R v AR

Case [2024] NSWDC 307


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AR [2024] NSWDC 307
Hearing dates: 31 May 2024
Date of orders: 21 June 2024
Decision date: 21 June 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

The offender is convicted and sentenced to 25 months imprisonment. The offender is to serve 12 months in custody and then to be released on a recognizance release order pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) upon giving surety (without security) in the sum of $100, on condition that he be of good behaviour for 2 years.

Catchwords:

s 271.2(1A) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – “Exit trafficking” – offender and victim married – victim on partner visa – offender motivated to ‘return’ victim to Afghanistan because of tension between his mother and victim – deceives victim into travelling to Afghanistan on false premises and then abandons victim there – victim able to return to Australia – multiple acts of deception – lack of remorse – serious offending – significant breach of trust – need for denunciation – custodial sentence warranted

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302,

DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

Faehringer v R [2017] NSWCCA 248

R v CGT [2017] NSWCCA 163

Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87

Saddler v R [2009] NSWCCA 83

Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3

Xiao v R (2018) NSWLR 1

Zheng v R [2023] NSWCCA 64

Texts Cited:

Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 8 December 2004 (Chris Ellison, Senator)

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
AR (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:

Mr D Renton SC (Crown)
Ms S Talbert (Offender)

Solicitors:

Ms S Lo (CDPP)
Ms C Velasquez (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/00213971
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in respect of the names of the offender and victim in respect of any material that may identify them.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The offender, AR, is an Australian resident and citizen. He migrated to Australia as a refugee in 2008. He resides with his mother and brother. There was an arranged marriage between the offender and the victim. The offender travelled to Afghanistan for the marriage which took place on 9 June 2014. The victim remained in Afghanistan. In March 2017, the victim was granted a partner visa. The offender was her sponsor. On 29 March 2017, she arrived in Australia and resided with her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The relationship between the victim and her mother-in-law deteriorated.

  2. On 15 December 2017, the offender’s mother told him that she no longer wanted to live in the house with the victim. Thereafter, the offender engaged in deceptive conduct to have his wife returned to her village in Afghanistan, including booking a one-way ticket to Afghanistan for his wife and arranging for a false itinerary to be created to display a return flight. The couple arrived in Kabul on 28 January 2018. The victim continued on to her village. The offender remained in Kabul.…

Continue reading R v AR

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v AR [2024] NSWDC 307
Case
[2024] NSWDC 307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v AR, the offender was convicted and sentenced for an offence under s 271.2(1A) of the Criminal Code Act 1995, which pertains to "exit trafficking." The offender, who was married to the victim, deceived the victim into travelling from Australia to Afghanistan under false premises. The victim, who was on a partner visa, was abandoned in Afghanistan. The victim managed to return to Australia and report the crime.

The legal issues before the court included whether the offender's actions constituted multiple acts of deception, the motivation behind the deception, the breach of trust, and the need for denunciation. The court also considered the offender's lack of remorse and the seriousness of the offending.

The court found that the offender had engaged in multiple acts of deception, motivated by tension between his mother and the victim. The deception constituted a significant breach of trust. The court emphasised the need for denunciation and determined that a custodial sentence was warranted. The court sentenced the offender to 25 months imprisonment, with 12 months to be served in custody, followed by a recognizance release order upon giving surety (without security) in the sum of $100, on condition that the offender be of good behaviour for 2 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted and sentenced to 25 months imprisonment. The offender is to serve 12 months in custody and then to be released on a recognizance release order pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) upon giving surety (without security) in the sum of $100, on condition that he be of good behaviour for 2 years.

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.