Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Sharma
[2019] VCC 1851
•14 November 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Unrevised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-18-00087
CR-18-00036
CR-16-01614
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) |
| v |
| MUKESH SHARMA BALJIT SINGH REKHA ARORA |
JUDGE: | O'Connell | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 October 2019 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 November 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP (Cth) v Sharma & Ors | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1851 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Use false documents; false documents used to acquire bank loans; reasonably sophisticated documents; loans acquired were secured; offenders previously sentenced following conviction at trial for operating two Registered Training Organisations as a single fraudulent enterprise and conspiring to influence a Commonwealth official; early pleas of guilty; wholly concurrent terms of imprisonment appropriate with regard to principle of totality.
Attempt to pervert the course of justice; offender placed pressure on a potential witness to lie to police; valuable plea of guilty due to weaknesses in Crown case; less serious example of the offence; totality principle mitigates against cumulative sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the (Cth)DPP | Ms K. Breckweg | (Cth)DPP |
| For the Accused Sharma For the Accused Singh For the Accused Arora | Mr C. Terry Dr M. Fitzgerald Mr M. Page | Stary Norton Halphen Doogue + George Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Sharma – Use false documents
1 On 11 October 2019, you pleaded guilty to one charge that between 15 March 2012 and 20 April 2012 you used false documents in support of an application for a home loan in the amount of $353,400 from the National Australia Bank (NAB) contrary to section 83A(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
2 On 15 March 2012, you and your wife applied for a “NAB choice package variable rate home loan” in the amount of $353,400 in order to purchase a property in Tarneit. As part of the application, you submitted documents which purported to show that you were employed as a full-time IT manager with Oz Trade & Services Pty Ltd and that you had occupied that position since 8 February 2012. The documents including payslips asserted that you received a gross income of $4,446 per fortnight.
3 As at 8 February 2012, you were not an employee of Oz Trade & Services Pty Ltd and you did not receive the income asserted.
4 On 20 April 2012, you and your wife obtained a mortgage from the NAB in the requested amount. That application was granted, in part, on the basis of the misinformation provided by you as to your employment and your income. With the moneys provided, you purchased a property at 4 Waldburg Grove, Tarneit for $394,000.
Singh and Arora – Use false documents
5 On 11 October 2019, you each pleaded guilty to one charge that between 27 July 2011 and 25 July 2013 you used false documents in joint applications for home loans from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) in the sum of $1,000,000, and from Bankwest in the amount of $1,100,000.
6 The facts giving rise to that charge may be summarised as follows:
7 On 8 March 2011, you jointly applied as a married couple for a home loan from the CBA in order to purchase a property at 30 Elliot Avenue, Balwyn for $1,260,000. The application asserted that you, Ms Arora, earned an annual income of $110,079, and an annual income for you, Mr Singh, of $107,219, with a total combined monthly income for both of you of $20,708.17.
8 False taxation documents were provided in support of the application which misrepresented your joint taxable income over a two-year period by a total of $245,852. You were granted a loan of $1,000,000, in part on the basis of that false information.
9 On 11 June 2013, you both sought to refinance the property at 30 Elliot Avenue and made a joint application for a “double deal home loan” with Bankwest for $1,100,000. Earlier that year, you had provided taxation documents to Bankwest which you sought to use in support of this application. Those taxation documents misrepresented your joint taxable income over the two previous financial years by a total of $126,951. The false documents that were provided to Bankwest, in part, resulted in the obtaining of a mortgage of $1,100,000.
Singh – Attempting to pervert the course of justice
10 Baljit Singh, you also pleaded guilty to two further charges on 11 October 2019. The first charge was that between 17 September 2015 and 17 November 2015, you attempted to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). You also pleaded guilty to the related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
11 The facts relating to these two charges are as follows:
12 In August 2012, you commissioned a company, Unique Wrought Iron, to build an internal staircase at 30 Elliot Avenue, Balwyn. The original quote for the work was $39,000 however, after some delay, a further invoice was issued for additional costs of $18,000. You told the Director of Unique Wrought Iron, Jesmond Micallef, that you would pay the further invoice for the $18,000 straight away if the invoice indicated that it related to work completed at 909 High Street, Reservoir (the premises of St Stephen Institute of Technology), rather than for work completed at your residence.
13 Unique Wrought Iron issued a new invoice for $18,000 to St Stephen for “interior doors – supplied and fitted”. In fact, Unique Wrought Iron never completed any work at, nor attended, St Stephen.
14 On 17 September 2015, you contacted Mr Micallef and spoke to him about work to be done at another property at 20 Nott Street, Balwyn. During a meeting in early November 2015 regarding that work, you reminded Mr Micallef of the invoice he had issued for the doors supposedly installed at St Stephen, when in reality this work had been completed at your home address. At that meeting, you pressured Mr Micallef to lie to police about the work completed at 30 Elliot Avenue in June 2013. By pressuring Mr Micallef to lie to police, you attempted to pervert the course of justice.
15 At the time you committed this offence, you were on bail for offences of conspiring to dishonestly influence a Commonwealth Public official and conspiring to deal in the proceeds of crime. In committing the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, you also committed an indictable offence whilst on bail.
Procedural History
16 To properly explain the sentences that need to be imposed for this offending, it is necessary to detail the procedural history of all the matters for which you have been dealt with recently.
17 On 5 August 2015, you, Baljit Singh, and you, Mukesh Sharma, were charged that between 1 July 2011 and 5 August 2015, you conspired to dishonestly influence a Commonwealth Public official in the exercise of the official’s duties. You were also charged that between 10 March 2014 and 7 July 2015, you each conspired to deal in the proceeds of crime. You, Ms Arora, were charged with that same offending some months later.
18 Both charges concerned two Registered Training Organisations, St Stephen Institute of Technology, located at 909 High Street, Reservoir and Symbiosis Institute of Technical Education, located in White Hall Street, Footscray. It was alleged that both schools were operated as a single fraudulent enterprise which purported to provide genuine education to international and domestic students, but which in reality fraudulently acquired thousands of dollars from international students and from government subsidies for domestic students.
19 You, Baljit Singh, were the Co-Director, Chief Executive Officer and majority shareholder of St Stephen. You, Mukesh Sharma, were the Chief Executive Officer and a minority shareholder of Symbiosis. You, Ms Arora, were married to Mr Singh. You worked part-time as a trainer and assessor for St Stephen and Symbiosis.
20 These matters were the subject of a lengthy trial the first half of 2018. You were each found guilty of both charges. On 21 September 2018, you, Mr Singh, were sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. On that day, a declaration was also made that you had previously served 57 days of that sentence.
21 You, Mr Sharma, were sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. A declaration was made that you had previously served 56 days of that sentence.
22 You, Ms Arora, were sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment, however, because of your lesser role in the offending and the exceptional circumstances relating to the care of your three children, you were released immediately upon you entering a recognizance of $5000 to be of good behaviour for a period of three years.
23 The offending for which you all must now be sentenced predates your convictions for the conspiracy offences and accordingly, you will all be sentenced on that basis that you have no prior convictions.
24 In my sentencing remarks in respect of the conspiracies, I summarised each of your personal circumstances as they were presented on the plea in July 2018. So that the sentences imposed for these charges may be properly understood, I will extract and repeat, with some modification, each of those summaries.
Sharma – Personal History
25 In the case of you, Mukesh Sharma, you were born on 11 May 1973 and are 45 years of age. During the timeframe of the conspiracies, you were approximately 38 to 42 years of age. You are married with two children aged 13 and 17.
26 You were raised in a small city in Punjab in northern India. You were the youngest of three boys and remain close to your older brothers who provided references in support of you on the original plea. Your parents remain in India. They are in their 70s, retired and in poor health. Before retirement, your father worked as a regional manager in a homeopathic company. Your older brothers work in high level managerial positions. You have not been able to travel to India to see your parents since your arrest in August 2015 and that has been a source of great distress to you. You have not seen them for seven years and fear you may never have the opportunity to see them again.
27 It appears you were brought up in a caring and supportive environment. You attended a well-regarded primary and secondary school where you performed at an above average standard academically and in school sports. You went onto study a Bachelor of Arts at Delhi University which you completed in 1994. After working in your cousin's security company, you started your own business in that field in 1996.
28 With the assistance of one of your older brothers, you built up the business so much that it employed something in the order of a thousand people. In addition, you purchased a restaurant with that brother which was also successful.
29 In 2000, you married your wife Reshma to whom it is said you are devoted. Two longstanding friends who had established themselves in Australia encouraged you to do the same and come and settle in Australia. You gifted your restaurant and security businesses to your brother and came to Australia on a student visa in 2006.
30 You studied commercial cookery with a view to opening a restaurant and your wife and children joined you in 2007. In Australia, you found work as a security guard and as a courier and through this latter work you met Baljit Singh and formed a close alliance. You worked as a subcontractor in Mr Singh's Australia Post courier business. You went onto work from an office at St Stephen managing much of that courier business.
31 You, together with your wife, have worked hard to establish yourselves in this country and to provide opportunities for your children. Your wife wrote a moving reference emphasising your good nature, your charity and the humiliation you have also endured after this offending was exposed.
32 In a report provided by Pamela Matthews, forensic psychologist, of 26 July 2018, you were described as a well-educated man of good family, without indications of personality disorder or antisocial characteristics and no history of criminality. Whilst you did not suffer from any mental health issues before your arrest, you subsequently developed significant depressive symptoms. Ms Matthews, in her report states as follows:
"Mr Sharma first presented to his doctor on 25 August 2015 with depression and was placed on the antidepressant Mirtazapine. He felt well enough to cease this medication on 5 October 2016. He was found guilty after trial. The writer has no clear date of the guilty verdict. Mr Sharma represented to his doctor on 21 June 2018 with symptoms of depression and was placed on the antidepressant Luvox.
He was later admitted on 14 July 2018 to Mercy Werribee Psychiatric Unit where he stayed until discharge on Mirtazapine on 23 July 2018. Of concern were his symptoms of depression with suicidal ideation and indications of a clear plan related to the stockpiling of rat poison, and other plans such as jumping from a high building or walking into the sea.
He currently presents as depressed with reporting both appetite and sleep disturbance of six or so weeks duration, increased alcohol, cigarette consumption, low mood, social withdrawal, observed crying, feelings of hopelessness, lethargy and suicidal ideation. He would meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, in the context of an adjustment disorder with mood disturbances as defined by DSM-5.”
33 She goes on to state:
"The writer agrees with the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depression, in that Mr Sharma's depression is reactive to his legal situation. The level of distress he evidences in response to his conviction however appears to have a cultural context of shame, in relation to family and community. Another aspect of his distress appears to be his emotional dependence on his wife and fear of separation from her, additional (sic), there appears to be a less clearly stated fear of never seeing his parents again.”
34 You had also been abusing alcohol at alarming levels. Ms Matthews concludes as follows:
"About potential imprisonment and the effects on Mr Sharma, there is psychiatric care in prison and if this is a disposition imposed by the court, the writer advises that on initial reception, Mr Sharma will be at his highest risk of acting upon suicidal ideation and most likely would require a Muirhead cell.
There are indications that Mr Sharma's mental state improves as the stressor lessens, for example, between October 2016 and June 2018. Hence with good psychiatric care in custody, it is likely Mr Sharma may settle to a degree, with some resolution of his depressive symptoms. However, the persistent cultural shame of imprisonment is likely to maintain at least moderate to mild levels of depressive symptoms.
Further, he will be vulnerable to situational triggers such as music, his parents' health in India, or news of social shame or ostracization that family members in India may be subject to. His suicide risk is likely to increase rapidly and unpredictably at these times. Overall, it is the writer's view, Mr Sharma's mental state is unlikely to fully resolve if he is in custody and any time he might spend in custody will be more onerous it might otherwise be if he was not suffering depression".
35 Mr Terry, who appeared on your behalf on this plea, acknowledged that given your current situation, the only practical sentence that could be imposed was a term of imprisonment. However, it was submitted that term should be served concurrently. He relied on the personal history presented at the last plea as I have just outlined.
36 Since around September 2018, you have served your prison sentence at the low security Middleton prison in Bendigo. To your credit, you have settled, overcome some of the depressive symptoms you suffered initially and appear to be now adjusting well. You have engaged in a number of courses such as in first aid, food handling, horticulture and the like. You have applied to study a Diploma of Business majoring in transport and logistics. You have been looking to the future and hope upon your release to work in the transport industry. It was therefore contended that since the last plea, your prospects for rehabilitation have improved not least because your mental health concerns have dissipated.
37 With respect to the offending it was submitted that your conduct tended toward the lower end of the range in seriousness for this offence and accordingly a concurrent term of imprisonment was well open.
Singh – Personal History
38 In the case of you, Baljit Singh, you were born on 21 February 1981 are now 37 years of age. During the timeframe of the conspiracies, you were aged 30 - 34, and you have no prior convictions. You were raised in an upper middle class family in the province of Punjab in northern India. Your father was involved in farming and politics and the family generally was well known and well respected in the local area. Your father was the President of the local branch of the Indian Congress Party and was on the board of the Cooperative Society Bank in India.
39 You were particularly close to your father who died from liver cancer in September 2011. As the eldest child, the responsibility fell to you to provide direction, assistance and, if necessary, financial support to your two younger siblings. One of those siblings was Varinder Kaur, who was acquitted of the conspiracy charges.
40 Your mother, who raised the children, apparently still suffers symptoms of grief and depression arising from her husband's death in 2011. According to the evidence, she is quite frail. Your younger brother and younger sister both now reside in Australia. Ms Kaur is married with two children of her own. Unfortunately, your younger brother developed a dependency on methamphetamine and his relationship with the rest of the family has for that reason been problematic.
41 You were educated at private colleges in India and finished Year 12 as a slightly above average student. You obtained a student visa to study in Australia when you were 18 years of age and arrived in this country on 18 December 1999. You completed a Diploma in Marketing at Holmesglen TAFE, and thereafter, a Diploma in Information Technology at the same institution. You also studied IT at City College. You then enrolled in a Bachelor of Accounting through Central Queensland University at their Melbourne campus. Although you completed quite a number of subjects in that course, you did not finish it because of developing business commitments.
42 In around 2003, you started your own business known as Home Security Professionals Pty Ltd. The business supplied security guards to organisations such as Chubb Security, Woolworths and various shopping centres. In about 2005, you expanded the business so as to involve contracted delivery services throughout Victoria to Australia Post. You eventually provided around 70 to 80 subcontractors to Australia Post and after some time, that became your main business. You told your assessing psychologist, Mr Cummins, that you became the largest contractor in Victoria that provided delivery services to Australia Post. It seems now that all of what you had built, in your legitimate business pursuits, has been lost.
43 You are a person who, since coming to this country, has shown a great deal of drive and initiative in many legitimate respects. You clearly have entrepreneurial skill. You aspired to be a leader within the Indian community and entertained hopes of entering politics. You have now lost any realistic hope of achieving those goals and you presented to Mr Cummins as a man who:
"…historically has been proud of himself and proud of his business related and family related achievements, but now feels crushed, depressed and overwhelmed with the jury verdict.”
44 You married your wife, Rekha Arora, in Melbourne in 2003. There are three children of the marriage. Two daughters, aged 12 and 10, and a son who is now three and a half. As I will explain when dealing with your wife's personal circumstances, you were only able to have your youngest child after a lengthy time undergoing In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). That process was particularly stressful for both of you. Mr Cummins formed the view that you had developed a major depressive disorder at the time your wife was experiencing difficulties in becoming pregnant and undertaking the IVF treatment.
45 In addition, the outcome of your wife's case, and where and how your children will be looked after if you were both to be imprisoned, has been a real source of distress for you. Mr Cummins notes that in the context of these charges and the pressures associated with undergoing trial, you had been abusing alcohol. He diagnosed you with an alcohol use disorder of moderate severity. You are on antidepressants having been assessed as being severely depressed and it is clear that the three year period between arrest and conviction, has weighed heavily on you.
46 In addition to those matters, Dr Fitzgerald, who appeared on your behalf on this plea, submitted that your service of your current term of imprisonment reinforced the spectacular fall from grace you have endured since being charged with the conspiracies. Although you clearly have sought to use your time in custody constructively by undertaking numerous courses in fields such as horticulture, alcohol rehabilitation and carpentry, it is apparent that you have found that time extremely difficult. That is so primarily because you believe your incarceration has badly affected your children, particularly your oldest child.
47 It was submitted that your pleas of guilty were properly characterised as early and very much facilitated the course of justice. The plea in respect of the attempt to pervert the course of justice was particularly valuable given that the Crown case was based on one single conversation that may have been open to interpretation. It was also contended that your conduct was far from a serious example of this offence.
48 With respect to the using false documents charge, it was submitted that whilst the documents used were reasonably sophisticated tax documents, the loan was secured and you clearly had the capacity to service it.
49 Finally, it was submitted that the application of the principle of totality allowed for the imposition of concurrent terms of imprisonment in respect of all three offences to which you have pleaded guilty.
Arora – Personal History
50 Rekha Arora, you were born on 20 June 1981. You are now 37 years of age and you were between 30 – 34 years of age during the timeframe of the first conspiracy charge. You are married to Mr Singh, and as I have said, you have three children aged 12, 10 and three and a half.
51 Your brother, Rakesh Kumar, was also convicted of the same conspiracy charges and is undergoing a five year sentence. You have one younger sister who is married and works in Mumbai as a banking executive. You were awarded a Commerce Degree majoring in accounting from the University of India, and then travelled on a student visa to Australia to further your studies in accounting at La Trobe University.
52 You had met Mr Singh when you were about 16 and you eventually married him in Melbourne in 2003. Whilst in Australia, you worked to support yourself by working in a call centre for about eighteen months, after which you secured employment as a customer services officer with the Commonwealth Bank.
53 A significant feature of your personal circumstances is the fact that you have been, and remain, the primary carer for you and Mr Singh's three children. Accordingly, your involvement in your husband's business activity was punctuated by tending to that responsibility. You told your assessing psychologist, Mr Watson-Munro, that you worked only part-time at St Stephen and Symbiosis because of your need to care for the children. Your two older daughters were young at the time Mr Singh became involved in St Stephen and significantly, you were, during the time of much of the offending, periodically undertaking IVF treatment in Thailand.
54 At the time of the execution of the search warrants in respect of the conspiracies on 5 August 2015, you were heavily pregnant with your youngest child. In the three and half to four years before then, you had been through a protracted period of unsuccessful transplants, which according to Mr Watson-Munro, had dramatically impacted upon your mood. Your youngest child, a son, was born in December 2015. As to your concerns with respect to the children, Mr Watson-Munro stated:
"Ms Arora stated that she and her husband do their best to reassure the children, but they are nonetheless fearful that they may not only be raised by strangers, but in a worst case scenario, that they could be separated from one another. Ms Arora stated that she is finding this psychologically devastating and that it is a terrifying prospect for the children. She reported that her son has been entirely dependent upon her emotionally and physically. He does not attend childcare because of logistic and financial issues. She described the children as being extremely well bonded to one another, as well as to their parents. They are clearly picking up on the escalating stress which is occurring within the home.”
55 Four personal references were tendered on your behalf. Each of those references stress the closeness of the relationship you have with the children, and the pivotal role you play in their care. The references are strongly supportive of the comments you made to Mr Watson-Munro as to your relationship with the children and they serve to emphasise the adverse consequences to them, were you to be incarcerated.
56 It was submitted by Mr Page, who appeared on your behalf in these proceedings, that your role in this offending was very much like your role in relation to the conspiracies. Your husband took care of the finances and you were generally passive with regard to how those affairs were organised. It was not suggested however that you were naïve or that you did not know that false documents were submitted on your behalf, indeed you signed the relevant forms.
57 Since you were sentenced last September, you have struggled to care for and support your three children. You have obtained employment where you earn an annual income of $48,000 per year and your counsel described you as living in quite difficult circumstances. That has been particularly so because your eldest daughter has reacted very badly to her father’s incarceration.
58 Ultimately, it was submitted that whilst a term of imprisonment might be appropriate, it was open to wholly suspend such a sentence under what was section 27 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), and that was the appropriate disposition.
Prosecution Submissions
59 Ms Breckweg, who appeared on behalf of the Crown in respect of these matters, accepted that the pleas of guilty should be characterised as having been entered at an early stage of the proceedings, given that new charges had been laid after discussion between the parties following conviction and sentence in respect of the conspiracies.
60 It was submitted that the offences of using false documents to obtain loans warranted terms of imprisonment, particularly because of the need to emphasise general deterrence. That was an important sentencing consideration given the tendency of this sort of offending to undermine our commercial system. It was further submitted, however, that in the circumstances of you, Mr Singh, and you, Mr Sharma, given you are both now serving lengthy sentences, it would not be outside the appropriate sentencing range to order that the terms of imprisonment imposed be served concurrently.
61 In respect of you, Ms Arora, it was conceded that a suspended term of imprisonment was also within range.
62 However, insofar as the attempting to pervert the course of justice charge was concerned with respect to you, Mr Singh, it was submitted that a partially cumulative sentence should be imposed. Placing pressure on a potential witness to lie has a real tendency to undermine the integrity of our legal system. It was submitted that this was separate and discrete offending that was engaged in whilst you were on bail, and required additional punishment.
Consideration
63 It goes without saying that the use of false documents to obtain substantial loans should be strongly discouraged. The every-day commercial relations which are so vitally important to our daily lives, depend on all parties acting in good faith without falsifying or misrepresenting their position. To do otherwise undermines confidence in our system. For those reasons, I accept that the conduct you each engaged in should be met with terms of imprisonment which denounce what you did, and seek to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
64 In the case of you, Mr Singh, and you, Mr Sharma, having regard to the already lengthy terms you are serving, I am persuaded that the terms of imprisonment imposed in respect of the use of false documents should be served concurrently with your present sentence.
65 In the case of you, Ms Arora, I also accept that it is appropriate to suspend such term as will be imposed from much the same reasons you were placed on a Recognizance Release Order with immediate release in respect of the conspiracies.
66 The far more difficult question is whether the sentences to be imposed for attempting to pervert the course of justice and committing an indictable offence on bail, on you, Mr Singh, should be served partially cumulatively or concurrently.
67 I readily accept that any attempt to pervert the course of justice will tend to undermine the integrity of our legal system and therefore requires a stern response. However, there are three matters in particular which have been influential in resolving the question of partial cumulation or concurrency. The first is that I accept Mr Fitzgerald’s submission that your plea of guilty has particular weight given some of the weaknesses in the Crown case. The second matter is that I also accept that this offending represents a relatively less serious example of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice and the third matter is that, in my view, the proper application of the principle of totality militates against requiring you to spend even further time in jail beyond the lengthy sentence you are now serving. In light of those matters, I have concluded I should impose concurrent sentences.
Sentence
68 Mukesh Sharma, on your charge of use false documents, you will be convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment. I will make no order for cumulation and declare that the sentence of three months imprisonment which I have imposed this day should be served concurrently with the sentence you are currently undergoing.
69 I will declare pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (the Act) that if not for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of four months imprisonment, two months of which would have been served cumulatively upon the sentence you are currently undergoing.
70 Rekha Arora, on your charge of use false documents, you will be convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment, such sentence will be wholly suspended for a period of 12 months.
71 I will declare pursuant to section 6AAA of the Act that if not for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of four months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of 18 months.
72 Baljit Singh, on your charge of use false documents, you will be convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment.
73 On the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, you will be convicted and sentenced to five months imprisonment.
74 On the charge of committing an indictable offence on bail, you will be convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
75 As to all three sentences imposed in respect of you, Baljit Singh, on this day, I will make no order for cumulation and declare that the sentences of three months, five months and one month imprisonment should all be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence you are currently undergoing.
76 I will further declare pursuant to section 6AAA of the Act that if not for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of nine months imprisonment, four months of which would have been served cumulatively.
0
0
0