R v Klink

[2011] NSWDC 225

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v KLINK [2011] NSWDC 225
Hearing dates:	11 August 2011
Decision date:	11 August 2011
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted and ordered to perform 150 hours of community service
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Transport cash aware of the likelihood that the money was the proceeds of crime
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Abdulgini Klink
Representation:	Mr M Coroneos - The offender Director of Public Prosecution Hanby & Associates - The offender
File Number(s):	2009/322172

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: I have before me for sentence Abdulgini Klink, a young man who committed a small criminal act as part of a much larger criminal scheme conducted by others. Most of us in the law, and many in the community, know the name Bassam Hamzy. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment. Despite being in custody he was able to operate a significant drug distribution network through the use of a mobile telephone. Quite how he was able to use the phone as often as he did whilst in Lithgow gaol is for others to determine. I note that he has pleaded guilty and will be sentenced by Judge Zahra at a later date.

1. His drug distribution network had many facets. Obviously one of the important matters to him involved the delivery of drugs and the collection of money. It was this latter aspect, the movement of money from person to person, that this offender got involved in on a single occasion, which was not repeated. The offender was asked by some friends of his to join them on a trip to Melbourne. The offender, who was just short of nineteen at the time, went with them, not being aware that there was any criminal purpose of the trip. Once in Melbourne the offender learnt that there was to be some money transported from Melbourne to Sydney, in total $31,000 in cash, which the offender clearly realised was most likely to be the proceeds of some crime. Indeed, whilst in Melbourne he received a phone call from Mr Hamzy himself who asked for his assistance.

1. So the offender travelled back from Melbourne to Sydney with $31,000 secreted upon him. After arriving in Sydney there was a telephone conversation between Bassam Hamzy and the offender in which the offender was told to deliver the money to Ghassan Amoun, Mr Hamzy's brother. That is what occurred on 27 May 2008. The offender handed over $31,000. It is significant to note that that offence took place in May 2008 but it was not until December 2009 that the offender was spoken to by police. There is no suggestion at all that the offender has committed any other offence related to Mr Hamzy's drug distribution network. That is a very significant matter in determining the appropriate punishment to impose upon the offender.

1. That is not to say, however, that the offender has lived a law abiding life since that time. After committing this offence, the offender was dealt with in the Local Court for a series of offences, all relatively minor but which could well say something about the way the offender's character is developing. What appears to have been a minor traffic matter led to the offender being dealt with for using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of his duty, assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and not stopping his vehicle when directed. True it is that he was either fined or had those matters dismissed under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act . But given the offender's youth it is regrettable in the extreme that what should have been a simple traffic matter escalated to the stage where the offender committed the offences that I have just read out.

1. Of course, this offence is a serious one. Those involved in the supply of drugs need drug couriers and they also need people to take control of cash and deliver it from place to place. In that manner offences of this kind are essential to more serious criminals such as Mr Hamzy. It has to be recognised the offender's actions were part of a much larger enterprise which caused great harm to the community. On the other hand, of course, the offender must be sentenced for what he has done, which was on a single occasion transport $31,000 in cash aware of the likelihood that that money was the proceeds of crime.

1. The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and so the sentence that I will impose upon him is twenty-five per cent less than it would otherwise have been.

1. There is much to be said in the favour of the offender's character. Having left school after completing his school certificate he has been in constant employment and is now working in a concrete pumping operation. He lives at home with his family and, according to Mr Coroneos, no longer associates with people he used to associate with. This offence has the flavour that Mr Coroneos had suggested it had, that is, of a young boy trying to big note himself in the presence of others. It is, I am satisfied, most likely that he will not commit an offence of this nature again.

1. Mr Coroneos asked that I deal with the matter under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act . I am not going to do that for two reasons. Firstly, the offender needs to be punished for what he has done. And, secondly, there needs to be an element of personal deterrence. Despite everything I have said before, the offender needs to be reminded on an ongoing basis that what he did was the wrong thing. I have come to this conclusion because of the subsequent offences that the offender committed. I do not want the offender in any way to get the idea that he can commit offences with any regularity and expect to walk away from court unpunished. It is an important aspect of the sentencing process that, where appropriate, offenders are personally deterred from committing further offences. This is one such case. He needs to be reminded that he did the wrong thing and he needs to be made aware that if he does the wrong thing again he will be punished again. In this regard I note that a psychological report tendered on his behalf referred to inadequate impulse control. If the offender is the sort of person that can decide to commit criminal offences easily when led by others, then the courts must do what they can to remind him that if he does not control his impulses and does commit criminal offences he will receive punishment appropriate to what he has done.

1. The result is that I convict the offender and order that he perform 150 hours of community service. He is therefore to report to the Parramatta office of the Probation and Parole Service within seven days.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 March 2012