R v Contreras; R v Alvarado; R v Silva; R v Pizarro; R v Carrasco; R v Santibanez

Case •

[2019] NSWDC 527

•

09 April 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Contreras; R v Alvarado; R v Silva; R v Pizarro; R v Carrasco; R v Santibanez [2019] NSWDC 527
Hearing dates: 8 April 2019; 9 April 2019
Date of orders: 09 April 2019
Decision date: 09 April 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

Carrasco: A term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years, 8 months.
Santibanez: A term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years, 8 months.
Silva: A term of imprisonment of 4 years, 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 months.
Alvarado: A term of imprisonment of 4 years, 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 months.
Contreras: A term of imprisonment of 3 years, 7 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Pizarro: A term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, 3 month. See [55].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Financial gain — In company — Planned or organised criminal activity — Vulnerable victim
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse — Rehabilitation
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Establishing relevant matters — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Pearce
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Hardship — Deportation — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Migration Act 1958
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145
R v Chu (unrep, 16/10/98, NSWCCA)
R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mario Contreras (Offender)
Christian Alvarado (Offender)
Nicolas Silva (Offender)
Ubaldo Pizarro (Offender)
Gabriel Carrasco (Offender)
Ivan Santibanez (Offender)
Representation: Mr Sit (Crown)
Ms Hutchinson (Carrasco – Offender)
Mr Lawrence (Santibanez – Offender)
Ms Carroll (Silva – Offender)
Ms Avenell (Alvarado – Offender)
Mr Williams (Contreras – Offender)
Ms Mikhael (Pizarro – Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/280152; 2017/281189; 2017/281786; 2017/281797; 2017/283373; 2017/283383

Judgment

  1. In August 2017 a group of Chilean criminals came to Australia. They lied to Border Force officers by declaring that they had no prior criminal convictions. They all had convictions for offences in Chile, including robbery and theft. Some had served lengthy terms in gaol, and two had been deported from European countries for dishonesty offences.

  2. Over the next month they committed numerous offences in what was conceded to be a well organised and planned operation involving multiple groups of offenders utilising techniques of distraction, and technology to allow continuous communication in a fairly sophisticated fashion. They operated in teams to conduct covert surveillance on victims. They used ear phones, connected to an open line to communicate with each other and coordinate their actions as they distracted their victims in order to facilitate stealing their property. CCTV footage of some of the offences showed the men also using hand signals to communicate with each other.

  3. They all sent some of the proceeds of their crimes back to Chile. In most of the stealing cases the victim was unsuspecting and had been observed withdrawing cash from a bank. In many cases, the victim was unaware that the theft had occurred at the time. Fortunately there was no use of threats or violence or weapons, but as the Crown points out that was an indication of the sophistication of the operation. Most of the property has not been recovered and these were not, as the Crown points out, common or garden variety bag snatching incidents.

  4. All the offenders have been in custody since their arrest in September 2017. Some of them have found God while in prison, The most optimistic submission that can be put on behalf of some of the offenders is that the time in custody to date is nearing the minimum term which would be required to encompass all the criminality. It is conceded by all counsel that there is no need to consider any alternative to full time custody.

  5. Each offender has pleaded guilty, firstly, to a Commonwealth offender of making a false statement to an officer under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. That offending can be dealt with briefly. The sentences are to be said, having regard to the matter set out in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the issues have been addressed in written submissions by the Prosecutor appearing for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. They include reference to three supposedly comparable cases. It is common ground that the present offences are less serious than the comparable, and that any term of imprisonment should be served concurrently with the sentence to be imposed for State offences.

  6. Pleas of guilty have been entered to a number of State offences in circumstances attracting a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea in each case.

  7. The sentencing exercise has to take account of the purpose of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. In each case a number of matters are to be taken into account on Form 1 and that will be done in the way suggested by the Chief Justice in the guideline judgment on Form 1 matters, namely by giving greater weight to specific deterrence and retribution but ensuring that the focus remains on sentencing for the primary offence.

  8. Questions of totality and accumulation will be taken into account in the way suggested in authorities such as Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 and R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38. As to parity, there were two other related offenders, Mr Zamora and Mr Marino, who have been sentenced in the Local Court, but it is not suggested that those sentences are relevant to the present sentencing process. It is common ground that a finding of special circumstances should be made in relation to each offender given that they are serving their first time in custody in Australia which has been accompanied by hardship due to separation from their families, language difficulties and the fact that time on remand is, as the authorities show, usually more onerous than post classification custody.

  9. A table which has been distributed to counsel and will be attached to the reasons will set out the offence in each case, the maximum penalty, my assessment of objective seriousness, the indicative sentences and the ultimate sentence to be imposed.

  10. Victims impact statements have been prepared in relation to some matters, and although they are not admissible pursuant to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the judgment of Johnson J in Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145 at [52]–[57] demonstrates that they are admissible at common law given that the purposes of sentencing include recognition of the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

  11. None of the offenders have given evidence, and each has relied upon a subjective history reported to consultants which is not subject to challenge and is therefore approached with the caution expressed in cases such as R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369. However, in each case I propose to proceed on the basis that the history is a reasonable one, consistent with the background and circumstances of each offender. In short, they all describe a background of varying degrees of hardship, some in the context of the depredations visited on the Chilean people by the dictator General Pinochet in the period between 1973 and 1990.

Facts

  1. I turn to consider briefly the facts in relation to each offence noting that the agreed facts for each offender run to between 15 and 20 pages, and it is unnecessary in the course of these remarks to do other than summarise briefly the facts of each offence.

Steal from person – Carrasco (004); Santibanez (004)

  1. The first offence of sequence 004 relating to Carrasco and Santibanez involved a victim withdrawing $10,000 from Westpac Bank at Auburn. A group including those two men were conducting covert surveillance. All six of the group followed the victim along Auburn Road to his car and Carrasco approached his vehicle and suggested that his tyre was flat. One of the other men Silva approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and took his bag containing the $10,000. All of them left. Call charge records show that all of the men in the group were making multiple calls to some of the others in the lead up to and during the offence.

Larceny - Carrasco (Form 1: 011); Santibanez (Form 1: 024)

  1. There is a larceny at Liverpool involving the same two gentlemen, together with a number of other men on 23 August 20117. Again involving a victim who had taken $10,000 out of the bank. While the victim was in a nearby store the offenders approached his vehicle, smashed the front window and took the bag containing the $10,000. That is a Form 1 matter.

Steal from person (attempt) – Carrasco (Form 1: 024); Santibanez (Form 1: 023)

  1. Another Form 1 matter involving these two offenders involved an attempt to steal $4,000 from a person who had taken it from a bank at Camden on 25 August 2017, again using the subterfuge that the victim had a flat tyre.

Steal from person (attempt) – Carrasco (Form 1: 001); Santibanez (Form 1: 001); Silva (Form 1: 005); Alvarado (Form 1: 003); Contreras (Form 1: 003); Pizarro (Form 1: 002)

  1. This was an attempted steal from the person involving $10,000 worth of jewellery at Darling Harbour involving all six offenders on 26 August 2017. There was an international jewellery trade fair held at the Convention Centre. The victim had a bag containing $10,000 worth of jewellery. The offenders in a large group approached the victim and temporarily distracted her, Carrasco took hold of the bag and started to carry it away from her, but she realised what was happening and yelled and caused the offender to quickly return the bag. The offenders then all left. They were all captured on CCTV.

Aggravated break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence – Carrasco (022); Santibanez (021)

Aggravated break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence – Carrasco (Form 1: 023); Santibanez (Form 1: 022)

  1. These two offences of aggravated break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence at the Holiday Inn, Haymarket on 26 August 2017, the second of which is a Form 1 matter. The victims had also arrived in the Haymarket to attend the international jewellery fair on 26 August 2017. A number of the offenders carried out surveillance in the lobby of the hotel and three of the men in the group then went up to the victim’s room and broke into rooms 826 and 833 and ransacked both rooms but left without locating any jewellery.

Larceny – Carrasco (012); Santibanez (011)

  1. The next offence involving, what the Crown describes as group one, namely Carrasco and Santibanez, was the larceny at Fairfield on 28 August 2017, involving $469,500 of jewellery which was in the possession of the victim at the Darling Harbour jewellery exhibition. While the victim and his wife left their vehicle to do some shopping, their vehicle was broken into and four suitcases containing the jewellery was stolen. CCTV footage showed Carrasco and Santibanez and two other men dragging the suitcases out of the car park.

Steal from person – Carrasco (009); Santibanez (005)

  1. The next offence involving group one is a steal from the person at Rose Bay on 4 September 2017 involving $7,000 cash from a victim who had taken that money from the bank in order to pay for his father’s tombstone. Again they used the pre‑text of suggesting to the victim that he had a flat tyre which led to them carrying out the theft from his car.

Steal from person – Carrasco (002); Santibanez (002)

  1. The next offence involving group one is a steal from the person at Mona Vale on 5 September 2017 involving $2,000, which had been withdrawn from a bank by the 83 year old female victim. Again, they suggested to her that she had a flat tyre and while she was distracted Carrasco stole her handbag containing the $2,000 from the car.

Steal from person – Carrasco (005); Santibanez (006)

  1. The next sequence involving group one is another steal from the person on 6 September 2017 in Sylvania, involving $2,000 taken from a victim who had withdrawn it from a St George Bank. Again using the flat tyre pre‑text.

Steal from person – Carrasco (021); Santibanez (020)

  1. There was a further steal from a person involving group one on 7 September 2017 at Warrawong, involving a 77 year old female victim who had taken $1,000 out of her bank. Again, the flat tyre pre‑text was used to distract the victim while one of the group stole the handbag from her car.

Steal from person (attempt) – Carrasco (Form 1: 006); Santibanez (Form 1: 007)

  1. The next offence involving group one is an attempted steal from the person at Campbelltown on 11 September 2017 involving two elderly victims who had withdrawn $2,000 from the bank. Again, using the flat tyre pre‑text while the victims were distracted there was an attempt to relieve them of their money. Fortunately one of the victims saw one of the offenders in the car and yelled out causing them to leave.

Steal from person – Carrasco (007); Santibanez (009)

  1. This offence involved group one stealing from a person at Campbelltown on 13 September 2017. An elderly female had withdrawn $5,000 from the Commonwealth Bank. The offenders punctured the tyre of one of the victim leading to them calling for the NRMA to assist, and while the victim was distracted one of the group entered the victim’s vehicle and stole the $5,000.

Steal from person – Carrasco (008); Santibanez (010)

  1. The final offence involving group one, is a steal from the person at Springwood on 14 September 2017. Again, an elderly male had withdrawn $4,800 from the Commonwealth Bank. The offenders, along with other members of their group approached the victim near his vehicle. Again, suggesting to him that he had a flat tyre and while they engaged the victim one of the men got into his car and stole the $4,800.

Participate in a criminal group – Carrasco (Form 1: 003); Santibanez (Form 1: 003); Silva (Form 1: 006); Alvarado (Form 1: 004); Contreras (Form 1: 005); Pizarro (Form 1: 006)

  1. Each of the offenders has a Form 1 offence of participating in a criminal group. The facts assert that each offender acted in cohort with at least three other men to obtain material benefit from conduct constituting serious indictable offences, and that they used a pattern of distraction and the exhibited knowledge of surveillance techniques to track their victims. They operated in teams to conduct covert surveillance on the victims. The targets were usually elderly people who had withdrawn large sums from a bank and they used ear phones and hand signals to communicate.

Deal with proceeds of crime – Carrasco (013); Santibanez (012); Silva (011); Alvarado (011); Contreras (012); Pizarro (011)

  1. Each of the offenders also pleaded guilty to a charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime. These offences involve the transmission of amounts between $6,000 and $12,000 by each offender to recipients in Chile.

Larceny – Silva (008); Alvarado (008); Contreras (008); Pizarro (008)

  1. Group two, as described by the Crown, include Silva, Alvarado, Contreras and Pizarro. The first offence involving group 2 is a larceny committed at Chatswood on 21 August 2017. A box of sunglasses worth $9,681 was taken from an eyewear store in Chatswood.

Steal from person – Silva (004); Alvarado (002); Contreras (002); Pizarro (003)

  1. The next offence involving group 2, is a steal from a person at Cabramatta on 1 September 2017. The victim had withdrawn $10,650 from the bank. A group including the offenders approached the victim, again using the flat tyre pre‑text. One of the group approached the victim and spilt a drink on him and while he was distracted the offenders stole the jacket, or one of the offenders stole the jacket containing the cash.

Steal from person – Silva (003); Alvarado (001); Contreras (001); Pizarro (001)

  1. The next offence involving group two, is a steal from the person in Hornsby on 4 September 2017. An elderly female who had withdrawn $5,000 in cash from the bank. One member of the group distracted the victim by telling her that she had dropped some money on the ground and while she was at the rear of her vehicle one of the group opened the front door of the car and stole the $5,000 which was in an envelope. As has been the case in several of the offences, the call charge records show that all the men were making multiple calls to each other in the lead up to and during the offence.

Deal with the proceeds of crime – Silva (018); Alvarado (017); Contreras (017); Pizarro (014)

  1. Each of the offenders in group two are also being dealt with on a Form 1 matter for dealing with the proceeds of crime, separate to the money transfers which I have already referred, and these involve sending boxes for which a fee of $932 was paid at various times to recipients in Chile.

Steal from person – Silva (002); Alvarado (005); Contreras (007); Pizarro (004)

  1. The next offence involving group two is a steal from the person at Hurstville on the 5 September 2017. The victim had taken $5,000 out of the Westpac Bank and then another $20,000 from the St George Bank. Members of the group distracted the victim and while that occurred Mr Contreras stole the bag containing $25,000.

Steal from person (attempt) – Silva (Form 1: 010); Alvarado (Form 1: 010); Contreras (Form 1: 011); Pizarro (Form 1: 010)

  1. This offence involved group two and an attempted steal from a person at Campbelltown on 8 September 2017. This is a Form 1 matter, and it involves a victim who had withdrawn $2,950 from a bank. Using the pre-text of the victim having supposedly dropped some money and distracting her, they attempted to steal the money. The victim was alert to this, locked her car doors and notified police.

Steal from person – Silva (001); Alvarado (006)

  1. There was an offence of steal from a person at Liverpool on 8 September 2017, involving $4,000 cash, relating only to Silva and Alvarado. A 54 year old female and her five year old daughter were at a bank in Liverpool, where they they withdrew $4,000. Mr Silva punctured her car tyre, which was caught on CCTV, and when the victim was distracted he stole the cash.

Receive stolen property – Pizarro (014)

  1. Pizarro alone pleads guilty to a receiving stolen property offence, involving the receipt of the $4,000 cash which had been taken from the victim of the Liverpool robbery to which I have just referred.

Being armed with intent – Contreras (Form 1: 004)

  1. Contreras is being dealt with on Form 1 for a charge of being armed with intent. That offence involved him being in possession of a silver metallic implement that is consistent with an implement used to puncture car tyres.

Possess property stolen outside NSW – Silva (Form 1: 021)

  1. Finally, Silva is being dealt with on Form 1 on a charge of possess property stolen outside New South Wales, which involves a pair of sunglasses worth $845 which had been stolen from Victoria. They were found when his luggage was searched after his arrest.

  2. The offenders were all arrested at different times. On 19 September 2017, Carrasco and Santibanez were arrested at Sydney International Airport attempting to board a flight to Santiago. On 16 September 2017 Silva, Pizarro and Alvarado went to the airport and attempted to board a flight to Santiago. Alvarado was stopped by Border Force due to an alert. Silva and Pizarro managed to board the plane but they were later removed from the plane by Australian Federal Police. Contreras was arrested on 14 September 2017 in Cabramatta while Alvarado, Pizarro and Silva fled the scene.

  1. Each of the offenders has no criminal record in New South Wales or Australia, however enquiries after their arrest demonstrate that both Carrasco and Santibanez have a record for theft and dishonesty offences in Chile, and have been deported from the Netherlands. Carrasco has also been deported from Sweden and Norway. Silva has a record in Chile including receiving stolen property. Alvarado has a number of robbery offences in Chile. Contreras had served five years in prison for theft and robbery in Chile and Pizarro had served eight years for robbery, and a four month sentence for theft and both Pizzarro and Contreras were also charged with robbery in June 2017 in Chile, shortly before they came to Australia.

Subjective Material

  1. Turning to the subjective material relied upon by each offender.

Gabriel Carrasco (age 40)

  1. Mr Carrasco ran away from home at age ten and lived in a centre for disadvantaged children. He married when he was 21, and has three children. He was suffering from substance addiction in Chile, and struggled financially. He committed theft to subsidise his income. He has a history of alcohol, cannabis and amphetamine use from a very early age. In short, he had been exposed to multiple deleterious factors during his childhood. His extensive custodial records show that he has worked and been very well behaved while in custody. I take account of his written apology to the Court which emphasises the courses that he has completed and the connection that he has made with the chaplain, and his expressions of shame and embarrassment about what he has done. He is working as a sweeper which it is well known as a trusted position within the custodial system. The chaplain speaks highly of him in a written reference, as do others involved in the religious courses that he has been undertaking. Ms Hutchinson for the offender properly points to a number of factors to be taken into account in support of a global submission that the objective seriousness of the offending, as a whole, is in mid-range. In terms of aggravating factors, this was planned, organised criminal activity, the motivation was financial gain, and the offences were committed in company and the victims, in many cases, were vulnerable. A disadvantaged childhood supports a limited reduction of moral culpability and by way of mitigation I take account of the expressions of remorse and his reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

Ivan Santibanez (aged 35)

  1. As to Mr Santibanez there is a lengthy report of a psychologist. He only attended school for five years, and has a rudimentary command of his native language. He cannot read. He has had intermittent work, a lengthy drug and alcohol history starting at age ten. He was shot by robbers in 2010 and sustained a serious injury from a bullet to his neck and back. He has a lengthy history of offences of dishonesty beginning with stealing food from supermarkets as a teenager to survive, and was routinely arrested for being homeless or in possession of drugs from time to time. He was diagnosed as having a substance use disorder and likely to have significant impairment in decision making while in the midst of such substance dependence.

  2. The psychologist accurately acknowledges that it is not possible to determine whether an individual will re‑offend using current risk assessment techniques. Though his risk here is fairly conceded to be medium to high. His record while in custody is good and he also has engaged extensively with the prison chaplain and religious courses. The chaplain says, he has had a profound conversion experience and been baptised while in custody. He has also undertaken some courses which will benefit him upon his release.

  3. The comprehensive written submissions by Mr Lawrence for this offender, set out the matters to be taken into account in support of an assessment of objective seriousness in each case. A summary of the relevant range of statistics for previous sentences, which are of some assistance although they are recognised to be a blunt tool.

  4. It is recognised that as the Chief Justice said in R v Chu (unrep, 16/10/98, NSWCCA) that any person who comes to Australia specifically to commit a serious crime has no justifiable cause for complaint when he is incarcerated in this country where the language is foreign and he is isolated from outside contact. It is recognised that those factors will make their imprisonment harsher than would be the case for an ordinary prisoner, and that requires some, but not much recognition. I take account to a limited extent of the Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 type reduction of moral culpability and a view to a difficult upbringing. In the context of the reference to R v Chu (unrep, 16/10/98, NSWCCA) case, I note that although it appears that all offenders are liable to be deported on the expiration of any term of imprisonment, it is clear that that is not a matter to be taken into account in the sentencing process.

Nicholas Silva (aged 24)

  1. Turning to the case of Mr Silva, there is a psychologist report describing in summary an impoverished family background, a low educational attainment as contributing to his subsequent offending behaviours. He has accepted responsibility for his offending, and his risk of re‑offending is in the low to moderate range. He has a drug and alcohol history from his teenage years and heart issues since 2015 following a diagnosis of tachycardia, and he describes symptoms consistent with a mild anxiety and depression. He described himself as having no chances in life as a result of being poor and having had little education and that background was a contributing factor to his offending in Chile at age 16 and 19.

  2. His custodial record is good and shows diligence and engagement in a number of courses. I take account of his handwritten letter to the Court recognising that his actions have caused a lot of damage to people and he apologises to the Court and to the victims and those matters to which I have referred have been accurately summarised in submissions by Ms Carroll for the offender.

Christian Alvarado (aged 31)

  1. Turning to Mr Alvarado’s case, his history is set out in a psychologist report. He had a alcoholic father who bashed him every day, his father was also violent towards his mother and sister. He left home at the age of 13. He had a drug and alcohol habit from his teenage years and a gambling habit as well. He conceded an extensive criminal record in his home country. And his deprived background is also a matter attracting some Bugmy allowance, also due to the diagnosis of depression, anxiety and mild stress.

Mario Contreras (aged 44)

  1. Mr Contreras has sworn an affidavit setting out his history. His father was seized by the secret police and disappeared when he was six years old. His father’s body was found seven or eight years after his disappearance. He left school when he was 14 years of age, and is married with three children. He acknowledges his criminal history in Chile and also admits to having served 15 months in a Spanish prison. He says he came to Australia because his nephew in Chile had serious health issues and the family was unable to pay for his treatment. His nephew has since died, and he regrets the commission of the offences and apologises to the victims and to the Court and the Australian public. Along with the other offenders he described the difficult time that he has experienced in custody with little or no language skills or support.

  2. The submissions by counsel for Mr Contreras concede that the offences in general were clearly systematic, planned and part of organised criminal activity committed against a series of victims over a fairly short space of time, but without physical violence, threats or intimidation. As with the other offenders there is positive evidence of genuine contrition and remorse. It is conceded that his criminal history does not entitle him to leniency, but it is not an aggravating factor in the Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 sense. He also has some insight into his offending behaviour and has put his time in custody to good use, being involved in courses while on remand.

Ubaldo Pizarro (aged 54)

  1. Finally, turning to Mr Pizarro. He also relies on a lengthy psychologist report containing the history that he had borrowed about $10,000 to cover some debts in his homeland. He was working as a street vendor and struggling to make the repayments. His lenders told him he could travel to Australia and find well paid employment. So he came here with his son and he came to the view that he was at risk of being killed or seriously harmed if he didn’t make his loan repayments, so he decided to engage in the offending with the other members of the group. He expressed remorse and regret. He also had a difficult upbringing in the city of Valparaiso.

  2. He was nine years of age when the coup occurred and General Pinochet came to power, he witnessed many murders and violent conflict on the streets. He lost a number of family and friends. He associated throughout his life with impoverished people engaging in criminal activity to support themselves. He has had a lengthy history of deprivation and social disadvantage. He has also expressed remorse and regret.

  3. Mr Pizarro’s custodial record is also demonstrative of a good attitude and work record, and I take account of the testimonial from his wife and note that his father has died while he has been in custody here in Australia.

  4. Each of the offenders has been co‑operative after their arrest, in many cases identifying themselves in CCTV and making admissions as to the modus operandi.

  5. That review of the facts, the subjective cases, and the submissions, leads me to impose the sentences that I will, setting out indicative sentences in the table to which I have referred, and the orders that I will make are:

Gabriel Carrasco

State offences

  1. The offender is convicted of each offence.

  2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, to commence on 19 September 2017 and expiring on 18 September 2024.

  3. I impose a non-parole period of 3 years, 8 months, expiring on 18 May 2021. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.

  4. The indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 004, taking into account the Form 1 offences (003, 011, 024, 001): 18 months

  2. Sequence 013: 20 months

  3. Sequence 022, taking into account the Form 1 offence (023): 15 months

  4. Sequence 012: 20 months

  5. Sequence 009: 1 year

  6. Sequence 002: 9 months

  7. Sequence 005: 9 months

  8. Sequence 021: 9 months

  9. Sequence 007, taking into account the Form 1 offence (006): 1 year

  10. Sequence 008: 1 year

  1. I find special circumstances.

Commonwealth offence (010)

  1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

  2. I impose a fixed sentence of 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 19 September 2017 and expiring on 18 June 2018.

Ivan Santibanez

State offences

  1. The offender is convicted of each offence.

  2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, to commence on 19 September 2017 and expiring on 18 September 2024.

  3. I impose a non-parole period of 3 years, 8 months, expiring on 18 May 2021. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.

  4. The indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 004, taking into account the Form 1 offences (003, 024, 023, 001): 18 months

  2. Sequence 012: 20 months

  3. Sequence 021, taking into account the Form 1 offence (022): 15 months

  4. Sequence 011: 20 months

  5. Sequence 005: 1 year

  6. Sequence 002: 9 months

  7. Sequence 006: 9 months

  8. Sequence 020: 9 months

  9. Sequence 009, taking into account the Form 1 offence (007): 1 year

  10. Sequence 010: 1 year

  1. I find special circumstances.

Commonwealth offence (008)

  1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

  2. I impose a fixed sentence of 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 19 September 2017 and expiring on 18 June 2018.

Nicolas Silva

State offences

  1. The offender is convicted of each offence.

  2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years, 4 months to commence on 16 September 2017 and expiring on 15 January 2022.

  3. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 months, expiring on 15 January 2020. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.

  4. The indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 011, taking into account the Form 1 offence (018): 2 years

  2. Sequence 008: 6 months

  3. Sequence 004, taking into account the Form 1 offence (006): 14 months

  4. Sequence 003: 1 year

  5. Sequence 002, taking into account the Form 1 offences (005, 021): 14 months

  6. Sequence 001, taking into account the Form 1 offence (010): 14 months

  1. I find special circumstances.

Commonwealth offence (007)

  1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

  2. I impose a fixed sentence of 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 September 2017 and expiring on 15 June 2018.Cristian Alvarado

Cristian Alvarado

State offences

  1. The offender is convicted of each offence.

  2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years, 4 months to commence on 16 September 2017 and expiring on 15 January 2022.

  3. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 months, expiring on 15 January 2020. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.

  4. The indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 011, taking into account the Form 1 offence (017): 2 years

  2. Sequence 008: 6 months

  3. Sequence 002, taking into account the Form 1 offence (004): 14 months

  4. Sequence 001: 1 year

  5. Sequence 005, taking into account the Form 1 offence (003): 14 months

  6. Sequence 006, taking into account the Form 1 offence (010): 14 months

  1. I find special circumstances.

Commonwealth offence (007)

  1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

  2. I impose a fixed sentence of 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 September 2017 and expiring on 15 June 2018.

Mario Contreras

State offences

  1. The offender is convicted of each offence.

  2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, 7 months to commence on 14 September 2017 and expiring on 13 April 2021.

  3. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years, expiring on 13 September 2019. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.

  4. The indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 012, taking into account the Form 1 offence (017): 2 years

  2. Sequence 009: 6 months

  3. Sequence 002, taking into account the Form 1 offences (004, 005): 14 months

  4. Sequence 001: 1 year

  5. Sequence 007, taking into account the Form 1 offences (003, 011): 14 months

  1. I find special circumstances.

Commonwealth offence (008)

  1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

  2. I impose a fixed sentence of 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 14 September 2017 and expiring on 13 June 2018.

Ubaldo Pizarro

State offences

  1. The offender is convicted of each offence.

  2. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years to commence on 16 September 2017 and expiring on 15 September 2021.

  3. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years, 3 months, expiring on 15 December 2019. The offender is eligible for release to parole on that date.

  4. The indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 011, taking into account the Form 1 offence (014): 2 years

  2. Sequence 008: 6 months

  3. Sequence 003, taking into account the Form 1 offence (006): 14 months

  4. Sequence 001: 1 year

  5. Sequence 004, taking into account the Form 1 offences (002, 010): 14 months

  6. Sequence 017: 9 months

  1. I find special circumstances.

Commonwealth offence (007)

  1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

  2. I impose a fixed sentence of 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 September 2017 and expiring on 15 June 2018.

Annexure 1 - Offence Summary Table (349 KB, pdf)

Note – The extempore remarks were revised without access the court file.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 September 2019

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

7

Statutory Material Cited

4

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115