R v Bajrang Bothra - [2012] NSWDC 158

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bajrang Bothra [2012] NSWDC 158
Hearing dates: 11/05/12
Decision date: 16 May 2012
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Convicted: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period being 1 year and 9 months to commence on 16/5/12 and expire on 15/2/14. The balance of the sentence being 1 year and 6 months is to expire on 15/8/15. The total sentence of imprisonment is 3 years and 3 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW: deal with proceeds of crime, fraud, breach of trust, early plea, special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195
R v Waqa (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 33
R v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162
Tsakonas v R [2009] NSWCCA 258
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92
Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Chu (NSWCCA unreported 16.10.98)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Bajrang Bothra (Offender)
Representation: Mr B Haverfield - Offender
Ms P Smith - Office of Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown

File Number(s): 2010/298785
Publication restriction: nil

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Bajrang Bothra appears today for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court contrary to s 193B(1) Crimes Act (1900) that he between 21 June and 9 August 2010 at Neutral Bay in the State of New South Wales did deal with proceeds of crime to wit $1,102,384 knowing that it was the proceeds of crime and intending to conceal that it was the proceeds of crime.

This offence carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. It does not have a standard non-parole period.

It is agreed by the Crown on the submission of the accused that the plea of guilty was entered and the first reasonable opportunity and thus the prisoner is entitled to a discount of twentyfive per cent upon the otherwise appropriate sentence for the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty.

The plea of guilty at an early stage, or at a reasonably early stage, but certainly prior to committal, is to be seen in the context of cooperation the offender has provided to the authorities to which I am required to take into account, particularly pursuant to s 23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999).

I am informed the prisoner has spent no time in custody. He was arrested on 2 September 2010 after an extensive police investigation. There are a number of co-accused who, as I understand the matter, await their outcomes in this Court. At the present time a co-offender by the name of William Tooth who will be referred to in the facts, is listed for sentence later this month or early next month. Two co-accused, Andrew Musumeci and Mary Ji, are, or have been, arraigned in relation to a similar offence to which the prisoner pleaded guilty. Another alleged offender, Maroun Kabbout, is either committed for trial, or about to be committed…

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 Bajrang Bothra

Details

AGLC: R v Bajrang Bothra [2012] NSWDC 158
Case: [2012] NSWDC 158
Decision Date: 16 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a criminal case involving the defendant, Bajrang Bothra, who was charged with dealing with the proceeds of crime, fraud, and breach of trust. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of trust and whether the special circumstances of the case warranted a reduced sentence due to the defendant's early plea. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes.

The court found that the defendant's actions did indeed constitute a breach of trust. The defendant had been entrusted with significant sums of money by various individuals, which he subsequently misappropriated for his own use. The court further found that the special circumstances of the case warranted a reduced sentence. The defendant had entered an early plea of guilty, which demonstrated remorse and a willingness to take responsibility for his actions. The court also considered the defendant's background, which included no prior criminal history and a genuine remorse for his actions. The court concluded that these factors warranted a reduced sentence.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, to commence on 16 May 2012 and expire on 15 February 2014. The balance of the sentence was 1 year and 6 months, to expire on 15 August 2015. The total sentence of imprisonment was 3 years and 3 months. The court found that this sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the defendant's crimes and the special circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period being 1 year and 9 months to commence on 16/5/12 and expire on 15/2/14. The balance of the sentence being 1 year and 6 months is to expire on 15/8/15. The total sentence of imprisonment is 3 years and 3 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Bajrang Bothra [2012] NSWDC 158
Hearing dates:	11/05/12
Decision date:	16 May 2012
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Convicted: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non parole period being 1 year and 9 months to commence on 16/5/12 and expire on 15/2/14. The balance of the sentence being 1 year and 6 months is to expire on 15/8/15. The total sentence of imprisonment is 3 years and 3 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW: deal with proceeds of crime, fraud, breach of trust, early plea, special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	R v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195 R v Waqa (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 33 R v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162 Tsakonas v R [2009] NSWCCA 258 R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92 Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Chu (NSWCCA unreported 16.10.98)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Bajrang Bothra (Offender)
Representation:	Mr B Haverfield - Offender Ms P Smith - Office of Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
File Number(s):	2010/298785
Publication restriction:	nil