R v Arora - [2022] ACTSC 39

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Arora
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 39
Hearing Date:	31 January 2022
DecisionDate:	3 February 2022
Before:	Norrish AJ
Decision:	See [108]-[109]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – participate in a criminal group being reckless as to contribution to criminal activity – recklessness short of knowledge – no personal gain – prior good character – significance of maximum penalty – “objective seriousness” – reparation – “direct result” – utilitarian benefit of plea of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 86 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12, 19, 33, 35, 49, 53 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45, 253, 352, 652
Cases Cited:	Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 De Simoni v The Queen [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383 Islam v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 236 Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87 R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371; 316 FLR 49 R v Eliadis [2017] ACTSC 193 R v Joel Westman; R v Flinn Westman [2021] NSWDC 234 R v Lahood [2019] NSWDC 646 R v Nicholas, R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465 Zamagias v The Queen [2002] NSWCCA 17
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mohit Arora (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen SC (Crown) A Francis (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) One Group Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 120 of 2021

NORRISH AJ:

The offender, Mohit Arora, appears today for sentence in relation to an offence contrary to s 652 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code). That offence to which he pleaded guilty alleged that he, between 2 June 2019 and 29 December 2019, participated in a criminal group, knowing that the group was a criminal group, and being reckless about whether his participation in the criminal group constituted criminal activity. This offence has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

There are no other offences to be taken into account. The prisoner pleaded guilty on 4 November 2021 after the Crown had offered a plea of guilty to the charge in question in lieu of prosecuting the offender in respect of 70 counts of being knowingly concerned in another person obtaining a financial advantage contrary to s 332 of the Criminal Code (see also s 45). The maximum penalty for each of those offences was 10 years imprisonment.

The matter had been listed for jury trial to commence on 15 November 2021 with an estimate of three weeks and the possibility of over 70 witnesses being called. In that regard, I note that there had been a Criminal Case Conference in August and there had been some pre-trial issues considered by the court. Noting…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Arora

Details

AGLC: R v Arora [2022] ACTSC 39
Case: [2022] ACTSC 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dealt with a case involving Mohit Arora, who was charged with participating in a criminal group while being reckless as to whether his participation constituted criminal activity. The court had to decide on the legal issues surrounding the nature of the offence, the significance of the maximum penalty, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the relevance of the plea of guilty. The court found that the offence was well below the worst case scenario and that the offender's role was not critical to the success of the scheme. The court also considered the subjective circumstances of the offender, who had no prior criminal convictions and was of good character. The court decided to impose a sentence of two years' imprisonment, reduced from two years and six months, and suspended the sentence on the condition that the offender enters into a good behaviour order for a period of three years.

Orders