Local Court of New South Wales
CITATION: Police v Jim, Keat, Sim [2008] NSWLC 25 JURISDICTION: Criminal PARTIES: Police
Jin
Keat
SimFILE NUMBER: H-35149730 ; H-35460876 ; H-35878243 PLACE OF HEARING: Wagga Wagga Local Court DATE OF DECISION: 12/15/2008 MAGISTRATE: Magistrate P Dare CATCHWORDS: Credit Card fraud – Identity Theft - Foreign Nationals – Indicia of Organised Crime - Relevance of Possible Deportation on Imposition of Sentence – Only full-time custody appropriate – Principles of Totality - Partial Cumulation of Penalty – Importance of Deterrence – Special Circumstances – No “evidence” of Remorse. LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900 – S. 93T (1);
S. 300 (2); S. 302;
S. 527C(1)(a).Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999.
S. 3A;
S. 5;
S. 21A (3) (i);
S. 22 (1);
S. 50. Criminal Procedure Act, 1986.
S. 267 (2).CASES CITED: Cahyadi v Regina (2007) 168 A Crim R 41.
De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383.
Markarian v Regina (2005) 215 ALR 213.
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Regina v Araya [2005]NSWCCA 283
Regina –v- Barlow [2008] NSWCCA
Regina v Chapman (1971) 1 NSWLR 544
Regina v Chi Sun Tsui (1985) 1 NSWLR 308
Regina v Chu (Unrep) 16/10/98, NSWCCA
Regina v Clissold [2002] NSWCCA 356
Regina v Close (1992) 31 NSWLR 743
Regina v Cook [1999] NSWCCA 234
Regina v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115.
Regina v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Regina v El-Hayek (2004) 144 A Crim R 90
Regina v Falzon & Pullen (Unrep.) 20/2/1992, NSWCCA
Regina v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
Regina v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
Regina v Halabi (Unrep.) 17/2/92, NSWCCA
Regina v Harrower [1999] VSCA 182
Regina v Huang (2000) 113 A Crim R 386
Regina v Hull (1969) 90 WN (Pt.1) (N.S.W.) 488
Regina v Ibrahim [2005] NSWCCA 43
Regina v King (2004) 150 A Crim R 409
Regina v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
Regina v Macaulay (1969) 90 WN (Pt.1) (N.S.W.) 682.
Regina v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255
Regina v. Mesdaghi (1979) 2 NSWLR 68
Regina v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
Regina v Newman & Simpson (2004) 145 A Crim R 361
Regina v Nguyen [2007] NSWCCA 14
Regina v Thompson & Houlton 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
Regina v O’Neill (1979) 2 NSWLR 582
Regina v Riche (1977) 2 NSWLR 876
Regina v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
Regina v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
Roberts v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 112
Shrestha v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 48
Starmer v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 27
Vaovasa v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 253TEXTS CITED: REPRESENTATION:
Mr D. Barron, Solicitor, for each of the Offenders.ORDERS:
26
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
Before the Court for sentence are three Malaysian nationals, Ho Pan JIN, Ang Boon KEAT and Tan Chen SIM who entered Australia in August, 2008, on tourist visas. They are charged with a series of…
Continue reading Police v Jim, Keat, Sim
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Police v Jim, Keat, Sim [2008] NSWLC 25
- Case
- [2008] NSWLC 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved the prosecution of three individuals, Jim, Keat, and Sim, on charges of credit card fraud and identity theft. The defendants, all foreign nationals, were part of a larger syndicate suspected of engaging in organised crime activities. The prosecution argued that the offences warranted severe punishment, given the scale and sophistication of the fraud, as well as the potential for significant harm to victims. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering various factors including the totality principle, the need for deterrence, and the potential impact of deportation on the sentencing.
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the full-time custody was necessary, given the nature and severity of the crimes, and whether the court could partially cumulate the penalties for multiple offences. The court also had to consider the special circumstances of the defendants, including their status as foreign nationals, and the relevance of potential deportation in determining the sentence. Furthermore, the prosecution needed to establish that there was no evidence of remorse on the part of the defendants, which could have been a mitigating factor.
In its reasoning, the court concluded that the offences committed by the defendants were severe and warranted a custodial sentence. It found that full-time custody was the only appropriate form of penalty, given the organised nature of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victims. The court also determined that the principles of totality and deterrence necessitated a sentence that reflected the cumulative impact of the offences. The court further noted that there was no evidence of remorse, which supported a harsher sentence. The court ordered that the sentences for the multiple offences be partially cumulated, taking into account the totality principle.
The court's final orders were that Jim, Keat, and Sim were to serve a term of 26 months in full-time custody. The sentences for the various offences were to be partially cumulated, reflecting the need for deterrence and the cumulative impact of the crimes. The court emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that would adequately address the seriousness of the offences and protect the community from further harm.
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the full-time custody was necessary, given the nature and severity of the crimes, and whether the court could partially cumulate the penalties for multiple offences. The court also had to consider the special circumstances of the defendants, including their status as foreign nationals, and the relevance of potential deportation in determining the sentence. Furthermore, the prosecution needed to establish that there was no evidence of remorse on the part of the defendants, which could have been a mitigating factor.
In its reasoning, the court concluded that the offences committed by the defendants were severe and warranted a custodial sentence. It found that full-time custody was the only appropriate form of penalty, given the organised nature of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victims. The court also determined that the principles of totality and deterrence necessitated a sentence that reflected the cumulative impact of the offences. The court further noted that there was no evidence of remorse, which supported a harsher sentence. The court ordered that the sentences for the multiple offences be partially cumulated, taking into account the totality principle.
The court's final orders were that Jim, Keat, and Sim were to serve a term of 26 months in full-time custody. The sentences for the various offences were to be partially cumulated, reflecting the need for deterrence and the cumulative impact of the crimes. The court emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that would adequately address the seriousness of the offences and protect the community from further harm.
Orders
Orders of the court
26
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.