Director of Public Prosecutions v Sandhu
[2023] VCC 1194
•14 June 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 22-02148
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SUKHPREET SANDHU |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 14 June 2023 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 June 2023 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Sandhu |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1194 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Charge aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence, being the importation of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor – monitoring a consignment containing packages of pseudoephedrine entering Australia – sentence indication accepted – importance of specific and general deterrence – early plea of guilty – limited evidence of remorse – delay – parity
Cases Cited:Nguyen v R [2011] 31 VSCA 673; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: 448 days imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr G. Barr | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Hooper | Ann Valos Criminal Law |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1On 14 June 2023, I sentenced Suhkpreet Sandhu to 448 days’ imprisonment on a charge of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence, being the importation of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor. I declared the 448 days of his pre-sentence detention as time served under my sentence.
2This sentence followed a sentence indication hearing on a different charge. The proceeding was adjourned, later listed for a contested plea but proceeded as a simple plea on 14 June 2023. I sentenced Mr Sandhu that day and said I would provide my reasons on 4 July, a course acceptable to the parties.
Circumstances
Charge 1
3On 22 December 2021, a consignment comprising of two boxes left Nepal, destined for an address in Lalor.
4On 24 December 2021, the consignment was intercepted by the Australian Border Force (ABF) in Perth while enroute to Victoria.
5Seven days later, the consignment was examined. It comprised 80 packages in sealed plastic bags, weighing 100 grams each. The packages were hidden within playmats. The total net weight was 5.154 kilograms. Samples were taken from each of the 80 packages. The 80 samples contained 81.9% pseudoephedrine. The estimated value of 5.1 kilograms of pseudoephedrine is between $127,000-$178,000 (approx. between $25,000 and $35,000 per kilogram).
6Pseudoephedrine is a precursor drug. A commercial quantity of it is 1.2 kilograms. Accordingly, this amount was about 3.5 times the threshold for a commercial quantity. This was a serious importation of that drug.
7On 20 January 2022, the ABF performed a controlled delivery of the consignment to the address in Lalor. The consignment was accepted by a third party who was at the address. Shortly after the delivery, a search warrant was executed at the Lalor address.
8During the search, playmats and 3 mobile phones were seized. The third party admitted to accepting the delivery and opening the consignment. That person has not been charged in relation to this matter.
9On 1 February 2022, telephone calls between Mr Sandhu and his co-accused, Satnam Singh Gill, were intercepted. The calls and the results of subsequent search warrants reveal Mr Gill arranged for the third party to accept the consignment containing the pseudoephedrine. Mr Gill was the conduit to the third party. The extent of Mr Sandhu’s involvement was described[1]:
“…that Sandhu provided assistance to him [Gill] in doing so. The intercept evidence shows and the Prosecution accepts, that Gill was the conduit with the unknown persons who were involved in sending the consignment and that Sandhu provided assistance to him, including monitoring the dispatch of the consignment and tracking its progress enroute to Australia. The evidence subsequent to 24 December 2021 is only relevant as admissions that the Accused [Sandhu] assisted Gill in importing the consignment”.
[1] Sentence Indication – Summary of Agreed Facts at [11].
Record of Interview
10Mr Sandhu was unhelpful when interviewed by the police, denying any involvement or knowledge of illicit drugs. He admitted to being paid between $2,000-$5,000 for assisting with the consignment however he did not elaborate on his role or who sent the consignment. He said the “jobs” referred to in telephone intercepts of conversations with Mr Gill were taxi jobs.
11Mr Sandhu was arrested on 23 February 2022 and has remained in custody since then.
Criminal History
12Mr Sandhu has no prior criminal history.
Personal
13Mr Sandhu is now 27. He was born in Punjab, India and is an Indian citizen. He completed schooling in India and then came to Australia to pursue vocational training. He was living in Australia on a student visa and at the time of the offending was 26 and living with his girlfriend.
14In Australia, he completed a Diploma and Advanced Diploma in Information Technology and Certificates III and IV in Motor Mechanics. He worked as a process worker while studying and then became a taxi driver.
15A significant portion of his earnings was sent back to his family in India. He has a close relationship with his parents and speaks to them weekly. His counsel submitted his time in custody would have had a significant impact on them as they rely on his remittances.
16Mr Sandhu has a wife and a son. They live in Australia but there is limited contact. Before his remand in custody, he was living with a girlfriend. She is a permanent resident of Australia.
17Once released from custody, Mr Sandhu intends to India as soon as possible.
Discussion
18The prosecution referred to Nguyen v R[2], where the Court stated a series of propositions relevant to sentencing offences involving drug importations.
[2] [2011] 31 VSCA 673 at [34].
19It is difficult to detect the importation of drugs into Australia. The Court must, by its sentences, emphasise the importance of deterrence, both general and specific. The sentences must act to deter others from committing such offences and deter Mr Sandhu from re-offending in a similar manner.
20Mr Sandhu’s involvement in this criminal enterprise was monitoring the despatch of the consignment, which involved tracking its progress to Australia. His involvement ended before the consignment was substituted. There is no basis to infer Mr Sandhu profited financially from his involvement or he intended to gain possession of or use the substance. However, his motive was to profit financially from his involvement. He knew the shipment had value but not the extent of that value.
21Although the identities of the principals are unknown, the co-accused, Mr Gill, was a lesser participant than those principals in the importation. It is agreed Mr Sandhu was a lesser participant than Mr Gill.
22The sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence are important in these kinds of cases.
Guilty plea
23There was a committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court even though only a police witness gave evidence. When the proceeding came before me a sentence indication was sought in relation to the charge of importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor, the charge on which he was committed. However, Mr Sandhu subsequently pleaded guilty to a different charge. In terms of the timing of the guilty plea, it was a plea entered at an early stage, if not the earliest reasonable opportunity.
24Any guilty plea benefits the criminal justice system in a practical sense. It enables other cases to be heard sooner. It spares witnesses giving evidence. It avoids a jury trial, which is a time consuming and resource demanding form of trial. Mr Sandhu’s plea is no different.
25Although the Court’s observations in Worboyes v R[3] have had a significant impact on sentencing, the crisis caused by the pandemic has subsided but not disappeared. Even now, a guilty plea deserves a greater discount on sentence than that in normal times.
[3][2021] VSCA 169.
26Mr Sandhu’s guilty plea may be some evidence of remorse, I cannot find he is remorseful in the sense of a determination not to re-offend in a like manner.
27On the other hand, Mr Sandhu has spent 448 days in custody. For someone who has no criminal history, this must be a strong deterrent to him re-offending whether or not it leads him along the path of rehabilitation.
Delay
28Unfortunately, the 448 days Mr Sandhu has spent in custody would not be considered these days as a “delay”. In non-pandemic times, it would have been considered excessive and probably justified a grant of bail. Nevertheless, it is a long time to wait for a resolution and the anxiousness generated by that wait.
29Much of his time in custody has been spent under some of the restrictions caused by the response to the virus. For example, Mr Sandhu spent about two months in lockdown conditions at Port Phillip Prison.
Parity
30On 31 March 2023, in the NSW District Court, Mr Gill was sentenced Mr Gill was sentenced on two charges: importing a commercial quantity of border-controlled precursor; and possessing a prohibited drug. On the first charge, he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment with 18 months to serve before his release on recognizance of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for 18 months. On the second charge, he was fined $500[4].
[4] Letter from the Registrar of the District Court of NSW to the Commonwealth DPP dated 4 May 2023.
31I have not seen the sentencing remarks. Mr Gill was sentenced on a different charge than Mr Sandhu. But there is no difference between the maximum penalty for importing a commercial quantity and aiding, abetting, etc, the offence. In terms of imprisonment, the maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
Comparative cases
32Helpfully, the prosecution provided summaries of comparative cases. They involved importation of a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine, marketable or commercial.
Sentence
33On charge 1, I sentenced Mr Sandhu to 448 days’ imprisonment. I declared his 448 days of pre-sentence detention as time served under my sentence.
34I have imposed a sentence of imprisonment which is greater than 6 months and less than 3 years. I have not imposed a recognizance release order because the nature of Sandhu’s offending and his personal circumstances mean the sentence I imposed, and no more, adequately punishes Mr Sandhu for the offence.
S 6AAA
35Absent his guilty plea, if Mr Sandhu had been found guilty of the charge after a trial, I would have sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment to be released on a recognizance release order after serving 18 months’ imprisonment and to be of good behaviour for 6 months.
‑ ‑ ‑
0