R v Goel

[2012] NSWDC 284

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Goel [2012] NSWDC 284
Hearing dates:	10 December 2012
Decision date:	10 December 2012
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Application for permanent stay of proceedings
Legislation Cited:	Commonwealth Criminal Code
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	The Crown Dinker Goel
Representation:	Mr B Nield - Crown Mr A Norrie - Accused Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Mark Klees and Associates - Accused
File Number(s):	2012/191352

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: In September last year I sentenced Mr Dinker Goel for fortyone offences involving breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. They were offences of causing tax returns to be filed with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth. Those sentences followed Mr Goel's pleas of guilty to those offences. His pleas of guilty came in somewhat unusual circumstances. Part way through the trial, after he had pleaded not guilty at first, Mr Goel said things that indicated that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged, even if he was not then admitting to the extent of the dishonesty alleged by the Commonwealth Prosecution. He therefore pleaded guilty to each of the offences and it was up to me to determine the factual basis on which I would sentence him was it the lesser dishonesty suggested by Mr Goel or the more serious dishonesty suggested by the Prosecution? For reasons which I gave on 9 September 2011 I accepted beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Goel had done what the Prosecution alleged. I then sentenced him.

1. There were, as I said, fortyone offences and I made the decision to arbitrarily divide them up into groups of ten, or eleven in one case, and partially accumulated the sentences for one group on sentences for others. The resulting sentence consisted of a non-parole period of two years with a head sentence of five years. That non-parole period is due to expire on 8 September next year.

1. One might have thought that this was the end of the matter but today an application has been made by Mr Goel for a permanent stay of proceedings relating to sixteen further charges which he currently faces. Coincidentally, that application for a permanent stay has come before me. There is no explanation offered by the Prosecution as to why these sixteen charges were not dealt with at the same time as the fortyone charges dealt with by me last year. They concern, as far as I can tell, similar alleged conduct arising out of similar circumstances with similar losses. They could have been dealt with at the same time as the other matters, although I do have to note that that would have led to an indictment containing fiftyseven counts being presented against the accused. Many Judges would have looked askance at such a lengthy indictment, suggesting that it would be more appropriate for two sets of proceedings being brought. But, that is not the explanation offered by the Prosecution.

1. There are a couple of things that I need to note; firstly, as I said before, Mr Goel's question of parole will come up on 8 September 2013. Even if he is released from prison on the day that his non-parole period expires there is plenty of opportunity for his guilt or otherwise on these new matters to have been resolved before then. Current trial dates in this Court are being offered in May next year. The trial, assuming things go according to plan, will thus be held well before Mr Goel's parole expires. That removes from relevant consideration one of the matters put by Mr Norrie on Mr Goel's behalf. It was suggested that there is the possibility that Mr Goel will be required to spend further time in custody awaiting trial for these matters. As I say, it is highly likely that by the time Mr Goel's parole expires the authorities will know whether he has been further sentenced for these matters. They will know the length of that sentence, if he is convicted of course. And so there is no real likelihood that Mr Goel will suffer any prejudice in that sense from these charges now being presented.

1. It has to be recognised that a permanent stay of proceedings is not lightly granted, the authorities are replete with statements to that effect. The community expects that where someone is charged with a criminal offence that matter is resolved in the Courts. Mr Norrie says that it would be an abuse of process for these proceedings to be brought; I do not agree. Although, it has to be said that in one sense the division of proceedings against Mr Goel into two separate matters is regrettable, I can see no relevant basis in which Mr Goel is unfairly prejudiced by that circumstance.

1. The application for a permanent stay of proceedings is refused.

**********

Decision last updated: 19 April 2013