone number.
11On 6 February 2022, Consignment Two was examined. It was found to contain a metal oven. A white substance that weighed 7 kilograms was concealed inside the back of the oven. Subsequent analysis confirmed that the substance consisted of 81.9% pseudoephedrine; in total, 5.7 kilograms.
12The financial value of the pseudoephedrine in Consignment Two is ranged between $142,500 - $199,500.
13On 2 March 2022, Australian Border Force ('ABF') officers spoke to one of the residents at the Dandenong address to which Consignment Two was addressed. He advised that you and MANALO were partners who had stayed at his address in January 2022. In early February 2022, he received a package that appeared to be a pizza oven that he had not ordered. You contacted him about the delivery and arranged for someone to collect it.
14WhatsApp messages were sent between you and 'Sara', where you provided her with the consignee address in Dandenong.
15Australian Border Force records indicate that between 8 September 2021 and 28 January 2022 there were 16 other air cargo consignments imported into Australia from the same consignor in India.
16None of these were examined by the ABF but contained identical or similar consignor details. The goods in each of the 16 consignments were near identical, being pizza ovens with a declared weight of 25 to 27 kilograms.
17You were linked to the 16 consignments in various ways. For example, you corresponded with friends and arranged for them to be delivered to their addresses; you instructed them not to open the packages and arranged to have them collected; on one occasion you offered your friend $200 for receipt of the parcel.
18Your mobile phone was found to contain WhatsApp correspondence, including incoming and outgoing calls with 'Sara'/'Saravanan', between 21 February and 1 March 2022. You were in immigration detention at that time. The conversations indicated that you were provided with jobs from the overseas facilitator, 'Sara' and 'Saravanan', to arrange the pickup and transfer of goods to another location. You asked for more work as you claimed that you needed the money.
19The Schedules annexed to the Prosecution Summary provide specific dates and details of the conversations and of the 18 consignments. I will attach a copy of the Schedules to my reasons.
20There is no evidence of the content of the 16 earlier consignments. They provide context of your role or your engagement with the consignor prior to the importation of Consignments 1 and 2.
21I consider that I cannot attach criminality to that behaviour. While these are overt acts within a conspiracy, there is no evidence that they are completed criminal acts. The only criminally identified behaviour relates to the last two importations. The earlier importations are of limited relevance when determining the appropriate sentence here.
22The total amount of pseudoephedrine contained in the two consignments was 11.3 kilograms. A commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine is 1.2 kilograms.[1] The total amount of pseudoephedrine here is more than nine times the commercial quantity.
[1] Criminal Code Regulations 2019.
23On 2 March 2022 you were interviewed by police. You stated, amongst other things:
· You were in a relationship with MANALO;
· You had previously accepted parcels delivered to Australia on behalf of a friend in Malaysia named 'Sara';
· Sara would ask you for an Australian delivery address and you would usually provide your residential address at the time. Once the parcel arrived, you would notify Sara who would then send people to collect it;
· Sara would provide the tracking numbers for the parcels and occasionally you would contact the delivery service to check on the parcel’s status;
· You were paid $300 per parcel. This happened about 5-8 times. You had not accepted any parcels for Sara since September 2021;
· You denied knowledge of Consignment One or contacting Fed-Ex about it;
· You initially denied having any parcels delivered to the Dandenong address;
· You later admitted to providing Sara with the Dandenong address for the delivery of a consignment in February 2022. You asked the resident for permission to send it there. You were later paid $300 from Sara and you passed $100 on to the resident of the Dandenong address;
· You denied ever providing Sara with any other addresses for more deliveries;
· When asked if you ever felt suspicious about Sara sending parcels to you instead of sending them directly to your friends in Australia, you stated that you had 'never thought about this at all';
· You further stated that you believed the ABF was able to detect and intercept any drugs that were imported from overseas through the mail or via courier companies, which is why you believed there was nothing suspicious about the parcels from Sara.
24You did not acknowledge the offending to which you have pleaded guilty. Your limited admissions in the interview are not indicative of remorse. I have not been provided with an explanation for your offending conduct, other than your motivation was for financial gain.
25The parties agree that your role in the conspiracy was as an intermediary. You worked as a ‘middle-man’ who liaised with others to facilitate the movement of the material. After co-ordinating the receipt of the packages, you passed them on and you had no further involvement. You were the first point of contact for the delivery of the consignments. You arranged the addresses for delivery and collection of the packages and the transfer to subsequent locations.
You were not an instigator of the offence, nor a principal offender. However, I consider that you played an important and integral role in the importation of pseudoephedrine. It is conceded by the defence that this is serious offending and that a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period is the appropriate disposition.
26I consider that your moral culpability is mid-range on the basis of your criminal activity in the last two transactions, your place in the hierarchy and the seriousness of the offence overall.
27I turn now to your personal circumstances.
28You were born in Malaysia in March 1973 and are now 50 years of age. You are one of four children and your parents remain in their relationship. They reside in Malaysia, as does one of your siblings. Your two other siblings reside in Melbourne and have attended court to support you. You grew up in a secure environment, with a loving, supportive family. You did not suffer any childhood disadvantage.
29You completed school in Year 12 and studied engineering. You did not complete your degree and commenced employment as a supervisor at a construction company for several years. You were married in 2002 and have two children who are now aged 20 and 21 years. They still reside in Malaysia with their mother and maternal grandparents. You maintain a strong relationship with your family.
30Your first marriage ended around 10 years ago. You moved to Australia to pursue a better life and arrived in Melbourne in 2017. You met your second wife, and when you married, you were placed on a spousal visa. You worked for three to four years in part-time employment and as a medical receptionist. Your lifestyle at the time of your offending interfered with your capacity to maintain employment.
31Your second marriage ended when you commenced a relationship with MANALO, when you were 48 years of age. You also became isolated from your family and friends at that time. You are not currently divorced from your wife and it is unclear whether this relationship will resume. I am told that your relationship with your co‑accused has now ended.
32Your brother and sister have written letters to the court, dated 21 and 18 August 2023 respectively.
33Your brother confirms that you are fortunate to have been part of an affectionate and loving family. You were previously a reliable, responsible and loving individual and he believes that your entanglement with the wrong company has led you astray. He has remained in contact with you since the start of these legal proceedings. He describes that you are remorseful and he believes that you understand the gravity of your offending.
34Your sister describes that your entire family are shocked at the news of your criminal offending. In the past you have led a positive and honest lifestyle. You have always been a loving and caring member of the family. She does not believe that your offending is reflective of your true character. She writes that you accept full responsibility and have expressed a deep sense of remorse for making such a serious mistake.
35You are most fortunate that your family have not wavered in their support of you and will continue to do so in the future. You maintain regular contact with your siblings while in custody.
36You have one prior court appearance to the commission of this offence. You pleaded guilty on 10 July 2021 at the Bail and Remand Court in Melbourne to two counts of contravention of an intervention order, two counts of state a false name when requested, and one count of contravene a conduct condition of bail. You received an aggregate fine of $1500, with conviction.
37You have appeared five times in the Victorian Magistrates Court between 26 January 2022 and 13 April 2023. You also appeared at a Local Court in New South Wales on 24 October 2021. The offences include possession of methamphetamine, further breaches of intervention order and breaches of bail. A full range of penalties were imposed by the courts, including a sentence of imprisonment of 30 days, on 28 September 2022. You served this sentence while on remand for the current offence. You were also placed on two Corrections orders; one in New South Wales, the other in Victoria. The current offence occurred while subject to these orders. Your criminal history demonstrates that your compliance with court orders has been poor. This is relevant when considering your prospects of rehabilitation.
38You did not have a criminal history prior to your relationship with MANALO. At that time, you commenced your recreational use of methamphetamine, which had not been part of your previous lifestyle. An intervention order was taken out against you, where your partner was the protected person. You breached this order on many occasions. I consider that your criminal history reflects your chaotic lifestyle at the time of the current offence.
39As a result of the end of your marital relationship, you did not have a visa at the time of your arrest. You were held in Immigration Detention from 16 February until you were remanded into custody on 13 May 2022. You have been placed on a visa that will maintain your immigration status as a lawful non-citizen while you are on remand or in prison for the duration of your sentence.
40In the absence of this visa, you will become an unlawful non-citizen and must be detained unless you are granted another visa. You expect to be deported at the conclusion of your sentence or at an earlier date, as determined by the Adult Parole Board. It is well accepted that the prospect of deportation is a relevant consideration in the sentencing process. Despite not having a current visa, I accept that the loss of opportunity to seek to remain here as a result of your offending will have an impact on your period of incarceration. I take that into account as it increases the burden of the sentence I impose.
41You have spent 442 days on remand and are now held at Fulham prison. You seek to use your time productively and currently work as a window billet. You have completed available courses while on remand. Although you have not been diagnosed with any mental health issues, you have seen a psychological nurse while in custody, as you feel depressed given your current circumstances.
42There is no dispute that the time you have served on remand is more onerous than for prisoners prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic. These conditions have added to your hardship in custody, particularly as this is the first time you have been incarcerated. While the additional restrictions are now reduced, the evolving nature of the pandemic may result in future changes. The hardship which has occurred as a result of the pandemic, including 14 days in quarantine upon your remand, justifies a sentencing benefit.
43You were charged on 13 May 2022. Your matter proceeded as a contested committal. The cross-examination related to modification of the evidence and the analysis of the phones. I am told that this influenced the outcome of the case.
44You were committed to stand trial on 27 January 2023 and entered a plea of not guilty. A four to five-week trial was anticipated, including both pre-trial issues and the running of the case before a jury. Your matter was then listed for a sentence indication. The wording of the indictment was updated and on 24 August 2023, you entered your plea of guilty to the charge.
45The prosecution agrees that this is not a late plea of guilty and has a significant utilitarian benefit. You have saved the court and the community the time and expense of running a lengthy trial. It also facilitates the efficient administration of justice and you entitled to a benefit for that. The utilitarian benefit of the plea is to be enhanced by the fact that Worboyes[2]considerations are still relevant.
[2] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
46Your plea of guilty shows that you have now accepted responsibility for your criminal conduct and is consistent with remorse, although the remorse was not immediate.
47Your co-accused’s case is currently listed for a Directions Hearing on 14 December 2023, as she was only recently committed to the County Court. I am told that her fitness to stand trial under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act is under consideration.
48Your lifestyle during your relationship with your co‑accused was unstable and connected to your use of methamphetamine and criminal offending. When considering your prospects, your ongoing criminal conduct over the past two years and your non-compliance with court orders is relevant. It is also of concern that you continued to communicate with your overseas facilitator when in immigration detention, asking for more work. However, your previous lifestyle over a significant period has been positive, both in Malaysia and for some time in Australia. Given that you expect to be deported and your acknowledgement of the gravity of your offending, I accept that your prospects for rehabilitation are reasonable. If you can deal with your drug problem, they are reasonably good.
49I have considered the sentencing principles outlined in s16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), being a non-exhaustive list of matters the Court must take into account.
50General deterrence must be given significant weight in the sentencing process, as must the factors of denunciation and punishment. I consider that I must give specific deterrence some weight in this process. I take into account the maximum penalty for this offence and current sentencing practices. I have considered the cases to which I was referred by both the prosecution and defence. They are a guideline of current sentencing patterns.
51Ultimately, I am required to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of your offending. Given that the associated remorse for your plea of guilty was factored into the proposed sentence at the sentence indication, I consider that the term of imprisonment that I outlined is appropriate.
52I have considered the time spent in immigration detention and the period where you underwent a short sentence as relevant. I have taken them into account when considering the principle of totality.
Sentence
53Balancing all these factors as best I can, you are convicted and sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment.
54I set a non-parole period of three years and three months’ imprisonment.
55I enter in the records of the court that you have served 442 days by way of pre‑sentence detention.
56The declaration I make under s6AAA is had the matter not proceeded as a plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a head sentence of seven years with a minimum term of five years' imprisonment.
57Were there any further orders sought, Mr Teo?
58MR TEO: No, Your Honour.
59HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. Mr Cameron would you like to have a word to your client on the link once I leave the bench?
60MR CAMERON: Your Honour, I have arranged a jabber at 2 pm to speak with him but thank you.
61HER HONOUR: Mr Singh, I will now excuse you and I will formally leave the bench. Thank you.
- - -
0